| Author | Post |
|---|
Bladerunner2347
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 3rd, 2008 03:32 pm |
|
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
|
Bladerunner2347
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 6th, 2008 06:57 pm |
|
Another news flash. The hearing, and possible sentencing, on the 8th has been changed. New date is the 13th at 1430. Reason giving is that the Judge believes the documents we have submitted deserve serious attention on his part, and he believes the current time table would not allow him to give them the attention they need.
We will hopefully find out on Tuesday what he finds out in his investigation on the submitted documents. Also noteworthy is the fact that the ATF has removed a pertinent document from there web site. One that they claimed was “privileged 6103” information that they had up for public viewing.
|
BobCav
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 6th, 2008 11:50 pm |
|
| What was the old link?
|
Bladerunner2347
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 7th, 2008 01:53 am |
|
BobCav wrote: What was the old link?
I can get that to you shortly. I just have to grab it from Len.
|
Bladerunner2347
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 7th, 2008 01:53 am |
|
Another update. Just was told CNN decided now was a good time to run the next segment on this issue. It will be airing on Lou Dobbs tomorrow. I’ve been told you will find some interesting personalities weighing in on this one.
|
Bladerunner2347
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 7th, 2008 07:19 pm |
|
Looks like I’ll be busy with CNN tomorrow morning again talking about some of the information the judge has found so interesting. Maybe I can help clarify a few things for the good folks out there still wondering what’s been going on. Time will tell.
I’ll post a few more picks and drop a note when the next part airs after tonight.
|
Bladerunner2347
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 7th, 2008 08:09 pm |
|
Ok. A lot of folks have been asking questions about what the ATF pulled down from their web sight to try to hide it from sight. This is a copy of it.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/Open_1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/Open_2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/Open_3.jpg
Last edited on Wed May 7th, 2008 08:17 pm by Bladerunner2347
|
Doug Huffman
State Researcher
|
Posted: Wed May 7th, 2008 08:18 pm |
|
Bladerunner2347 wrote: Ok. A lot of folks have been asking questions about what the ATF pulled down from their web sight to try to hide it from sight. This is a copy of it.
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/Open_1.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/Open_2.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/Open_3.jpg[/IMG]
Looks like photobucket moderators have been busy.
They wrote:
 "THIS IMAGE OR VIDEO HAS BEEN MOVED OR DELETED. photobucket"
ETA: Hmmm, now the URL fetches images. Curious.
Last edited on Wed May 7th, 2008 08:19 pm by Doug Huffman
|
Eagleeye
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | Eagle, Idaho USA |
| Posts: | 216 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 08:22 am |
|
Anyone have a Link to the New Dobb's Video on this?
|
Pointman
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 12:30 pm |
|
The Photobucket links are working again.
"In addition, the definition of a machine-gun also includes any combination of parts from which a machine-gun may be assembled, if such parts are in possession or under the control of a person." They then re-defined it and made it even less restrictive (page 2).
This sounds like the drug laws. If you have the items necessary to make methamphetamine, which would be coffee filters, a heater (like the coffee maker burner plate), starter fluid, lithium batteries, and anything containing pseudophedrin, (plus one or two other common things I'll leave out), you're a felon. That makes about 1/3 of America felons, just because they drink coffee, take pictures, and have some sort of gas engine that starts hard.
Same here. If your guns and other items in your house could be made to malfunction to fire more than one round with one pull of the trigger, you're a felon. If you have any combination parts designed and intended for use in a machine gun (such as perhaps an AR15 stock and barrel, which are used in the M16), you're a felon.
I feel completely infringed. With all the membership money, attourneys, and members the NRA has, you'd think a group lawsuit would be filed against such infringment. At least I'd think, if I didn't know better.
Edit: Maybe I should say I feel my rights are being infringed, because I feel "pissed-off."
I was working and missed the Lou Dobbs update!  Any video link would be appreciated.
Last edited on Thu May 8th, 2008 12:44 pm by Pointman
|
imperialism2024
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 01:02 pm |
|
Pointman, I was about to comment/criticize your list of meth ingredients, but decided not to after I realized I didn't want to have DEA JBTs breaking down my door later today...
|
Bladerunner2347
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 01:08 pm |
|
imperialism2024 wrote: Pointman, I was about to comment/criticize your list of meth ingredients, but decided not to after I realized I didn't want to have DEA JBTs breaking down my door later today...
