Recent Federal Case (Merged with " Rifle malfunction= prosecution?")

[Cloverleaf762]

They have the documents posted at ARFCOM. You could read up on it there.

 

[alan]

Gunnerpalace quoted my post and offered the following:
Quote:
BATFE, no matter that they might have heard from third parties

But that is just it, what did they hear from the range?

----------------------------

Given the documented antics of the BATFE, what they might have heard from the shooting range is of no real consequence.

What I wonder is the following, as noted in my post.

They "tested" the rifle one time, results achieved didn't satisfy their desire to "make a case", so they used different ammunition, testing again, this time they got what they were looking for.

How many "tests" were they prepared to go through, and if I may make so bold, this question arising from BATFE's past performance, how much "tinkering" might they have undertaken with this rifle, in order to achieve the above referenced, desired results?

 

[Cloverleaf762]

This was posted up today on ARFCOM.


"Guess what was on last night. I didn’t know they had anything planned. A lot more to this, I'm just gaged on it right now. You will flip when it comes out what they are trying to say. Think you as a gun owner are not at risk yet? You will change your mind soon.


DOBBS: Every time we can smell the chamber of commerce, it makes me kind of get committed. You know what I mean?

An update now on a story we first reported to you last month. LOU DOBBS TONIGHT has now learned the government is seeking an even tougher sentence than we originally expected against Army veteran and reservist David Olofson of Wisconsin.

Speaking of cases difficult to understand, try this on for size. Olofson was convicted of, "transferring a machine gun" after his rifle misfired at a shooting range. The government is seeking a sentence of three-and-a-half to four years against Olofson.

This Army veteran, a man with an otherwise absolutely clean record and a wife and three children. His sentence is scheduled for May 8. Now we don't know what's going on. We've been reporting on it. Bill Tucker has been out to -- to meet with Olofson or report on the story.

Now the National Rifle Association's civil rights defense fund said it has this case under review. We'll, of course, keep you informed on this incredible story. Bill Tucker will be amongst those going out to Wisconsin to find out what is going on in that state. It is really an incredible story."

 

[cracked butt]

While it is true that as a whole gun owners tend to play favorites and politics with their rights, something that keeps us from presenting a united front, the ATF could have stopped this at any point. If they had something as simple as scientific testing procedures in writing, or better qualified SA's, this would have ended as fast as it started. The call about the shooting at the range to the local PD was merely the green light for the LEO's to check things out.

Another side of the story might be that the Sherrif's department pushed for the ATF to prosecute and the ATF trumped up charges out of professional courtesy.

This is the same county that a sherrif's deputy was shot and killed a few years ago with a psycho wielding an AK clone. Could be that the Sherriff'ss department might have an axe to grind about people owning similar rifles?

I grew up in that county and can tell you that nobody had EBRs at least nobody that would talk about it- owning a gun other than something that looked like a deer rifle of duck gun got you labeled as a nutjob. I used to shoot trap league at the conservation club where the 'convicted's' rifle malf'd. I doubt much has changed in the last 20 years or so, as its pretty much a backwater area, people are very nice there but behind the times.

*Note: I'm not trying to or even want to disparage the Sheriff's depart in that county, I know and am related to some of the people on that department- very upstanding people*

 

[Cloverleaf762]

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."

 

[Cloverleaf762]

These were posted a few days ago also.

K.new information for everyone. More to come befor the 8th.

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 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE
DAVID R. OLOFSON, by counsel, submits this memorandum in support
of his motion for the disclosure of evidence.

I. Background.
Olofson had previously requested disclosure of the SGW letter
from the government on September 25 and December 10, 2007. The government
refused to turn over the SGW letter. Accordingly, Olofson filed a motion to compel
its disclosure, along with other documents not relevant here, on December 28, 2007.
At the final pretrial conference on January 3, 2008, the Court refrained from making
any decision regarding the SGW letter until it heard back from the government as
to whether a SGW letter actually existed.

On January 7, 2008, the morning of Olofson’s trial, the Court inquired
of the government as to the existence of a SGW letter. The government asserted that
a SGW letter exists, but that it did not believe that the SGW letter was discoverable
because, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), it
contained privileged tax return information and was therefore protected under 26
U.S.C. § 6103. Moreover, the government contended that in any event the SGW
letter was not exculpatory. Based upon the BATF’s representations, which were
made through the government that the SGW letter contained return information, the
Court denied Olofson’s motion to compel its disclosure. Olofson proceeded to trial
and was found guilty of transferring a machine gun by a jury on January 8, 2008.

II. Argument.
Any correspondence from the BATF to SGW/Olympic Arms regarding
the use of M-16 parts in its AR-15 rifles is not privileged return information as that
term is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 6103 and is therefore discoverable. Moreover, the
SGW letter is discoverable because it directly contradicts the government’s theory
during the pendency of this case that because Olofson’s AR-15 contained the
following M-16 parts, it qualified as a machine gun: a M-16 trigger, hammer,
1Olofson has never seen a copy of the SGW letter. The information
regarding its contents comes from the recollection of Bob Schuetzen, owner of
SGW/Olympic Arms. Schuetzen’s original letter from the BATF was destroyed
in a fire a number of years ago.

disconnector and selector. Accordingly, the SGW letter is material to the issue of
guilt or innocence and is discoverable under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

A. Return Information.
For the purposes of 26 U.S.C. § 6103, a return is any tax or information
return that is required by, or provided for, or permitted under Title 26, which is filed
with the Secretary by, on behalf of, or with respect to any person. 26 U.S.C. §
6103(b)(1); Ryan v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms,715 F.2d 644, 646 (D.C. Cir.
1983). “A ‘tax return’ is a return filed by the person liable for the tax to which the
return information relates.” Ryan, 715 F.2d at 647, FN4. Return information
includes, among other things, a taxpayer’s identity, amount of his income, assets
and liabilities if they are received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to or
collected by the Secretary with respect to a return. 26 U.S.C. § 6103(b)(2)(A); Ryan,
715 F.2d at 646. According to Ryan, the proper test to determine whether something
is return information is to look to the formality of the document and the
standardized requirement of its filing. Id. at 647.

