The Olofson Case - Merged Threads

If you had a chance to follow this case as it progressed and read the testimony of the ATF's "expert" witness you'd know that the BATF violated discovery rules, blatently mischarecterized evidence in order to exclude it, and threatened, intimidated and bribed witnesses in order to get their conviction.
Click to expand...

You forgot to add that he(Olofson) modified the FCG with M16 parts or at a minimum modified the safety, and loaned a weapon he new was not firing as designed to another person.

Anyway you want to spin it, he's had more time losing court cases in the last ten years than most gun owners will have in a lifetime and all of that non-admissable stuff speaks volumes to his character.

Think I'm selling him out, too bad. If I can play the class III game the legal way so can he. I have no sympathy for him and the situation he put himself into.



Before you start ranting about malfunctioning guns and wait until it happens to you. It's already been covered.
 
If you had a chance to follow this case as it progressed and read the testimony of the ATF's "expert" witness you'd know that the BATF violated discovery rules, blatently mischarecterized evidence in order to exclude it, and threatened, intimidated and bribed witnesses in order to get their conviction.
Click to expand...

I see. So the poor widdle defense attorney was too scared to speak up? Or was he outmatched by those big expensive lawyers working for the government:rolleyes: When those nasty attorneys were mischaracterizing the evidence I suppose all this guy could do is sit there and let the jury hear it right? Give me a break.

I'd like to see what discovery rules were violated. I'd LOVE to see some evidence of witnesses being bribed.

Till then all we have is a conviction.
 
If you had a chance to follow this case as it progressed and read the testimony of the ATF's "expert" witness you'd know that the BATF violated discovery rules, blatently mischarecterized evidence in order to exclude it, and threatened, intimidated and bribed witnesses in order to get their conviction.
Click to expand...

Really? You had acess to all the pleadings, transcripts and decisions? Cool, share it with us....I'm really looking forward to your production of the Response to the Defendants demand for Discovery and the Motions that followed thereafter. :cool:

As for the threatening and bribing and intimidation of witneses, I trust and assume you have notified the Defendan't counsel of those felonious matters as well as your nearest Federal Court and US Attorney. You have done that in writing, yes? . I'm sure you know about 18 USC 4, which reads:

"Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. "

Better reveal that knowledge right away....

Or is your allegation just another example of netnoise:cool:


WildgodhelpusAlaska TM
 
Its all in this thread here:

http://www.assaultweb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=39673

This thing was drug out for years and appears to be part of an effort by the ATF to manipiulate him into becoming an informant so that he could help to entrap people like us. And yes, prosecuters can exclude defense evidence. They also omit and hide eveidence that would aquit people and manipulate the venue and jury selection and jury instructions to ensure that they come up with the right verdict.

here are some important facts to consider:

1)The gun in question wasn't in the possession of the defendant when it was alledgedly fired as a full auto.
2) The ATF refused to allow defense experts to examine or fire the gun.
3) The person that fired the gun with the malfunctioning parts was later PAID to be a informant/witness by the gov
4) Government claimed it is privileged from disclosing correspondence (evidence) with persons or companies on guns because it is a tax issue.
5) The ATF field agent specifically requested the gun be retested with soft primered .223.
6) They also conceded that the gun as bought was legal to own even if made with M16 parts.
7) The fact that the defendant had field manuals and training manuals was used as an undicator of criminal intent even though he is/was in the national guard and they contained information for his MOS

It appears that he loaned his gun to someone, that person played around with it, possibly swapping out some parts, and when that person was caught tresspassing onto a private range and the rifle was heard slam firing it was confiscated and the person was threatend with prosecution if he didn't help convict the defendant.

Olafson is getting screwed and it could easily happen to many of us on this board and in the firearms community. I know that I've loaned rifles out before, but won't do it again after reading EVERY SINGLE DOCUMENT AND LINK in this thread.

Have any of you that are attacking him spent that much time researching this?
 
Its all in this thread here:
Click to expand...

OK...so you didnt attend the trial, didnt read the pleadings and are just regurgitating what you read on an agenda driven netnoise forum....

So, here, I'm calling you out...

Do you have evidence of felonies being committed by agents or employees of the US Government in this case?

Or are you just making noise?

Me, I'm waiting for the appeal.

WildenoughAlaska ™

PS..reading some of the comments on that thread make me want to puke...Like the NRA is riddled with Federal Black Ops boys.:barf:
 
Have any of you that are attacking him spent that much time researching this?
Click to expand...

I'm not attacking him, but yes I have read the documents. If he can get a reversal on appeal, more power to him. But I'm not buying his innocent accident excuse. If he get it overturned he should consider himself lucky he played a game and got away with it.
How about we waiti until the appeal and see how it flushes out.
 
Who is going to charge the ATF with a felony?