They may take that to mean that you want it tomarrow instead...
|
Pointman
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 02:46 pm |
|
Imperialism: I guess there are several ways to "cook" "meth," and I have forgotten a few things over time. It's not something I'm worried about being overly correct on. 
The thing was I've found a few meth labs in my travels, and when I read the federal code on what it takes to be convicted, I was shocked. I switched from paper coffee filters to the gold one right away!
Disclaimer: I've never been involved in the manufacture, transport, purchase, etc. of illegal drugs, and ain't anywhere close to an expert. The closest I come is putting brown mustard on a burger, and have stopped doin' that since Legba got busted for it. ;P
|
Bladerunner2347
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 05:01 pm |
|
Just finished another interview with Bill tucker from CNN. They are running another segment tonight with some of the new footage. Lot of work to do in very little time but they seem to do well under pressure. Be interesting to see what they come up with.
|
Thundar
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 05:44 pm |
|
Mike wrote: Bladerunner2347 wrote: 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.
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.
What does fire like a machine gun mean? Cite please. I find that phrase nowhere in the NFA.
|
Bladerunner2347
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 06:18 pm |
|
Thundar wrote: Mike wrote: Bladerunner2347 wrote: 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.
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.
What does fire like a machine gun mean? Cite please. I find that phrase nowhere in the NFA.
It dosen't say that anywhere. It uses the word shoot. The assumtion being that any waepon that goes bang more than once is shooting because shooting is undefined. My thought is that shooting is a deliberate act on the part of the operator and the weapon. If it was not intended and the weapon has not been made for it to "shoot" more than once then it is not really shooting.
|
Bladerunner2347
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 06:42 pm |
|
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/05/07/ldt.gov.guns.cnn
Link to yesterdays show.
|
Pointman
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 07:08 pm |
|
U.S. Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922
(o)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof;
Definition of machinegun in TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922:
machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)
David is accused of transferring a machine gun without the authority of the United States.
U.S. Code TITLE 26 > Subtitle E > CHAPTER 53 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 5845
(b) Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means 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. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
What is the definition of "shoot"?
No law dictionary I have free access to defines "shoot," but Webster does as:
(2): to drive forth or cause to be driven forth by an explosion
So basically, the law is overly broad. Any AR15 could be readily restored (restored--since it is a civilian derivative of a M16) to shoot automatically more than one shot. Every AR15 owner is therefore committing a felony.
Since this is obviously not the spirit (intention) of the law, the definition as proposed by David, to purposefully and intentionally fire more than one round of ammunition automatically [with a strong degree of certainty and repeatability], is correct.
|
Bladerunner2347
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 07:13 pm |
|
Pointman wrote: U.S. Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922
(o)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof;
Definition of machinegun in TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922:
machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)
David is accused of transferring a machine gun without the authority of the United States.
U.S. Code TITLE 26 > Subtitle E > CHAPTER 53 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 5845
(b) Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means 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. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
What is the definition of "shoot"?
No law dictionary I have free access to defines "shoot," but Webster does as:
(2): to drive forth or cause to be driven forth by an explosion
So basically, the law is overly broad. Any AR15 could be readily restored (restored--since it is a civilian derivative of a M16) to shoot automatically more than one shot. Every AR15 owner is therefore committing a felony.
Since this is obviously not the spirit (intention) of the law, the definition as proposed by David, to purposefully and intentionally fire more than one round of ammunition automatically [with a strong degree of certainty and repeatability], is correct.
So are you saying I'm not half as crazy as I feel some days? With all this crap going on I can't help but question my sanity at times.
|
Pointman
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 07:23 pm |
|
I'm saying that David has been prosecuted under a gross misapplication of the law.
Legba has been prosecuted under a gross misapplication of the law.
Danbus has been prosecuted under a gross misapplication of the law, repeatedly.
GJD has been detained under a gross misapplication of the law.
There is a clear pattern, and it is unconstitutional, and unconscionable, and inexcusable.
|
Current time is 02:52 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...   |
|
|
|