CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

alan

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,601
Location
sowest pa.
We have been conditioned through compulsory public eduction to only "stand up" for our rights the "legal" way, through courts and voting, which we all know is rigged to the ruling class's advantage. If this were to happen back in the founding fathers days ATF agents would be tarred and feathered and their buildings burnt to the ground. Politicians were AFRAID of the people, and thats how it should be.
 
A request:

A little more thoughtful analysis.
A little less int3rw3b tough-guy chest-thumping.

Also: THR and TFL are closely related forums, to the point that we actually have several staff members who split their time between both forums.

So, you might bear that in mind before you go shooting your mouth off about how evil TFL is.
 
Always liked Mr. Dobbs. Don't always agree with him, but I think he is smart, and although many I know say he is just "instigating" the mob (by "mob" they mean angry middle aged white men), I think they don't like the fact he is relatively popular, amongst a good variety of folks.
 
Has Olofson been sentenced yet and if not can somebody post the sentencing date?
 
From another forum, cross posting.

"Thought this was good enough to post here.

"Man, take off from here for a bit and everyone seems to get all confused. Only a few things this case is about now.
1. Can the government hide exculpatory evidence by simply calling it tax information? (and not proving it)
2. Is a malfunctioning weapon a MG?
3. Can the government deny a person’s right to have independent examination of evidence?
4. Can they deny counsel during trial?
There is more, but those are the big ones. The government admits the gun malfunctioned, there is no conversion. That has all been proven at trial. There should be enough postings on that. Some seem confused about what a MG is and why we have argued the way we did. This should get you up to par.

From another forum:
Mike wrote: Who "ruled"? Cite for "No auto sear" rule?

If the gun fires like a machine gun, it's illegal to possess without a tax stamp - has been since 1934.
Bladerunner2347 wrote:
Both ATF and the courts.
The 20 page memo we have and posted proves they knowingly lied to the court to hide exculpatory evidence that they have ruled that an AR is not a MG unless it has provisions for, or contains an auto sear. It doesn’t matter how many M16 parts it has. No auto sear, no MG. No mods for one, no MG. Period. End of game. You can see why they don't want this known. Not a MG before the kid got it, not one after he played with it either.

A firearm either is a MG or not. Similar does not count, although the ATF like you to think it dose. As for where this information comes from we have it from a few places. The best 2 examples are from an individual that at least for now must remain un named until we are allowed to bring it up in court. He bought a M16A1, or he thought it was. Turns out it was an AR-15 A1 style with a DIAS. When he went to the ATF to fix the form 4 the ATF fixed it by removing the AR from the NFTR registry and placing the DIAS on it. When he requested the AR remain there also (to avoid any problems like mine) they refused, both on the phone and in writing stating that a AR15 with M16 parts is not a MG and cannot be on the NFTR. The only thing that weapon lacked was an auto sear. It had more M16 parts than mine currently dose. Keep in mind this happened at the same time they started their case with me.

A firearm either is a MG or not. Similar does not count, although the ATF like you to think it dose. As for where this information comes from we have it from a few places. The best 2 examples are from an individual that at least for now must remain un named until we are allowed to bring it up in court. He bought a M16A1, or he thought it was. Turns out it was an AR-15 A1 style with a DIAS. When he went to the ATF to fix the form 4 the ATF fixed it by removing the AR from the NFTR registry and placing the DIAS on it. When he requested the AR remain there also (to avoid any problems like mine) they refused, both on the phone and in writing stating that a AR15 with M16 parts is not a MG and cannot be on the NFTR. The only thing that weapon lacked was an auto sear. It had more M16 parts than mine currently dose. Keep in mind this happened at the same time they started their case with me.

The second thing that brings us to the conclusion so contrary to what most believe is United States v . Fleischli, 3 05 F. 3d 643,6 55 (7th Cir. 2002). It states that a machine gun "will automatically continue to fire until its trigger is released or the ammunition is exhausted."



From one of the motions for dismissal:

“Here, the only evidence that the weapon at issue fired as a machine gun

was when the ATF test-fired the weapon for the second time using soft-primered ammunition. The weapon did not function as a machine gun when it was fired by Robert Kernicki because it only fired three rounds, although there were additional rounds in the gun and Kermicki did not remove his finger from the trigger. The gun therefore did not automatically continue to fire until its trigger was released or the ammunition was exhausted. The government therefore failed to meet its burden to produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm at issue was a machine gun" for purposes of 18 US.C. § 922(0). Accordingly, the Court should issue a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29.”

