I wonder if campperrybrat might be an ATF clown trying to discredit people like Len Savage while destroying the lives of people like David.  BATFU knows that Len and others have uncovered the truth and are sharing with wonderful people like Lou Dobbs.  

What BATFE doesn't know is that their house of cards is about to come crashing down.  There is quite a bit of evidence that BATFE withheld documentation under false pretenses that shows Mr. Olofsons innocence.  They've only seen the tip of the iceberg and have very little else to grasp at but attempting to discredit David and those helping him in the public venue.  When they got called out for withholding evidence ( can we say Nifong?) they should have called for dismissal of the case due to "information" not available at the time of trial and saved face.  They can still do this if they hurry but if they wait, it's going to bite them in the ass like a PMSing T-rex on a rampage.

BATFU has given us a LOT of sharp sticks to insert in some very uncomfortable places.  Obviously the idiots at BATFU seem to like being shown as asshats with no understanding of firearms and a blatent agenda with no regard to civil rights or the law.

The only reason to side with BATFU on this is if you have a vested interest in kissing BATFU's ass or if you are a part of the entire shameful sham.

The industry is sick of the assaults by BATFU.  There are many in the industry who are video and audio recording ALL dealings with BATFU and I encourage everyone to do the same.  Have the AV save to a secure offsite and make sure they can't destroy the video so you have evidence to roast their asses in court.

Mike

In re the above post, and several other.

I posted this in the "ATF Leathermans" thread:

