The Olofson Case - Merged Threads

Wildalaska Quote:
As to his competence and his ability to "tell a convincing story", seems that they and he convinced the trial judge in the Glover case.

Really?

Source?

WildtheskepticAlaska TM

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

As I understnd things, and please do not hesitate to correct me if I'm in error re the following, the charges against Mr. Glover were dismssed WITH PREJUDICE, which means that they cannot be reinstated. Is that, notwithstanding that you not otherwise impressed with Mr. Savage, sufficient sourcing for you?
 
Happened across some more transcripts. I'm posting a few more excerpts from the transcripts for your reading pleasure. I believe they are self explanatory when it comes to the governments new position on what is a MG.

MR. HAANSTAD: (Assistant US Attorney)
Now, Mr. Savage may be of the opinion that Exhibit 1
is not a machine gun. But it's also clear that Mr. Savage
doesn't consider himself bound by the legal definition of
machine gun.
You heard him testify yesterday that it wouldn't
matter to him if he picked that gun up and pulled the trigger
once and 50 rounds came out or 100 rounds came out, he still
would not consider it a machine gun.
Well, how can that be under the definition that you
have of a machine gun? Again, that's the definition that
controls here, not any notion that Mr. Savage may have as to
what constitutes a machine gun.
A machine gun is specifically designed by statute and,
again, about six pages back -- six pages from the back of the
packet of the jury instructions you're going to receive, that
definition is provided. And clearly, under the legal definition
of "machine gun" that you're going to be asked to apply, Mr. Olofson's gun qualifies because, as Mr. Kingery testified,
as Mr. Kiernicki testified, and as you yourselves all saw in the
video, when you pull the trigger once on that firearm more than
one round is fired.


GOVERNMENT REBUTTAL ARGUMENT
MR. HAANSTAD: Ladies and gentlemen, the defense has
invited you to go down a number of paths that stray from the
straightforward central issues in this case, the first again of
which is, was Mr. Olofson's gun a machine gun?
Now, I've emphasized already that you should focus on
the definition that's provided. And if you do so, you see that
the statute covered not only as Mr. Fahl indicated a weapon that
shoots automatically more than one shot -- and he's right,
that's written in the present tense -- but there's no support in
that statutory definition for the notion that right as you, as
jurors, deliberate, we have to demonstrate to you that this
particular gun shoots automatically. Because the definitionprovides that a machine gun is any weapon which not only shoots
but which is designed to shoot or can be readily restored to
shoot automatically more than one shot with a single function of
the trigger.


And again, when Mr. Kingery did the test fires,
including the one that's on video that you've seen -- we didn't
take you to a test range yesterday but we attempted to bring the
test firing range to you by video taping this, and in that video
tape you can see that when Mr. Kingery pulls the trigger once,
more than one round is expelled, clearly satisfying the first
part of that definition of "machine gun" that I've asked you now
several times to focus on. But remember, you don't necessarily have to stop there
according to this definition because it also, the definition
also includes firearms that were designed to shoot or can
readily be restored to shoot automatically.
So again, under that definition there's no support for
the notion that every time you go out and fire this weapon ithas to fire automatically. Simply not consistent with the plain
language of this statute which the court is going to instruct
you to follow.
Nor is there any support for the notion that you have
to use a particular type of ammunition when you fire the
firearm, and that only if you use a specific type of ammunition
and it fires automatically does it qualify as a machine gun.
Again, that particular requirement, that any
particular type of ammunition be used, simply is not included
within this definition. And not only is not included, but it's
not consistent with this definition because, again, it covers
not only shoot but also which are designed or can readily be
restored to shoot automatically. Now, as I mentioned earlier, it's somewhat tempting to
sort of point by point discuss all of the evidence that came
out, but the fear is that it's, again, gonna lead you down a
path that's really not -- right on this, right in connection
with the straightforward central issues that are presented in
this case.
But, to the extent that there's some concern, for
example, that some kind of special ammunition was used in order
to induce this automatic fire, keeping aside, setting aside for
one minute whether that matters even under this definition,
remember the testimony was that the unique type of ammunition
that was used was the military grade ammunition that OfficerKingery used in that first test fire that he did. That was the
nonstandard ammunition, the military stuff.
When Mr. Kingery, on a subsequent test, used regular
standard commercially available civilian ammunition, the type of
ammunition that you would go out and buy at the sporting goods
store, and he popped that ammunition into Exhibit Number 1,
Exhibit 1 fired automatically. It did so on the second test and
it did so again on this test that you've seen and which you can
see again when you're back deliberating.