There is a lot more out there than this, but these are the 2 we are using as primaries. We have other stuff along the same lines.

Dose this answer your question?

P.S. For more check out some of the following.

US v. Agiular-Espinoza says that a malfunctioning AR15 (hammer follow) is not an MG.

"The government's expert, a ATF enforcement officer, Agent McLaughlin, conceded
at trial that the AR-15 rifles containing internal "M-16"
components are still legal semiautomatic AR-15 rifles provided
they are not equipped with the sear or auto-sear. n3 (Tr. p.
109, Aplt. App. #Q, p. 299). "

Just a note to update everyone. I was just given official notice of a post trial motion and sentencing date of 8 May. Motions will be heard right before any sentencing, with the hope that at least one of the motions to dismiss wins out. If not, then at least we have an answer on this from the court and the full story can come out. Anyone wishing to attend the hearing is welcome. It will be heard at the Federal court house in Milwaukee Wisconsin in front of Judge Cleverts at 1430. I’d be there a bit early if you want seating. The motions are expected to take 30-60 minutes; any sentencing would take an additional 15-30 minutes if it goes that far. If you want attend please plan on good behavior in the court room, and by extension the Federal court house. Neither is the place for any dissent. Opinions can be freely rendered after the hearing outside the courthouse to whoever chose’s to listen.
I will also add that additional reading on this can be done in at least the next two issues of Soldier of Fortune. In addition to that Lou Dobbs has more coverage ready to roll from some very prominent people weighing in on this subject. Most likely additional coverage will also be given to me after the fact. I will post any dates of the airing when it is decided the timing is right by the network.

I promised you more and now it’s coming. True to my word all I can say is brace yourselves, its worse than you think, and unlike the BATFE in this case we can prove it."


And this one, Both posted today.


"Just a note to update everyone. I was just given official notice of a post trial motion and sentencing date of 8 May. Motions will be heard right before any sentencing, with the hope that at least one of the motions to dismiss wins out. If not, then at least we have an answer on this from the court and the full story can come out. Anyone wishing to attend the hearing is welcome. It will be heard at the Federal court house in Milwaukee Wisconsin in front of Judge Cleverts at 1430. I’d be there a bit early if you want seating. The motions are expected to take 30-60 minutes; any sentencing would take an additional 15-30 minutes if it goes that far. If you want attend please plan on good behavior in the court room, and by extension the Federal court house. Neither is the place for any dissent. Opinions can be freely rendered after the hearing outside the courthouse to whoever chose’s to listen.
I will also add that additional reading on this can be done in at least the next two issues of Soldier of Fortune. In addition to that Lou Dobbs has more coverage ready to roll from some very prominent people weighing in on this subject. Most likely additional coverage will also be given to me after the fact. I will post any dates of the airing when it is decided the timing is right by the network.
I promised you more and now it’s coming. True to my word all I can say is brace yourselves, its worse than you think, and unlike the BATFE in this case we can prove it."
 
1For the purposes of simplicity and clarity, Olofson will refer to the

correspondence as the “SGW letter” from this point forward.



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 06-CR-320

DAVID R. OLOFSON,

Defendant.



DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE

DAVID R. OLOFSON, by counsel, submits the instant motion to compel

the disclosure of evidence. Olofson seeks to compel the government to disclose a

copy of any and all correspondence1 from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and

Firearms (BATF) to SGW/Olympic Arms or concerning SGW/Olympic Arms’ use

of M-16 parts in the production of its AR-15 type weapons between 1980 and 1990,

particularly the use of M-16 triggers, hammers, disconnectors and selectors. The

Court had previously denied Olofoson’s motion for disclosure based upon the ATF’s

representations that the SGW letter contained privileged tax return information.



Olofson now seeks disclosure of the SGW letter because the BATF’s contention that

the SGW letter contains privileged return information is both incorrect in law and

contrary to internal BATF policy. Moreover, the SGW letter is exculpatory because

upon information and belief, it contains evidence that directly contradicts evidence

elicited by the government during trail that was central to its theory of guilt. See

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). In support of this motion, Olofson submits an

accompanying memorandum of law.