Quoted: They are champing at the bit, salivating over the prospect of getting another Dem in the White House. They long for the "glory days" when the last Dem POTUS CINC was in office. Why the self-correction, you may ask? Because they don't want a President.  They want a Commander-in-Chief. They would much rather operate as an active military/paramilitary organization instead of a passive "regulatory" organization. Because going on raids is more fun than shuffling paperwork. They know they'll get what they want from a Dem, because Dems generally don't go to war with people in other countries...... they go to war with people in *this* country.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 06-CR-320
DAVID R. OLOFSON,
Defendant.
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
Background
On December 5, 2006, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Wisconsin returned an
indictment charging David R. Olofson with transferring a machine gun, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2). He went to trial and, on January 8, 2008, was convicted.
Olofson now has filed a motion for judgment of acquittal. For the reasons set forth below,
Olofson’s motion should be denied.
Argument
I. The evidence presented at trial clearly supports a rational finding that each
element of the offense was established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Olofson contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain a
conviction. A defendant making such a claim faces a daunting challenge. United States v.
Suggs, 374 F.3d 508, 518 (7th Cir. 2004); United States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 352, 355 (7th Cir.
Case 2:06-cr-00320-CNC Filed 03/13/2008 Page 1 of 6 Document 80
2
2003). The issue to be addressed by the court is whether the evidence presented at trial,
when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, could support a rational juror
in finding beyond a reasonable doubt each essential element of the offense charged. United
States v. Gougis, 432 F.3d 735, 743-44 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. George, 363 F.3d 666, 674
(7th Cir. 2004). In making this determination, the court is not to re-weigh the evidence or
make credibility determinations. Brown, 328 F.3d at 355. Rather, the court is simply to
assess the trial record to determine whether it contains evidence from which a reasonable
juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Graham, 315 F.3d 777, 781
(7th Cir. 2003).
Olofson was charged with transferring a machine gun. To prove that Olofson
committed the offense, the government was required to establish beyond a reasonable
doubt (1) that Olofson knowingly transferred a machine gun; and (2) that Olofson knew,
or was aware of, the essential characteristics of the firearm that made it a machine gun. See
United States v. McGiffen, 267 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2001); Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions
- Criminal, instruction 34.8, p. 216.
A. The evidence at trial clearly supports a rational finding that the firearm in
question was a machinegun.
Olofson argues that, because the statute is written in the present tense, a firearm
qualifies as a machinegun only if it always fires automatically and only if it fires
automatically regardless of the type of ammunition used.
Olofson’s interpretation does not flow from a reading of the plain language of §
922(o). Rather, his interpretation engrafts additional elements onto the statute, which by
Case 2:06-cr-00320-CNC Filed 03/13/2008 Page 2 of 6 Document 80
1In his motion, Olofson argues only that his firearm was not a “machinegun” under § 922(o).
He makes no argument regarding his knowledge of the firearm firing more than one round with a
single function of the trigger. In any event, again, the record contains ample evidence that Olofson
had such knowledge. For example, Robert Kiernicki testified that Olofson made comments to him
– both before and after law enforcement officers seized Olofson’s firearm – acknowledging that
Olofson had himself fired the gun automatically in the past. Moreover, Firearms Technology Officer
(FTO) Max Kingery testified that Olofson’s firearm fired automatically because, although it was a
semiautomatic AR-15, it had M-16 fire control components installed in it. Kingery also testified that
the particular M-16 components – the trigger; the selector; the hammer; and the disconnector – in
Olofson’s firearm were not installed by the manufacturer. Someone had to have modified the
firearm to include those four components. And e-mails and other documents on Olofson’s computer
showed that he had ordered M-16 parts. Olofson also had a manual that described how to convert
a semiautomatic AR-15 to an automatic M-16 by substituting the very M-16 parts that were in
Olofson’s gun. This evidence strongly suggests that Olofson had actually made the modifications
that converted his firearm to an automatic; at a minimum it demonstrates that he was aware that the
modifications had been made and that those modifications allowed his gun to fire automatically.
3
its terms does not require any explanation for automatic fire (such as that a particular type
of ammunition be used or that a firearm be modified to cause automatic fire); nor does the
statute require any particular number of tests or any particular “error rate.” Factors like
those identified by Olofson are relevant only to the extent that they shed light on whether
Olofson knew that his firearm fired automatically. And, to the extent that Olofson might
suggest, for example, that ATF’s first negative test (using special military-grade
ammunition) shows that he did not know that his firearm fired automatically, there is
ample evidence in the record that demonstrates that he did have the requisite knowledge.1
Again, Olofson argues only that his firearm was not a machinegun under § 922(o).
A machine gun is any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily
restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single
function of the trigger. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(23); 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). The record contains
ample evidence from which the jury could rationally conclude that Olofson’s firearm fit
Case 2:06-cr-00320-CNC Filed 03/13/2008 Page 3 of 6 Document 80
4
this definition. In fact, the firearm consistently fired automatically at a number of different
points in time, beginning before Olofson provided it to Kiernicki and extending through
the final ATF testfire. Kiernicki testified that Olofson acknowledged having fired the gun
automatically before loaning it to Kiernicki. And Kiernicki testified that he fired the gun
automatically on the day officers seized the gun from him. And, after the gun was seized,
FTO Kingery test fired it and found that it fired automatically. In fact, the jury was shown
a video of the firearm firing automatically. That the firearm failed to fire automatically on
one occasion when it was loaded with special hard-primered military grade ammunition
does not remove the gun from the compass of the statutory definition.
II. Section 5845 is not unconstitutionally vague as applied Olofson’s conduct.
While 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) proscribes possession of a machinegun, the term
“machinegun” is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845. Olofson contends that the latter statute is
unconstitutionally vague.
“Vagueness may invalidate a criminal law for either of two independent reasons.
First, it may fail to provide the kind of ordinary notice that will enable ordinary people to
understand what conduct it prohibits; second, it may authorize and even encourage
arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 56 (1999);
see also United States v. Lim, 444 F.3d 910, 915 (7th Cir. 2006). Vagueness challenges that do
not implicate First Amendment freedoms must be analyzed in light of the application of
the statute to the facts of the case at hand. United States v. Powell, 423 U.S. 87, 92 (1975). A
statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied only if the defendant could not have known
Case 2:06-cr-00320-CNC Filed 03/13/2008 Page 4 of 6 Document 80
5
that the conduct underlying his conviction was covered by the statute. United States v.
Warner, 498 F.3d 666, 697 (7 Cir. 2007); see also Maynard th v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 361
(1988) (explaining that a vagueness challenge “rest on the lack of notice, and hence may
be overcome in any specific case where reasonable persons would know that their conduct
is at risk.”).
Olofson claims that § 5845 is vague because, under the facts of his case, “he could
not know whether he had a malfunctioning rifle or a machine gun.” Def. Motion at 5.
Olofson misapprehends the relevant issue,which is simply whether – at the time that he
transferred the firearm to Kiernicki – Olofson knew that it fired automatically. And, again,
here there is ample evidence that Olofson had such knowledge. See supra, note 1.
The evidence presented at trial established that Olofson’s gun fired automatically
not because of an unintended malfunction, but rather because M-16 components had been
installed. The evidence further established (or at least supports a rational jury finding) that
Olofson knew that the M-16 components caused the gun to fire automatically. Most
importantly – and most to the point for purposes of the present motion – the evidence
presented at trial established that Olofson provided his automatically firing firearm to
Kiernicki and that, when he transferred the gun, Olofson knew that it fired automatically.
See supra, note 1. Because the statute provides clear notice that such conduct is criminal,
and because the clear definition of a machinegun (particularly when coupled with the
knowledge requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2)) did not result in arbitrary enforcement,
the statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Olofson in this case.
Case 2:06-cr-00320-CNC Filed 03/13/2008 Page 5 of 6 Document 80
6
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the government asks that this Court deny Olofson’s motion
for a judgment of acquittal.
Respectfully submitted this 13th day of March, 2008.
STEVEN M. BISKUPIC
United States Attorney
By:
s/Gregory J. Haanstad
Assistant United States Attorney
Gregory J. Haanstad: 1036125
Attorney for Plaintiff
Office of the United States Attorney
Eastern District of Wisconsin
517 East Wisconsin Avenue, Room 530
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Telephone: (414) 297-4581
Fax: (414) 297-1738
E-Mail: [email protected]
Case 2:06-cr-00320-CNC Filed 03/13/2008 Page 6 of 6 Document 80

