The Olofson Case - Merged Threads
- Thread starter Chris Phelps
- Start date
PT 111 writes:
Actually I think that your version is a lot closer to the truth than the original article. I don't know the details, wasn't there, and may be naive but it would greatly surprise me if the BATF and courts would convict someone for just having a worn out gun.
----------------
Re this, a couple of points, if I may.
1. It isn't the courts that convict anyone, that was the doings of the trial jury, and re that, given the past antics of BATFE, I'm given to wonder as to the quality of information they had. Also, the quality of defense counsel might come into question, but I wasn't there, at the trial.
2. As for the antics of BATFE, may I refer your attention to the following U.S. V. John Glover and U.S. v. Michael Quan, both cases involving what were alleged to be "illegal machine guns". In Glover, the charges were dismissed, with prejudice. Quan was, as I understand, acquitted. The above mentioned are just two cases, there are others. I wasn't at the rifle range either.
Actually I think that your version is a lot closer to the truth than the original article. I don't know the details, wasn't there, and may be naive but it would greatly surprise me if the BATF and courts would convict someone for just having a worn out gun.
----------------
Re this, a couple of points, if I may.
1. It isn't the courts that convict anyone, that was the doings of the trial jury, and re that, given the past antics of BATFE, I'm given to wonder as to the quality of information they had. Also, the quality of defense counsel might come into question, but I wasn't there, at the trial.
2. As for the antics of BATFE, may I refer your attention to the following U.S. V. John Glover and U.S. v. Michael Quan, both cases involving what were alleged to be "illegal machine guns". In Glover, the charges were dismissed, with prejudice. Quan was, as I understand, acquitted. The above mentioned are just two cases, there are others. I wasn't at the rifle range either.
I thought the jury was part of the court but I guess I was wrong. I know the jury gets paid by the court and the judge instructs the jury. I have been on jury duty several times and was just wrong.
Since the charges were not dismissed in this case like in the Glover case and wasn't found innocent like in Quan I guess the BATFE is getting better with thier corruption.
Since the charges were not dismissed in this case like in the Glover case and wasn't found innocent like in Quan I guess the BATFE is getting better with thier corruption.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Equally as likely, if not more, that the guy was guilty
WildsuresoundslikeitAlaska ™
LoneStranger
New member
Alan, please find the copy of the indictment that I copied my info from at this address.
http://jpfo.org/pdf/olofson-indict.pdf
As you can see it is located at the jpfo website.
http://jpfo.org/pdf/olofson-indict.pdf
As you can see it is located at the jpfo website.
LoneStranger:
Thanks for the link.
Having read the indictment, I wonder as to what people who repeatedly asked about it expected to see therein?
Olofson has been convicted, which for the moment, settles things in this case. Appeals may be taken, which could change the entire thing around. Only time will answer that question.
Thanks for the link.
Having read the indictment, I wonder as to what people who repeatedly asked about it expected to see therein?
Olofson has been convicted, which for the moment, settles things in this case. Appeals may be taken, which could change the entire thing around. Only time will answer that question.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Therein were the charges. Now we are all on the same wavelegnth. Now the documents presented make sense.
WildhaveyouhuggedyourcolttodayAlaska TM
cloverleaf762
New member
Should be up on CNN in the next week or so on Lou Dobbs. and the Knox report is running an updated story shortly. It will also be available in shotgun news the 3rd week of February.
G. Gordon Liddy podcast that covers this case.
http://hosts.radioamerica.org/podcast/GGL/...17-01-08_H1.mp3
Articles
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/01/who-...ard-guards.html
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59650
http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/
JPFO Podcast
http://www.jpfo.org/media-sound/len-savage-01-10-08.mp3
JPFO Transcripts
http://www.jpfo.org/pdf/LenSavage011008.pdf
Link to the smoking gun in this case
www.nfaoa.org/documents/ATFmemoTaxInfo6103.pdf
"Except for section 6103 (o)(1), which authorizes the discloser of tax information to Federal Employee whose official duties require such information"
Would the Honorable Judge Clevert have proceeded if he found out that ATF at the same time, in another part of the country declared an AR-15 with M-16 parts [including bolt carrier] was NOT a machine gun, and was removed from the National Machine gun Registry?
I doubt it. I also doubt the jury would have bought the ATF fictional display on the stand if they had access to it. I also believe it would never have gone to court if they knew they had to disclose it and the jury would see it.