WHEREFORE, David R. Olofson, by counsel, respectfully requests that

the Court order the defendant to disclose any and all correspondence from the BATF

to SGW/Olympic Arms or concerning SGW/Olympic Arms’ use of M-16 parts in

the production of its AR-15 type weapons between 1980 and 1990, particularly the

use of M-16 triggers, hammers, disconnectors and selectors as soon as practicable.



Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 1, 2008.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Brian T. Fahl

Brian T. Fahl, Wis. Bar #1043244

Counsel for Defendant

517 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Room 182

Milwaukee, WI 53202
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 06-CR-320

DAVID R. OLOFSON,

Defendant.



DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 33.



DAVID R. OLOFSON, by counsel, submits the instant motion for a new

trial pursuant to FED. R. CRIM P. 33. The instant motion is dependent upon Olofson’s

motion to compel the disclosure of evidence, Docket No. 81. If the motion to compel

is granted, the new evidence will require that a new trial be granted in the interest

of justice. In support of his motion for a new trial, Olofson alleges the following:



1. The disclosure of the correspondence from the Bureau of Alcohol

Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) to SGW/Olympic Arms constitutes newly discovered

evidence. Because the instant motion is based upon newly discovered evidence and

has been filed within three years of the verdict, it is considered timely. FED. R. CRIM

P. 33(b)(1); United States v. Cavendar, 228 F.3d 792, 802 (7th Cir. 2000).



2. The SGW letter directly contradicts the government’s position at trial

that Olofson’s AR-15 rifle was a machine gun because it had four internal M-16

parts. Contrary to a motion brought under Rule 29, the Court, in a motion under

Rule 33, is allowed to evaluate the weight of the new evidence and make credibility

determinations regarding it. United States v. Eberhart, 388 F.3d 1043, 1050 (7th Cir.

2004). After evaluation, it is clear that the SGW letter undermines the jury’s verdict

in this case and creates a miscarriage of justice. United States v. Reed, 875 F.2d 107,

113 (7th Cir. 1989).



WHEREFORE, David R. Olofson, by counsel, respectfully requests that

the Court grant his motion for a new trial pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 33.



Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 1, 2008.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Brian T. Fahl

Brian T. Fahl, Wis. Bar #1043244

Counsel for Defendant

Federal Defender Services of

Wisconsin, Inc.

517 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Room 182

Milwaukee, WI 53202
 
I belive these are not known here yet either.



UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN



UNITED STATFS OF AMERICA,



Plaintiff,



v. Case No. 06-CR-320



DAVID R OLOFSON,



Defendant.



DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL



David R. Olofson, by counsel, asks this Court to issue a judgment of

Acquittal pursuant to FED. R. CRIM P. 29(a). Olofson argues that the government's case in chief failed to present evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction.



The government is required to prove that Olofson knowingly transferred a machine gun. A "machine gun" is a weapon that, once its trigger is depressed will automatically continue to fire until its trigger is released, or the ammunition is exhausted." United States v. Fleischli, 3 05 F. 3d 643, 6 55 (7th Cir. 2002).



Here, the only evidence that the weapon at issue fired as a machine gun

was when the ATF test-fired the weapon for the second time using soft-covered ammunition. The weapon did not function as a machine gun when it was fired by



Robert Kiernicki because it only fired three rounds, although there were additional rounds in the gun and Kiemicki did not remove his finger from the trigger. The gun therefore did not automatically continue to fire until its trigger was released or the ammunition was exhausted." The government therefore failed to meet its burden to produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm at issue was a machine gun" for purposes of 18 US.C. § 922(0). Accordingly, the Court should issue a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29.



Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, January 7, 2008.

Respectfully submitted,

Brian P. Mullins

Brian T. Fahl

Counsel for David R. Olofson

517E. Wisconsin Avenue, Room 182

Milwaukee, WI 53202
 
This is the original that was denied under the 6103 claim by the government.



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA



Plaintiff,



Vs

Case No. 06-CR-320

DAVID R. OLOFSON,



Defendant.



DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY



DAVID OLOFSON by counsel, asks the Court to compel the government

to disclose the following evidence



1. All documents pertaining to the 10/20/06 and 11/20/06 reports of

technical examination, including but not limited to: work notes, work

sheets, personal notes, photographs, video, audio, management

directives, e-mail, etc.