And that's what your focus should be on. It shouldn't
be on this testimony about what might have happened in some
hypothetical case. It shouldn't be about what's happened in
other cases. You're asked to decide whether or not this
particular gun fires automatically. And not only have you seen
it with your own eyes fire automatically, but you've heard this
explanation as to why it fires automatically.
Now, there's also a bit of a danger, I'm afraid, that
you're gonna focus too much on the possible modifications
or performance of this gun. There's no requirement that you
find that Mr. Olofson himself performed the modifications that
converted this AR-15 into an M-16. In fact, there's no requirement that you believe that
the gun's been modified to fire as an M-16. The sole issue that
you have to decide is whether or not the gun in fact firesautomatic. That is, even if a gun came from the manufacturer
assembled as a machine gun, if Mr. Olofson's in possession of
that type of gun, that is, a non-modified but nonetheless
machine gun, and he then transfers it to Mr. Kiernicki, he's
guilty, he falls within this definition.

Based on all this, ladies and gentlemen, keeping in
mind the statutory definition of "machine gun," that is, again,
any weapon which shoots, or is designed to shoot, or can be
readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot,
with a manual reloading by a single function of the trigger --that is, again, any weapon that will shoot more than one round
with one pull of the trigger, or that is designed to shoot that
way, or can be readily restored though shoot that way, is a
machine gun.
 
cloverleaf762:

Re the bits and pieces of what you present as "trial transcripts", taking them at face value, one thing seems to hit viewers in the face, and it hits them hard.

The work product of our elected things, federal law in this case, fails to recognize that mechanical devices, guns are and example of such, can and sometimes do malfunction, said malfunctions presenting the appeaarance of them being what they aren't, for instance a MALFUNCTIONING SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE APPEARING TO BE, AND BEING HELD TO BE A MACHINEGUN.

How is it, that the state of the law ever became such, and perhaps even more important is the following. That there seems no movement in The Congress to correct what is an unacceptable situation. How is it that such a state of affairs was allowed to develope, and how is it that, as above mentioned, there seems no ability, desire or willingness on the part of congress to correct what appears to be a serious problem?

The following is attributed to Mark Twain, perhaps correctly. I dreamed I was an idiot, I dreamed I was a congressman, I repeat myself.
 
laws

Sad day it is when the judicial system is so locked in the seek and destroy mode. They seem to be blind as to the facts of life. Someone is looking for points in the system and this poor guy is on the menu!


I was once charged with a Felon and pleaded down to a Misdemeanor. I did not want it over my head for the next five years. I did not have the funds for a real lawyers.

They have ways to twist the stories!

Did they question if the design of the trigger group could cause this? NO!

Did they question if the normal where on the parts could cause this to happen? NO!

There was a batch of Norico sks sould for a while that if you did not let off the trigger fully, they would go auto fire! Was it something like that?
 
Wildalaska said:
Sure.

The guy has no formal firearms design training, no gunmsimith certifications, no armorer training etc. He puffed on his resume. He was meretricious about other cases he was involved in. He is heavily involved in the anti ATF movement. His conclusions were faulty.

The guy was a mess. Read the transcript and read it objectively

Listen: Just cuz the Feds bust some goood old boy for messing around with stuff he shouldnt mess around with doesnt mean they are going to herd us all into camps. Lets get some perspective here. All gun owners arent good, all ATF agents arent bad.
Click to expand...


I find it interesting that you are merely quoting the government’s allegation, allegations I might add that it seems even the judge in this case didn’t fall for. Can you elaborate on your response with some evidence to back up the allegation you are leveling against Mr. Savage, or are you simply letting your opinion mirror anything the feds say?