No one. Ever. Horiachi (sp?) was never even repromanded for shoot Vicki Weaver through the head in the doorway of her house while she was holding her baby.

I Don't know every single detail of the case, but any objective observer that looks into it and reads the court documents and transcripts in the links can see that the ATF stacked the deck against Olafson and played hanky panky with the evidenciary rules, and LIED under oath to the judge.

Since they are the ATF they are mostly immune from prosecution and have very powerful lawyers to twist the system to suit themselves.


As for this statement:
"You forgot to add that he(Olofson) modified the FCG with M16 parts or at a minimum modified the safety, and loaned a weapon he new was not firing as designed to another person.

"You forgot to add that he(Olofson) modified the FCG with M16 parts or at a minimum modified the safety, and loaned a weapon he new was not firing as designed to another person. "

Please show me ANY evidence of this and I will temper my support for him. Even ATF isn't alleging this. My understanding is that they are only claiming that he installed an M16 bolt carrier, which he denies.

I believe that if he is given the opportunity to appear before an unbiased judge and jury he will be victorious in his appeal. The problem is that there are so many people out there that assume he is guilty just because he had an AR15 and they think that every AR15 is a machinegun. Tht sort of person doesn't think that there is any reason for civilians to own any gun except possibly for a single shot shotgun under tightly regulated conditions.

We know that there are people out there that hate us and want us to have our hobbies, collections, and livlihoods taken away just because of their irrational fear of firearms.

The shocker for me is that posters on this site would be among that group.

Whatever the outcome, it is CERTAIN to me that it isn't a cut and dried case against him and there are many questions that the prosecution must answer regarding their conduct and behavior in this case. Read the transcripts and look at the misconduct of the ATF closely. If you still believe he deserves everything he getting I submit that you are an enemy of liberty in general and of the gun community specifically.
 
Who is going to charge the ATF with a felony?
Click to expand...

You are...put your money where your mouth is. Get out a detailed sworn affidavit alleging all the felonies you have talked about and send it to the Justice Department, the newpapers...hell send it to Dobbs...of course an affidavit should set forth FACTS based on personal knowledge...

That you don't have.

So your comments are more netnoise.

I Don't know every single detail of the case, but any objective observer that looks into it and reads the court documents and transcripts in the links can see that the ATF stacked the deck against Olafson and played hanky panky with the evidenciary rules, and LIED under oath to the judge.
Click to expand...

Now you are alleging PERJURY?

Back it up. If you can.

You wont..because you can't.

More netnoise.

The shocker for me is that posters on this site would be among that group.
Click to expand...

The shocker to me is that folks just piss on our criminal justice system and make libelous accusations with NOTHING TO BACK IT UP.

Free Mumia

WildimstillwaitingfortheappealAlaska ™
 
And yes, prosecuters can exclude defense evidence.
Click to expand...

And the defense can exclude evidence presented by the prosecution if its prejudicial.


They also omit and hide eveidence that would aquit people
Click to expand...

Really, so if the prosecution has exclupatory evidence he can just sit on it and not tell anyone? Congratulations, you just destroyed any credibility you had.

and manipulate the venue and jury selection and jury instructions to ensure that they come up with the right verdict.
Click to expand...

So the defense attorney doesn't have anything to do with voir dire? He doesn't have the ability to strike jurors for cause or have any peremptory strikes? The law is silent as to the proper venue for a criminal trial? The defense attorney has nothing to do with the charge given to the jury?

I renew my earlier assessment and suggest you stop digging.



1)The gun in question wasn't in the possession of the defendant when it was alledgedly fired as a full auto.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The crime of manufacturing a machine gun is committed when the machine gun is made. Whether you lend it out is irrelevant (though it displays your stupidity nicely).


2) The ATF refused to allow defense experts to examine or fire the gun.
Click to expand...

Link/proof?


3) The person that fired the gun with the malfunctioning parts was later PAID to be a informant/witness by the gov
Click to expand...

Link/proof?


4) Government claimed it is privileged from disclosing correspondence (evidence) with persons or companies on guns because it is a tax issue.
Click to expand...

And we are back to the issue of how the poor little defense attorney has to be silent or just roll over when the state says something.


5) The ATF field agent specifically requested the gun be retested with soft primered .223.
Click to expand...

So what. If you tweak your weapon to fire automatically using soft primered ammo, you still have manufactured a machine gun.


6) They also conceded that the gun as bought was legal to own even if made with M16 parts.
Click to expand...

Of course they did because that has no bearing on any of the elements of the case.


7) The fact that the defendant had field manuals and training manuals was used as an undicator of criminal intent even though he is/was in the national guard and they contained information for his MOS
Click to expand...