In any event, again, the record contains ample evidence that Olofson
had such knowledge. For example, Robert Kiernicki testified that Olofson made comments to him
– both before and after law enforcement officers seized Olofson’s firearm – acknowledging that Olofson had himself fired the gun automatically in the past. Moreover, Firearms Technology Officer (FTO) Max Kingery testified that Olofson’s firearm fired automatically because, although it was a semiautomatic AR-15, it had M-16 fire control components installed in it. Kingery also testified that the particular M-16 components – the trigger; the selector; the hammer; and the disconnector – in Olofson’s firearm were not installed by the manufacturer. Someone had to have modified the firearm to include those four components. And e-mails and other documents on Olofson’s computer showed that he had ordered M-16 parts. Olofson also had a manual that described how to convert a semiautomatic AR-15 to an automatic M-16 by substituting the very M-16 parts that were in Olofson’s gun. This evidence strongly suggests that Olofson had actually made the modifications
that converted his firearm to an automatic; at a minimum it demonstrates that he was aware that the modifications had been made and that those modifications allowed his gun to fire automatically.


This probably isn't good for bladerunner.

its terms does not require any explanation for automatic fire (such as that a particular type of ammunition be used or that a firearm be modified to cause automatic fire); nor does the statute require any particular number of tests or any particular “error rate.” Factors like those identified by Olofson are relevant only to the extent that they shed light on whether Olofson knew that his firearm fired utomatically.

This isn't good for anyone that owns a semiauto.

Wasn't this a stock Oly with original parts? Or had I misread earlier posts. Is the modification issue a disputed fact?

its terms does not require any explanation for automatic fire (such as that a particular type of ammunition be used or that a firearm be modified to cause automatic fire); nor does the statute require any particular number of tests or any particular “error rate.” Factors like those identified by Olofson are relevant only to the extent that they shed light on whether Olofson knew that his firearm fired utomatically. This in't good for anyone that owns a semiauto.

Does anyone else believe there may be an implied (if not stated) "error rate" in the Supreme Courts definition of "automatically" from the Staples Case? If so, were the jury instructions deficient in not mentioning it?

I still wonder why the Jury didn't ask themselves why somone would loan an illegal FA gun to someone else.

So military ammo is now "special" ammo?

Quoted: Wasn't this a stock Oly with original parts? Or had I misread earlier posts. Is the modification issue a disputed fact?

It was setteled in court that the components in it are the same as what it came with as stated by Len Savage, with aknoledgement of same by Olympic Arms. Thats why they went on to say that it dosen't matter if it was modified or not.

.Gov only wants to argue it now because they don't have to prove it.

Quoted: I still wonder why the Jury didn't ask themselves why somone would loan an illegal FA gun to someone else. So military ammo is now "special" ammo?