I bring this up because as I read it I see the following according to the transcripts.

1. He has no formal training as a gunsmith or armoror-True he dose not, he is the guy a gunsmith would go to for training. He writes the amoror books on the maintenance of the weapons he creates. His ability to create weapons from scratch, modify weapons from one configuration to another, and the fact that the ATF comes to him for help at times speaks volumes as far as I’m concerned.
2. The government claimed he lied in his CV, but that was proven false in the Daubert hearing. He was involved in every case he claimed as an expert witness. His expertise was so good that many of the cases were dismissed before they got to the trial phase because of his detailed knowledge of the weapons and government procedures.
3. What anti ATF movement? If you are speaking of the fact that he was merely interviewed by JPFO in a documentary then I would say you are at the least stretching it. I have seen nothing on him to indicate he is anti ATF, but plenty to indicate that he dose want the government, ATF included to follow the law to the same degree they expect others to. If there is some kind of anti ATF group out there please let us know.
4. What conclusions were faulty? Either the weapon was made or redesigned as a MG or it was not. If it has not been made as, or converted to a MG, and it on occasion fires more than one round than it is a malfunctioning Semi auto. Same thing happened to all kinds of semi auto rifles, handguns, and shotguns every month. Would you consider everyone who has a weapon malfunction guilty of illegal possession and conversion? Or do they just need to get a broken weapon fixed the same as a broken vehicle?
5. You claim this guy was messing around with the weapon, from what I see the argument in court never said he messed around with it. Only that it fired more than one round at some times. In fact testimony from Mr. Savage says he talked with Olympic arms to confirm the parts in the weapon were the same as the ones they used years ago. They told him that all four of the parts the ATF were complaining about were used and installed by them in the 80’s when this weapon was manufactured. That would indicate to me that this weapon was not modified and the person in question did not make any modifications to it. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
 
Stop. You are not being objective.

The guy is a mess. I can see the jurors rolling their eyes.

They told him that all four of the parts the ATF were complaining about were used and installed by them in the 80’s when this weapon was manufactured. That would indicate to me that this weapon was not modified and the person in question did not make any modifications to it. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Click to expand...


Funny how Oly Arms didnt testify, LOL.

Evidence to the contrary? How about the jury verdict.

Again...just becasue some Bubba messes with what he shouldn't mess with does not a cause celeb make.

Next.

WildnothingmoreheremovealongAlaska TM
 
Of course oly arms didn’t testify. The defense wasn’t allowed to present the evidence from them or other sources from the get go. Funny how the feds wanted it that way.

Also funny how you have not responded to each point in kind. Speaks volumes.
 
The defense wasn’t allowed to present the evidence from them or other sources from the get go.
Click to expand...

BS...show me where the Court stopped Oly Arms for testifying...ever hear of a subpoena?

And by the way, arent you forgetting one of the essential element of the crime here, all of you? Or is my brain fried...

WildscienterAlaska TM
 
Quote:
The defense wasn’t allowed to present the evidence from them or other sources from the get go.
BS...show me where the Court stopped Oly Arms for testifying...ever hear of a subpoena?

And by the way, arent you forgetting one of the essential element of the crime here, all of you? Or is my brain fried...
BS you say, ok lets look at what is out there.

From an article on Reds tradeing posts page;

The court was never shown this information. When Mr. Olofson's Attorneys requested the court compel the ATF to provide this and other documents that proved his innocence to the court. The ATF Chief Counsel's Office told the court the documents contained tax information (federal excise tax stamp for $200) and the court was prohibited from seeing them. All documents were kept secret from the Honorable Judge Clevert and the rest of the court. Even the letter from the ATF to the manufacturer of Mr. Olofson's rifle from 1986, which mandated a "safety recall" due to the rifle going "full auto" if it malfunctioned. ATF Chief Counsel told AUSA Haanstad, who then told the court "The Court will have take our word, that the documents in question contain tax information and contain no exculpatory evidence".