2. Copy of the published testing procedures used in FTB testing and

examination of defendant's firearm, as well as whether those

procedures are publically available.



3. All training certificates, diplomas, levels of expertise, etc., on the AR-15

and M-16 firearms for SA Jody M. Keeku.



4. All ATF correspondence to and from SGW and Olympic Arms

regarding the use of M-16 triggers, hammers, disconnectors and safety

selectors in AR-15 type firearms, specifically between 1980 and 1990.



5. All documents concerning the removal, correction or update of any

AR-15 type rifles with M-16 components from the NFRTR (NFA

registry) from 1986 to present, specifically but not limited to entries

made by: Rick Vazquez and Sterling Nixon of the FTB and Ken

Houtchens and Gary Shiables of NFA.



6. All documents relating to the refusal to accept any AR-15 type firearm

with M-16 components for registration on the NFRTR.





7. All FTB letters of classification, determination, etc. of a “shoe lace"

being determined a machine gun or “string trick”, specifically including 1996 to present.



8. All documents relating to the removal of Mr. Sterling Nixon from his

position of Firearms Technology Branch Chief. This information can

be obtained from the ATF director's office from Lou Raden or Audry

Stucko.





Counsel for Olofson has previously requested these items from the

government by letters dated September 25, 2007 (1) and December 10, 2007 (copies of

the letters are attached hereto). The items requested are essential to Olofson's

defense and are also needed to present to Olofosn's expert witness before Olofson

can provide the government with a summary of expert testimony as required by

FED. R. CRIM. P. 16(b) (1) (C:



The requested items will help to demonstrate that ATF has determined that

the particular Olympic Arms rifle at issue here is not a machine gun. As such, these items constitute exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.5. 83 (1963),

and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause imposes a burden on the prosecutor

to "learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government's

behalf." United States v. Hamilton, 107 F.3d 499,509 (7th Cir.1997).







(1) In this letter, Olofson also requested the following items:

(1) Copy of ATF Ruling 81-4;

(2) A TF "Open Letter," Federal Firearms Licensee News Publication, issued in the fall of 1986;

(3) United States v. Corcoran, Case No. 88-11 (W .D. Pa. April 5, 1988), transcript pages 39-40,

which should be available to you from ATF Chief Counsel's Office;

(4) ATF March 11, 1986 memorandum concerning the use ofM-16 components in AR-15 type rifles; (5) United States v. Staples, N.D. Oklahoma (Judgment entered February 21, 1991), testimony of BATF agent McLaughlin, which should be available to you from ATF Chief Counsel's Office. The government responded in a phone call that it will not provide these items to Olofson as they can be obtained elsewhere. Additionally, the government indicated that if these items are obtained from other sources, it would not challenge the authenticity of the documents.



Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, December 28, 2007.



Respectfully submitted,

Brian T. Fahl, Bar # 1043244

Counsel for Defendant David Olofson

517 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Room 182

Milwaukee, WI 53202
 
Apparently there was a date for post trial motions and a sentence hearing on this Thursday. The judge moved it to Tuesday of next week to take a closer look at some of the motions Mr. Olofsons attorneys entered about the cover up of exculpatory evidence. They are asking for everything from new trial to a full acquittal. That has an interesting sound to it. It was also posted that tonight Lou Dobbs is running another segment on this and there should be some interesting commentary from some very interesting personalities. Looks like the next 2 weeks will be very telling.
 
A "machine gun" is a weapon that, once its trigger is depressed will automatically continue to fire until its trigger is released, or the ammunition is exhausted." United States v. Fleischli, 3 05 F. 3d 643, 6 55 (7th Cir. 2002).
Click to expand...
The definition asserted to have been established by this case law would mean that a burst-fire weapon (3-round burst) would not be considered a machine gun. The statute does not, however, state that the firing must continue until the ammunition is exhausted or the trigger is released. It defines machine gun as more than one round fired from a single operation of the trigger.
 
It defines machine gun as more than one round fired from a single operation of the trigger.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing, but asking from ignorance here, but if that's the case, why is "bump firing" or those little cranks that you attach to the trigger guard (or however they work) are, or have been, considered "machine gun parts"? You may be artificially increasing the rate at which the trigger is depressed (or maybe I should say augmenting), but you're still firing only one round per single trigger operation, right?

Sounds like the .gov wants to eat their cake and have it too, just like always...
 