Under the standard created by then Judge Scalia of the D.C. Circuit, the
SGW letter is clearly not return information. The document(s) in question1 were
generated by the BATF and address BATF’s concern regarding SGW/Olympic

Arm’s use of M-16 parts in its AR-15 rifles and malfunctions that may be occurring
because of the use of M-16 internal parts; the documents were not filed by the
taxpayer. Nor were the documents generated to protect or regulate revenue streams
or assess liability regarding a particular taxpayer. Instead, the correspondence
issued from the BATF in response to safety concerns about SGW/Olympic Arms
AR-15 rifles. Because the SGW letter is not a return as defined in § 6103, the contents
of the letter are not return information and are not protected from disclosure under
the statute.

B. BATF Memorandum.
Not only does the BATF’s position mistake the controlling law with
regard to the § 6103 privilege, but its own internal policy on the subject contradicts
its position. Olofson has been made aware of an internal BATF memorandum that
discusses the sort of information that the BATF collects that should be considered
return information.

The BATF memorandum at issue is BATF memorandum number 22889,
which is dated August 18, 1980.2 The memorandum discusses whether the
information listed on NFA transfer cards is protected under 26 U.S.C. § 6103 in
response to a request for disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA). The BATF memorandum opines that the only the name the transferee on
the NFA transfer form is return information because the transferee may be subject
to tax or liabilities based upon the transfer. All other information on the NFA
transfer forms would be discoverable under the FOIA. Because the SGW letter does
not discuss the transfer of firearm or registration of firearm under the NFA, under
BATF policy, the SGW letter does not contain return information for the purposes
of 26 U.S.C. § 6103 and it is discoverable under the statute.
C. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Through the entire pendency of this case, the government has
maintained that it is the presence of internal M-16 parts in Olofson’s AR-15 that
make it a machine gun. See, e.g., Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for
Judgment of Acquittal at 3 FN1, Docket No. 80. Upon information and belief, the
SGW letter directly contradicts the government’s assertion regarding the four
internal M-16 parts. As such, that information is material to the issue of guilt and
is discoverable under Brady.
III. Conclusion.
WHEREFORE, David R. Olofson, by counsel, respectfully requests that
the Court grant his motion to compel the disclosure of copy of 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.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 1, 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Brian T. Fahl
Brian T. Fahl, Wis. Bar #1043244
Counsel for Defendant

 

[Cloverleaf762]

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

 

[Cloverleaf762]

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

 

[Cloverleaf762]

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

 

[Cloverleaf762]

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

 

[Cloverleaf762]

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.

 

[StopTheGrays]

30 Months incarceration, 2 Years probation.

Sentence
30 Months incarceration, 2 Years probation.
Appeal filed.

From a post at AR15.com by FMD


http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=507483&page=62

I apologize I didn't post more earlier, I was posting from my phone.

My faith in "The System"™ has been totally crushed.

I had the inside scoop reading the PACER docs from the beginning.
I've read the transcript in full (unable to be in the courtroom for trial).
I've seen BATFE's video.
I've heard both sides of the argument, and listened well to the Judge at the sentencing hearing today.

I fully expected a mistrial, a vacated verdict, or at least some acknowledgement of prosecutorial misconduct. Instead, I heard how the fact that Olofson once emailed "a Vigilante Group" (the Minutemen) makes him a threat to the public. How the fact that he had the gall to open carry a firearm (no law against OC in WI) while trick-or-treating around the children shows his dangerous unwillingness to abide by the State as well as the Federal law. How his talk of citizen sovereignty is proof of his willingness to circumvent the law. How his twenty-some years of Military service was proof of his expertise at MG manufacturing. How the testimony of his "customer" (Kernicki) was to be taken at face value despite the fact that he contradicted himself and recanted on the stand.

I even watched as the Prosecution renewed it's objection to turning over exculpatory evidence based on income tax laws that specifically do not apply to the BATFE. The judge did not dispute this, but in the interest of "fairness" requested that the AUSA turn over anything they had. BATFE presented a single memorandum of regulatory compliance, which the Judge admitted in open court that it discussed Oly/SGW's use of M16 parts in the AR15's they produced for better than a decade.

"No exculpatory content" he said, and sealed the letter. The Defense wasn't even allowed to look at it.

Judge Clevert tacked on 30 hours of community service to each year of the probation based on the trick-or-treating Disorderly Conduct. The Notice of Appeal was filed, and Clevert allowed Bladerunner to report voluntarily for incarceration* based on no history of drug use as well as his exemplary conduct during the trial.

 

[PvtPyle]

As I have told Larry and others in the store here, based on my personal experience with baseless presecution from the government and watching cases like this, if you become a nail (even a little one) the government hammer will find you. There are not enough people in the US willing to become nails to outnumber the hammers and we are loosing nails from the ranks faster than we are replacing them.

If the government thinks you can change things in the system, or views you as a threat, they will crush you.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Reading the news article over at ARFCOM my suspicions were confirmed, it was somebody on the range that got the cops, who got the ATF involved.

 

[alan]

One thing, at least one thing that I find curiious is the following, this having been noticed in other posts, at other discussions re this case.

Olafson is under a gag order, which I take to mean that he has been ordered, by the trial court, to be silent, not to comment on the case, to anyone, especially not to the media. If this be true, I wonder why.

Also, I've been out of town for a couple of weeks, what is the status of appeals and or motions to vacate his conviction.