From the article by Mr. Knox;

Olofson’s judge and jury were not allowed to learn about either the ATF ordered recall or the reclassification of a rifle like Olofson’s as not being a machinegun, because ATF and the US Attorney claimed that such information was prohibited from disclosure by tax privacy laws. This contention now appears to be patently false and the judge has egg on his face for not making the government prove their privacy claim.


From an article by Mike Vanderboegh

At the same time Mr. Olofson was being charged with "Unlawful Transfer" because the rifle malfunctioned and had a M-16 trigger, disconnector, and hammer; calling it an AR-15 with M-16 trigger parts (not the parts that make a machinegun). The ATF removed "a machinegun" from the NFRTR or NFA registry, claiming it was an AR-15 with M-16 parts, therefore NOT "a machinegun". I have the documents, I can prove this. The court was never shown this information. When Mr. Olofson's Attorneys requested the court compel the ATF to provide this and other documents that proved his innocence to the court. The ATF Chief Counsel's Office told the court the documents contained tax information (federal excise tax stamp for $200) and the court was prohibited from seeing them. All documents were kept secret from the Honorable Judge Clevert and the rest of the court. Even the letter from the ATF to the manufacturer of Mr. Olofson's rifle from 1986, which mandated a "safety recall" due to the rifle going "full auto" if it malfunctioned. ATF Chief Counsel told AUSA Haanstad, who then told the court "The Court will have take our word, that the documents in question contain tax information and contain no exculpatory evidence".


Are you insinuating that all these folks have been given false information and that as they reported the government did not hide any evidence? Looks to me like they did, unless the all reports are false and the government disclosed everything so that Mr. Olofson could have a fair trial.


And no, I myself am not forgetting the essential elements of any crime. Is this weapon a MG or not. I believe from what I have read on this case and the conflicting reports by the ATF themselves it is not. At worst this case is so messed up that it should be dismissed as unconstitutionally vague. If the ATF can’t figure out what they are looking at with all of their “experts” how is a normal person supposed to get it right the first time?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Are you insinuating that all these folks have been given false information and that as they reported the government did not hide any evidence?
Click to expand...

Yes I am.

Exculpatory evidence...you mean Brady evidence. (US vs Brady).

Hopefully an experienced member of the federal defense bar will weigh in on the consequences of an AUSA violating Brady these days.

WildwhyareyouguysdefendingbubbaAlaska TM
 
Hopefully an experienced member of the federal defense bar will weigh in on the consequences of an AUSA violating Brady these days.
Click to expand...

I hope so also.

Do you have any intention of discussion your other opinions and comparing them to facts or are you just going to play hit and run? If you have no intention of a good parley over your contentions in the previously mentioned matters just say so and I will not concern myself with it further.
 
Some interesting quotes from testimony of Max Kingery


Q. Okay, and how long have you been with ATF?
A. About two and a half years.

Q. An FEO? Have you been an FEO that whole time?
A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. And what are your duties and responsibilities as an FEO?
A. As an FEO primarily we examine and classify items submitted to us as evidence. We also examine items submitted to technology branch by the firearms industry for classification.
Items that are being imported into the United States are evaluated for their importability. And we answer general firearms related questions to the public and to members of the Industry.

Q. How are you employed prior to working for ATF?
A. Prior to ATF I was a sergeant with the West Virginia State Police.

Q. And what types of firearms training did you receive before you came to ATF?
A. With the state police I was trained with the service side arm, and with the shotgun and carbines. I was also a sniper, so I'm a member of the sniper team.

Q. Okay. And have you received firearms training since joining ATF?
A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q. And what kind of training is that?
A. I received training on the classification of firearms according to the Federal Firearms Guide. And I've attended several armors courses on a number of different types of firearms. Ammunition factory tours, ammunition training at those tours. Training on firearms nexus.

A. And I've written, I believe it's 15, possibly 16 what we call white papers -- Q. What are those?
A. -- on a number of different firearms. It's basically like a homework assignment of paper. The initial part of my position with ATF I was being trained on the job. And part of that training I had to write these papers on a number of different types of firearms. One of those was the AR-15 series of Firearms.