Again, the governent want's the judge to think it's "special" (like their agents) so as to give more credibility to the second test. The truth as we all know it is that military ammo is the standard and most manufactured ammo, not civilian fodder.

Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't this a stock Oly with original parts? Or had I misread earlier posts. Is the modification issue a disputed fact? It was setteled in court that the components in it are the same as what it came with as stated by Len Savage, with aknoledgement of same by Olympic Arms. Thats why they went on to say that it dosen't matter if it was modified or not. .Gov only wants to argue it now because they don't have to prove it.

So they are the original parts that were shipped with the gun?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't this a stock Oly with original parts? Or had I misread earlier posts. Is the modification issue a disputed fact? It was setteled in court that the components in it are the same as what it came with as stated by Len Savage, with aknoledgement of same by Olympic Arms. Thats why they went on to say that it dosen't matter if it was modified or not. .Gov only wants to argue it now because they don't have to prove it. So they are the original parts that were shipped with the gun?

Some are, some were replaced by BR.  I believe that the issue was dumbed down and not argued by the defense (AR15 FCG parts, vs. M16 FCG parts, vs. M16 FCG parts modified to SP1 configuration) specifically because Len Savage wasn't able to view the gun until the day of the trial, and Oly admits that the gun originally shipped with some M16 parts (which was allowed by the ATF during that time period).

ETA: IOW, and IIRC, the thought of the argument (or lack thereof) was that it doesn't matter what FCG parts are in the gun if the FCG parts that it originally came with cause thesame malfunction, and the rifle wasn't classified as an MG from the factory.

I've been trying to follow this thing but I'm getting more confused. As I understand this, BR, you were convicted of illegal transfer not manufacture of a MG. And the parts were the same or no different that the originals that came from the factory.

If the above is correct, why didn't your defense raise the issue of where the hell the MG came from if you didn't make it? Please correct me if I'm missing something here.

You can't transfer something that doesn't exist!

I am no lawyer but this seems to be the major issue and I don't see it in your defense.

Quoted: I've been trying to follow this thing but I'm getting more confused. As I understand this, BR, you were convicted of illegal transfer not manufacture of a MG. And the parts were the same or no different that the originals that came from the factory. If the above is correct, why didn't your defense raise the issue of where the hell the MG came from if you didn't make it? Please correct me if I'm missing something here. You can't transfer something that doesn't exist! I am no lawyer but this seems to be the major issue and I don't see it in your defense.

That was the defense.  The rest of the exculpatory evidence was excluded due to "non-disclosure of tax information".


ETA: Remember, what you are reading above is the argument that the AUSA wants the judge to see as a response for the motion to dismiss, not necessarily the facts of the case.

Quoted: [ That was the defense.  The rest of the exculpatory evidence was excluded due to "non-disclosure of tax information".

OK, I remember that from earlier in the thread. But I didn't see anything about that in the appeal. Why? I'm just trying to understand BRs lawyers strategy. I didn't see where it pointed out that exculpatory evidence was excluded or withheld.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't this a stock Oly with original parts? Or had I misread earlier posts. Is the modification issue a disputed fact? It was setteled in court that the components in it are the same as what it came with as stated by Len Savage, with aknoledgement of same by Olympic Arms. Thats why they went on to say that it dosen't matter if it was modified or not. .Gov only wants to argue it now because they don't have to prove it. So they are the original parts that were shipped with the gun?

It's easy to get confused on this. The original parts were M16 parts. I had this problem with the gun in 94 and replaced them with AR-15 parts from DPMS. The M16 parts in there now were not placed in there by me. No one at trial wanted to talk about it. My attornies thought it would make me look bad, and the ATF thought it would kill there only "witness". So for the sake of the court record it is now about a factory gun that came with M16 parts. Get it...

Quoted: I've been trying to follow this thing but I'm getting more confused. As I understand this, BR, you were convicted of illegal transfer not manufacture of a MG. And the parts were the same or no different that the originals that came from the factory. If the above is correct, why didn't your defense raise the issue of where the hell the MG came from if you didn't make it? Please correct me if I'm missing something here. You can't transfer something that doesn't exist! I am no lawyer but this seems to be the major issue and I don't see it in your defense.