Now by undicator of criminal intent do you mean that the prosecution presented these manuals to the jury as evidence that this guy had a working knowledge of the weapon? If so, then why didn't his defense attorney just make the argument you made and diffuse the issue. Oh thats right, you weren't there and had no idea what happened.


Bottom line, ignoring that blatantly incorrect things you have stated about the judicial process, your position requires that this guys defense attorney literally sat there and did nothing. Thats not what happened. Thus there is some other reason for the guilty verdict besides the "sinister" actions of the government. I'm guessing its because he committed a crime.
 
After writing a response and then thinking of it for a few hours I decided to delete it. It's just not worth the boohooing.
Think what you would like.
 
Last edited:
The motion published in Post # 58 seems to raise some rather interesting questions, questions that make the government's case look ever more poor.

I guess that, at some point in the future, we will find out how this cookie finally crumbles.
 
I don't have a dog in this fight, so I've spent as much time on it as I care to. I don't have time to cut and paste and post every document and link that has been posted regarding this. I've read all 14 pages of the link posted and the 30 or so pages of documents posted there. I did that because this same thing could happen to any of us who tinker with guns and would refuse to be an informant. Remember Randy Weaver? His nightmare began with refusing to be an informant too.

Hopefully the facts will come out in the appeal, but don't prtend that the legal system is flawless or that the federal government is beyond cheating or abusing the rules of law and courtroom procedure. It happens all the time and the abuses by the ATF are among the most flagrant and odious examples out there.

I feel like I'm in the position of arguing with a child that, "yes, your poop does smell really bad" and they keep saying "Prove it". This case smells, but I guess the stench of feces is a subjective thing. If one likes to smell the latrine then no one's complaints of a stench will convince them that it smells.

Let me repeat that THIS COULD HAPPEN TO ANY OF US!

How good of a lawyer could you afford if it did happen to you? I'm telling you that the differences in the effectiveness of a lawyer makes a huge difference in results. I could tell you a story about my divorce that would illustrat that but that isn't the point.

The point is that Olafsen didn't convert his AR15 into a full auto. That is clear to me. The ATF admitted that his weapon malfunctioned under deliberately controlled circumstances. The case being made is that he caused the malfunction by replacing the parts that came in his rifle with machine gun parts. It doesn't even appear that they proved that he replaced those parts since those same types of parts were originally installed by the manufacturer. The documents showing that (exculpatory evidence) were prevented from entering evidence.

I'm not saying that I know the full story, but it is exceedingly clear that BATF made sure that the jury didn't either, and the judge didn't seem motivated to get to the bottom of it.
 
So what you are saying is that you have no proof or facts to back up the libelous allegations you made.

WildfairenoughAlaska TM
 
I feel like I'm in the position of arguing with a child that, "yes, your poop does smell really bad" and they keep saying "Prove it". This case smells, but I guess the stench of feces is a subjective thing. If one likes to smell the latrine then no one's complaints of a stench will convince them that it smells.
Click to expand...

And I feel like I'm talking to someone who has literally no understanding of the judicial process when they say that prosecutors can sit on exclupatory evidence.

When you make statements that are so flagrantly incorrect why should anyone bother to take anything else that you say seriously.
 
Once in a while, my mind tends to wonder. Don't know if that's from old age or just moderating this, um, forum! :rolleyes:

AAR, I just got around to reading the latest incarnation of the Olofson case. It seems that alan started his Lou Dobbs thread at about the same time the original thread on Olofson had quit.

Belatedly, threads merged.

Some of you, undoubtedly need to go back and read this from the start.... Some 230+ posts ago! Perhaps your moods will have calmed down some (not so veiled threat of imminent thread closure).
 
As usual, TFL support for one of our own who got seriously screwed despite a total lack of evidence that he committed any crime is mixed to non-existent. Way to go guys.:rolleyes: It's painfully obvious why things are as bad as they are in this country today when I read this sort of attitude on a firearms forum of all places.
 
As usual, TFL support for one of our own who got seriously screwed despite a total lack of evidence that he committed any crime is mixed to non-existent. Way to go guys. It's painfully obvious why things are as bad as they are in this country today when I read this sort of attitude on a firearms forum of all places.
Click to expand...


Welcome back and IMO your case was totally different.

I could be wrong, I could be right.......................I just call'em like I see'em.
 
Welcome back and IMO your case was totally different.
Click to expand...

Different in that I was innocent of breaking even an unjust law? Because the "he is probably guilty until proven otherwise since the government did say he was guilty" is the same BS I got.
 
Different in that I was innocent of breaking even an unjust law? Because the "he is probably guilty until proven otherwise" is the same BS I got.
Click to expand...

Different in that you were not found guilty, IIRC it didn't even go to trial, and he was found guilty by a jury.

He had his day in court, if he gets it overturned on appeal, good for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top