Q. Is your experience with the M-16 purely on a firing level or have you repaired or examined the gun through your training and experience in these other past endeavors?
A. In the past it was mainly usage. With the ATF it's been, it included repair, detailed examination, complete disassembly and Assembly.

Q. In your training and experience as an expert on AR-15 weapons, you're aware, of course, that many AR-15 weapons, especially those manufactured in the '80s, were manufactured with some M-16 internal parts?
A. I'm aware that some were, yes.

Q. Did you ever contact SGW/Olympic Arms about this particular rifle?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Are you aware that SGW has recalled this particular rifle?
A. No, sir.

based on your training, your
experience and your examination of Exhibit 1, is it possible that hammer follow was responsible for causing the firearm to fire automatically on those occasions?
A. As a malfunction or in --
Q. (Interrupting) Yeah, I'm sorry, there was malfunctioning in that way, and that's what was causing the firearm to fire fully automatic?
A. No, there was no malfunction of this firearm at all.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. FAHL:
Q. I guess to be clear, is hammer follow a malfunction or not?
A. It can be. It was intended in this instance.
Q. Now, going to Mr. Haanstad's questions about firing three rounds and jamming. Why would somebody design a gun to fire three rounds and then jam, have to eject the bolt, start all over, fire three rounds, jam, and do that?
A. They would not do so, sir.


I can’t help but comment on a few things.

1. Almost all of his “training” is limited to the user level of weapons. The rest seems to be merely on the job or maintenance courses so he can try to understand what kind of weapons he is working with. Len Savage on the other hand creates weapons from scratch, and can redesign and remake them at will to be what he wants them to be. As such he also creates the procedures people like Mr. Kingery use to learn about the weapons in their armorors courses.
2. He is aware of the use of M16 components in Olympic arms/SGW AR’s from the 80’s, but never bothered to contact them for any details. (Plausible deniability through lack of investigation?) Len Savage on the other hand did contact them to verify everything according to his testimony.
3. With all that superior federal training he can’t seem to make up his mine weather the gun is a malfunctioning semi auto or a FA. He has multiple conclusions that contradict themselves on paper, and in his testimony he first claims the gun is malfunctioning, then states there is no malfunction, then ends this excerpt with no one would make a weapon to do this. A lot of Orwellian double speak in there. I find that a stark contrast to Len Savages testimony that never wavered from the point that the weapon was only malfunctioning, was not modified, and that no matter how much it malfunctioned it would not suddenly become a MG. Maybe if he didn’t have all that superior federal training or those wonderful classification procedures (sic) clogging his head, he could come to an easily repeatable scientific conclusion like Mr. Savage did.
 
Just herd that CNN is airing this case on the Lou Dobbs show in 2 parts. Once tonight at 7-8 EST, and the second part on the next show. Not sure what slot they are giving it, but I was told to look for it in the first half hour. Arm all those recorders, this should be good.
 
From the station personnel…

“Hello…we will possibly split this story into a two part event…either way we’ll be running something tonight in the show…airs 7P-8p EST on CNN…unsure of the hit time for this piece, but expect it in the first half-hour.


Part 1 will air tonight around 7:30 PM on the CNN Lou Dobbs Tonight program

Part 2 will air Friday night / time tbd”
 
Do you have any intention of discussion your other opinions and comparing them to facts or are you just going to play hit and run? If you have no intention of a good parley over your contentions in the previously mentioned matters just say so and I will not concern myself with it further.
Click to expand...

See my signature. Let me know when the appeals are done so we can discuss this in an educated fashion.

WildpleaselookatstandardsforreviewofjuryverdictsAlaska ™
 
Just finished the first part of it. All I can say is Damn, what a slap in the face to the feds...

Can't wait to see them rip the feds apart on the second part tomarrow.
 
Did anyone get it recorded. My DVR computer is in pieces right now. (That's what I get for cobbling old hardware together.:( ) Are they going to re-air the segment anytime? Heck, even a transcript would be nice.
puppy_dog_eyes.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top