We kinda did. We did ask for the gun to be printed inside and out. ATF refused. I'm sure they know as well as I do that I am not the one who dropped in the parts and it would have killed there case. BUT because this particular gun happened to be made with the same parts it was never about someone "makeing" a MG. Instead it was about a factory gun (since it had the same parts in it from the factory) that had a hammer follow malfunction. Same malfunction that caused me to replace the original parts in 94. So the government relied on their paid and threatend informent to cover what they needed about the elements of this "crime".

That is how we came to this problem of how any gun, includeing one from the factory that malfuntions to fire more than one round, is a MG in the eyes of the ATF.

Thoughly confused now?

Quoted: Quoted: [ That was the defense.  The rest of the exculpatory evidence was excluded due to "non-disclosure of tax information". OK, I remember that from earlier in the thread. But I didn't see anything about that in the appeal. Why? I'm just trying to understand BRs lawyers strategy. I didn't see where it pointed out that exculpatory evidence was excluded or withheld.

Not all the motions are done yet. There are 3-4 post trial motions. Plus there is a bunch of information that I am not allowed to release yet. You think it stinks now, wait till you hear the rest of the story.

That is how we came to this problem of how any gun, includeing one from the factory that malfuntions to fire more than one round, is a MG in the eyes of the ATF.

Ok could you sue Oly for selling you a gun that Misfired, sorry I got here late
Help with legal fees

Quoted: That is how we came to this problem of how any gun, includeing one from the factory that malfuntions to fire more than one round, is a MG in the eyes of the ATF. Ok could you sue Oly for selling you a gun that Misfired, sorry I got here late Help with legal fees

It was a known issue with everyone and the proper course of action acording to Oly and ATF was to send the gun in for repairs\replacement. One of the things I diden't know untill this mess was that this particular model is considered the worst one ever made when it comes to malfunctions. Something about out of spec recievers along with the M16 parts that dosen't mix.

Quoted: That is how we came to this problem of how any gun, includeing one from the factory that malfuntions to fire more than one round, is a MG in the eyes of the ATF. Help with legal fees

I cannot and will not take money for any defensive help because it just drains everyone’s wallet and helps only me. But if you wait another month or so there is something being arranged everyone can help with that will benefit everyone and not be a consistent drain on our resources. I believe the majority of Americans will find it worthy of their help. A little something our side has never done, but a page from their playbook. Paybacks a _itch and after all they have done to so many they have earned what they have coming.

^
Good

BR, you need to write a book.........

height=8

Quoted: BR, you need to write a book.........

I will buy the first copy.

Quoted: Quoted: BR, you need to write a book......... I will buy the first copy.

dibs on the second one

Quoted: BR, you need to write a book.........

If a book on this would come out it would have to be with the help of someone who is familiar with this kind of story line, and is well respected in the gun owning community for his writings so it is done right. I have a hard enough time with simple spelling so I could never undertake such a project alone.

Wait till the rest of the story comes out. May have to make it a movie...

Quoted: Quoted: BR, you need to write a book......... If a book on this would come out it would have to be with the help of someone who is familiar with this kind of story line, and is well respected in the gun owning community for his writings so it is done right. I have a hard enough time with simple spelling so I could never undertake such a project alone. Wait till the rest of the story comes out. May have to make it a movie...

Hopefully you will be able to call it:

"How I fought-back against the goons from the ATF, and won!"

Best,

Jake.

P.S. I'm not a big fan of state-sponsored terrorism.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: BR, you need to write a book......... If a book on this would come out it would have to be with the help of someone who is familiar with this kind of story line, and is well respected in the gun owning community for his writings so it is done right. I have a hard enough time with simple spelling so I could never undertake such a project alone. Wait till the rest of the story comes out. May have to make it a movie... Hopefully you will be able to call it: "How I fought-back against the goons from the ATF, and won!" Best, Jake. P.S. I'm not a big fan of state-sponsored terrorism.

I'm sure it would have a better name than that. Besides, not only is the case no longer about me, there is a lot of folks working on it. I'm just sorta stuck playing poster child...

Update:

At least 203 more people going to jail under the new standard

Quoted: Update: At least 203 more people going to jail under the new standard

Lot more than that if the feds have their way.

everyone with a gsg5 will go to jail.

Quoted: everyone with a gsg5 will go to jail.

For paying $500 for an airsoft rifle?