G. Gordon Liddy podcast that covers this case.
http://hosts.radioamerica.org/podcast/GGL/...17-01-08_H1.mp3
Articles
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/01/who-...ard-guards.html
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59650
http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/
JPFO Podcast
http://www.jpfo.org/media-sound/len-savage-01-10-08.mp3
JPFO Transcripts
http://www.jpfo.org/pdf/LenSavage011008.pdf
Link to the smoking gun in this case
www.nfaoa.org/documents/ATFmemoTaxInfo6103.pdf
"Except for section 6103 (o)(1), which authorizes the discloser of tax information to Federal Employee whose official duties require such information"
Would the Honorable Judge Clevert have proceeded if he found out that ATF at the same time, in another part of the country declared an AR-15 with M-16 parts [including bolt carrier] was NOT a machine gun, and was removed from the National Machine gun Registry?
I doubt it. I also doubt the jury would have bought the ATF fictional display on the stand if they had access to it. I also believe it would never have gone to court if they knew they had to disclose it and the jury would see it.
cloverleaf762
New member
I'm sure plenty will happen when the time is right. Until they are affected adversely by their unlawful actions they will continue to behave the same way they have since their inception. Same applies to all criminals.
cloverleaf762
New member
Heard the transcrips got released today. Ought to be interesting when we can see them posted.
Yellowfin writes:
Question is what do we do about them?
----------------------------
Assuming that he means re "them" the BATFE, as they are currently known, I submit that it is much more a case of when, if ever, our congress critters (House and Senate) are going to pull up their socks and exercise the oversight responsibility re the antics of their misbegotten children that is vested in/with them? Meanwhile, about all "we" can do is, as I see it, possibly the following.
1. Keep pounding away at our elected things, in the hope that they will, at some point in the future, exercise the above mentioned oversight responsibility and control they have over bureaucratic agencies such as, but not limited to the BATFE.
2. Possibly hope that we, in the passage of time, are possibly seated on trial juries, though I believe that the last mentioned has small chance of happening.
By the way, for any interested in seeing the indictment, who have not already seen same, post #45 includes a link to this document. It's actually quite short.
Question is what do we do about them?
----------------------------
Assuming that he means re "them" the BATFE, as they are currently known, I submit that it is much more a case of when, if ever, our congress critters (House and Senate) are going to pull up their socks and exercise the oversight responsibility re the antics of their misbegotten children that is vested in/with them? Meanwhile, about all "we" can do is, as I see it, possibly the following.
1. Keep pounding away at our elected things, in the hope that they will, at some point in the future, exercise the above mentioned oversight responsibility and control they have over bureaucratic agencies such as, but not limited to the BATFE.
2. Possibly hope that we, in the passage of time, are possibly seated on trial juries, though I believe that the last mentioned has small chance of happening.
By the way, for any interested in seeing the indictment, who have not already seen same, post #45 includes a link to this document. It's actually quite short.
cloverleaf762 writes:
Heard the transcrips got released today. Ought to be interesting when we can see them posted.
If anyone comes upon said transcrpit, they could possibly post a link. Might make interesting reading. Meanwhile, I wonder as to what if anything is ongoing re an appeal?
Heard the transcrips got released today. Ought to be interesting when we can see them posted.
If anyone comes upon said transcrpit, they could possibly post a link. Might make interesting reading. Meanwhile, I wonder as to what if anything is ongoing re an appeal?
BerettaCougar
New member
Okay so a moron ilegally renders a weapon FA. What's the big fuss?
This moron I went to school with was in the Army for 6 years. He buys a full auto AR-15 off the streets. A few weeks later he gets into a fight with his girlfriend, she hits him and makes him bleed, he calls the cops. The cops show up and see his gun laying on the bed. He told them he had it there incase she came back with her brothers. The cops see the switch is moved beyond than FIRE. He's still in jail for another 7 years. I currently work with his cousin.
BerettaIWishWildAlaskahadaP99for500shippedCougar
This moron I went to school with was in the Army for 6 years. He buys a full auto AR-15 off the streets. A few weeks later he gets into a fight with his girlfriend, she hits him and makes him bleed, he calls the cops. The cops show up and see his gun laying on the bed. He told them he had it there incase she came back with her brothers. The cops see the switch is moved beyond than FIRE. He's still in jail for another 7 years. I currently work with his cousin.
BerettaIWishWildAlaskahadaP99for500shippedCougar
cloverleaf762
New member
You should jump on arfcom and read the thread. He didn’t render it a FA. It just so happened to be made from the Olympic arms factory with a few M16 parts. When it malfunctioned while in the hands of another they went after him for illegal transfer. Government never claimed he converted it, but they did claim a malfunction still makes it a MG. Same for double barrel shotguns if both barrels go off with one pull of the trigger.