'm not arguing, but asking from ignorance here, b
Click to expand...

The argument goes, and I am not saying I agree I'm just explaining it, that these devices become the trigger and the rifle still fires multiple times with one manipulation of this "new" trigger.

It's why bump firing is legal, and the crank trigger things are legal, but it's why some of the things that only require a single manipulation to set off a "chain of events" is considered a machinegun.

Read about the shoestring with 2 metal rings on each end for an example of that one. Once you start the thing in motion you the shooter don't pull the trigger anymore, the shoestring does. That is why they consider it a machinegun.

Notice how the shoestring does the actual pulling of the trigger AFTER the shooter starts the "chain of events".
Also notice in the photo here the metal tab. That's where the serial number goes LOL.

http://img77.imageshack.us/my.php?image=stringtrick1ev.jpg

You didn't really expect it to make sense did you? :)
 
You didn't really expect it to make sense did you?
Click to expand...

Heh. As a matter of fact, I kinda was hoping it would make sense. And -- this is a scary thought -- it does make sense when it's twisted a little bit.
 
Just aired about 10 minutes ago.

Dobbs was very critical of the ATF and government as a whole for their poor judgment in bringing this case. He was also critical of the judge for refusing to allow critical information that might have exonerated Olofson.

It was a very good piece and great to see a well known TV personality come down on the right side for once.

If you saw the piece and get a chance, drop a quick comment at www.loudobbs.com in support of Dobbs continued and fair coverage of the case.
 
From one of the motions for dismissal:

“Here, the only evidence that the weapon at issue fired as a machine gun

was when the ATF test-fired the weapon for the second time using soft-primered ammunition. The weapon did not function as a machine gun when it was fired by Robert Kernicki because it only fired three rounds, although there were additional rounds in the gun and Kermicki did not remove his finger from the trigger. The gun therefore did not automatically continue to fire until its trigger was released or the ammunition was exhausted. The government therefore failed to meet its burden to produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm at issue was a machine gun" for purposes of 18 US.C. § 922(0). Accordingly, the Court should issue a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29.”
Click to expand...
Under this faulty logic then any gun with a burst setting would not be a machinegun, however that faulty logic does NOT match the very clear definition of a machinegun from the US Code. Just one example of the irrational approaches taken on this topic.
 
Back to the arguments for dismissal or new trial... It seems to me that a better argument could be made by relying on Staples v. US, 511 US 600 (1994) which says:
We concur in the Fifth Circuit's conclusion on this point: "It is unthinkable to us that Congress intended to subject such law-abiding, well-intentioned citizens to a possible ten-year term of imprisonment if . . . what they genuinely and reasonably believed was a conventional semi-automatic [weapon] turns out to have worn down into or been secretly modified to be a fully automatic weapon." Anderson, supra, at 1254. As we noted in Morissette, the "purpose and obvious effect of doing away with the requirement of a guilty intent is to ease the prosecution's path to conviction." 342 U.S. at 263. We are reluctant to impute that purpose to Congress where, as here, it would mean easing the path to convicting persons whose conduct would not even alert them to the probability of strict regulation in the form of a statute such as § 5861(d)."
Click to expand...
(footnote omitted, emphasis added)
 
He was also critical of the judge for refusing to allow critical information that might have exonerated Olofson.
Click to expand...

With all due respect to Lou Dobbs, and major kudos to him for running these segments, IIRC at the time of the trial the judge hadn't seen the documents in question, so he simply took the ATF at their word that the documents were exempt from discovery because they contained privileged tax information. It wasn't until the judge received the documents after the jury had returned a guilty verdict that he realized the documents did not contain privileged information.

Also, I wonder if any of the jurors have seen these segments and realized that the prosecution in the case pulled a Nifong on Olofson? I know if I were a juror I'd be royally ticked right about now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Lou Dobbs Defends Fire on Illegals
Replies
18
Views
991
Cosmoline
C
S
  • Locked
Lou Dobbs on our side
Replies
16
Views
875
X-Rap
X-Rap
Z
  • Locked
US v Olofson - Cliff Notes Version
2 3
Replies
64
Views
10K
DenaliPark
D
Z
  • Locked
Lou Dobbs on US vs Olofson
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
Zedicus
Z
B
  • Locked
Interesting collection of videos
Replies
0
Views
419
basicblur
B
Back
Top