commissioners make the application unilaterally; however, the prosecutor’s office advised the commissioners that they did not have authority to do this and were not entitled to relief. The attorney for Dreamer again asked the BOE to take action on November 28, 2006. At all times, the prosecutor either failed or flatly refused to act. {¶ 40} In opposition to the instant writ, respondents argue that “the alleged wrongful act occurred as early as August 2005” and at the latest “by the time the indictments were returned against the relators.” However, as discussed above, the wrongful act was ongoing and thus occurred far beyond the dates of the indictments. Cf. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. v. Triangle Real Estate Servs., Inc., Franklin App. No. 06AP-157, 2007-0hio-1809, 2007 WL 1125842, at ¶ 22 (<HOLDING>). {¶ 41} Respondents further argue that
holding that section 1001 controls over the limitations provision of the wrongful death statute holding that failure to post the required notice will toll the running of the 180day statute of limitations   recognizing that a continuing wrongful practice rather than an isolated incident of wrongful conduct will act to start the running of a statute of limitations from the most recent time the conduct occurred holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense holding that discovery of the fraudulent practice on which liability is based rather than the discovery of damages commences the running of the limitations period for securities fraud