ATF took a page from Klintons book. He gets to define what is is, and they get to define things like what shooting is. Subject to change based on who they are dealing with of course, or what day of the week it is, or what directions the birds fly....

Ahhh crap I was replying to old posts...nevermind

Quoted: ATF took a page from Klintons book. He gets to define what is is, and they get to define things like what shooting is. Subject to change based on who they are dealing with of course, or what day of the week it is, or what directions the birds fly....

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Quoted: Quoted: ATF took a page from Klintons book. He gets to define what is is, and they get to define things like what shooting is. Subject to change based on who they are dealing with of course, or what day of the week it is, or what directions the birds fly.... "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

For those who don't know, but should.

Ayn Rand - "Atlas Shrugged"

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ATF took a page from Klintons book. He gets to define what is is, and they get to define things like what shooting is. Subject to change based on who they are dealing with of course, or what day of the week it is, or what directions the birds fly.... "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." For those who don't know, but should. Ayn Rand - "Atlas Shrugged"

A good old classic. I regret selling both the hard cover copies I had.

Quoted: Quoted: ATF took a page from Klintons book. He gets to define what is is, and they get to define things like what shooting is. Subject to change based on who they are dealing with of course, or what day of the week it is, or what directions the birds fly.... "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Amen. Once you recognize that you'll know a great deal about how the Feds operate folks. BATFE needs these kind of things to keep funding up during a war on terror when the emphasis is homeland security.  This is about big government trying to sustain big-government.

They don't see themselves as civil servants working for the tax payers.  

This is how the BATFE agent reading the thread will interpret your post, BR:

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ATF took a page from Klintons book. He gets to define what is is, and they get to define things like what shooting is. Subject to change based on who they are dealing with of course, or what day of the week it is, or what directions the birds fly.... "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." Amen. Once you recognize that you'll know a great deal about how the Feds operate folks. BATFE needs these kind of things to keep funding up during a war on terror when the emphasis is homeland security.  This is about big government trying to sustain big-government. [general anti-government sentiment] They don't see themselves as civil servants working for the tax payers. [the who working for the what?]

Seriously, I think that BATFE is too far gone to be saved, unless I become President.

I would fund them on donations, and change their focus to working with the CMP, to get guns into the hands of the citizenry.

As President, I might step across the aisle and compromise on background checks, though.  Because nothing in Washington gets done without bi-partisan support.

Of course, my background checks would be more like "Have you read the U.S. Constitution, to include any/all amendments?" and "Can you tell me the true meaning of the Second Amendment?"

A good judge says "If both parties are upset with me, I know that I've probably done my job right."

Mine will be "If I can cause Sarah Brady to have a massive stroke, I know that I've probably done my job right."

Quoted: Seriously, I think that BATFE is too far gone to be saved, unless I become President. I would fund them on donations, and change their focus to working with the CMP, to get guns into the hands of the citizenry.

Win the Presidency, put me in charge of the Firearms branch of the BATFE, and it will be done.

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.

I can't wait for some really, really indignant Senators and Representatives to weigh in on this......

Good luck on the 8th.

Quoted: I can't wait for some really, really indignant Senators and Representatives to weigh in on this......

I woulde't be surprisd if some of them had something to say.

Quoted: Quoted: I can't wait for some really, really indignant Senators and Representatives to weigh in on this...... I woulde't be surprisd if some of them had something to say.

I would love for one or two of them to be sitting up Lou Dobbs' sleeve about now.

Maybe one or two in attendance and speaking on the courthouse steps afterwards.....

Maybe that even gets some media coverage and some TV talkinghead has one on his/her program in the split-screen.....

Good luck dude. I cannot believe this has gone this far. I hope that the truth comes out in the end.- Art

Quoted: Quoted: I can't wait for some really, really indignant Senators and Representatives to weigh in on this...... I woulde't be surprisd if some of them had something to say.

I'm sure some will have something to say, like Schumer, Fuckswine, Waxman, Pelosi, Kennedy, Obama, Klinton, and that stupid fucktard from NY who's husband got waxed because he was a pussy,  and so on and so forth.

Oh,and BTW: FOAD BATFE.

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

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

Since I have a feeling that this is going to get really good really fast, I'm going to go ahead and do the banana dance now.



Shane