If I may repeat a point I made or tried to make earlier re this case. What with all the seeming LOOSE ENDS, to use a polite phrase, in and with this case, I find myself ever more curious as to the results of what I certainly hope are appeals that will be taken from the trial jury's verdict.
By the way, has anyone seen the trial transcript, earlier mentioned?
By the way, has anyone seen the trial transcript, earlier mentioned?
cloverleaf762
New member
I have seen a partial transcript of the expert witness testimony from the defense. The AUSA repeatedly tries to quiet the defense down though the judge claiming even a malfunctioning gun is a MG. Judge doesn’t fall for it. Expert claims it is a factory gun that is malfunctioning. The government is really harsh on the expert over many things. It is best read individually. I'm sure the owners will post it publicly soon.
cloverleaf762
New member
From another post. Thought it was interesting. Made me wonder if the guns were really converted or if the ATF was just trying another wild BS claim about the weapons. Although if he had a still they will most likely have him.
Quote:
League City man is held on moonshine, arms counts
Authorities discover stills, confiscate two Tommy guns
By HARVEY RICE
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
GALVESTON — A League City man was charged in federal court Friday with operating two moonshine stills and possessing four automatic weapons, including two Tommy guns.
The five-count indictment against Chris Coulter Hinkley, 54, was read to him by U.S. Magistrate Judge John Froeschner.
Hinkley is charged with two counts of distilling spirits at a dwelling and three counts of possessing an unregistered firearm.
An Aug. 3 raid by federal and state agents and League City police on Hinkley's home discovered a still, boiler and equipment for making moonshine, according to the indictment.
Authorities also confiscated an Olympic Arms Commando model .223-caliber machine gun; a DoubleStar, Star-15 .223-caliber machine gun, and two 1928-type Thompson .45-caliber machine guns, the indictment said.
Hinkley was indicted by a federal grand jury Jan. 23 and arrested at his home Thursday, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Hinkley is represented by the Federal Public Defender's Office.
His attorney could not be reached for comment late Friday.
I saw this in the newspaper yesterday. It makes me wonder if they are using the "if it looks like a duck, it must be a duck" test.
Quote:
League City man is held on moonshine, arms counts
Authorities discover stills, confiscate two Tommy guns
By HARVEY RICE
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
GALVESTON — A League City man was charged in federal court Friday with operating two moonshine stills and possessing four automatic weapons, including two Tommy guns.
The five-count indictment against Chris Coulter Hinkley, 54, was read to him by U.S. Magistrate Judge John Froeschner.
Hinkley is charged with two counts of distilling spirits at a dwelling and three counts of possessing an unregistered firearm.
An Aug. 3 raid by federal and state agents and League City police on Hinkley's home discovered a still, boiler and equipment for making moonshine, according to the indictment.
Authorities also confiscated an Olympic Arms Commando model .223-caliber machine gun; a DoubleStar, Star-15 .223-caliber machine gun, and two 1928-type Thompson .45-caliber machine guns, the indictment said.
Hinkley was indicted by a federal grand jury Jan. 23 and arrested at his home Thursday, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Hinkley is represented by the Federal Public Defender's Office.
His attorney could not be reached for comment late Friday.
I saw this in the newspaper yesterday. It makes me wonder if they are using the "if it looks like a duck, it must be a duck" test.
cloverleaf762
New member
Quote from AR15.com:
Well, I got emailed the transcript w/ Mr. Savage's testimony. I won't copy it all here; it's way too long. I did love this excerpt though, which occurred during a "sidebar" (Mr. Haanstad is the prosecutor, Mr. Fahl is the defense attorney):
Begin Excerpt
MR. HAANSTAD: (Interrupting) First of all, I'm not
sure if I understand why that's relevant, the hammer follow. I
mean, there's no indication that that's what was going on with
respect to this particular gun. And there's no indication that
it makes any difference under the statute. If you pull the
trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what
the cause it's a machine gun.
MR. FAHL: And that's where I think we have some
issues. The Staples case, footnote one Justice Thomas said you
have to -- you know, it has to go without stopping -- until then
-- and that was adopted by the 7th Circuit.
And under that jury instruction, if that one goes
through, you know, we'll have an issue about the hammer follow
and what happened with the three rounds and then stopping.
It definitely will go to knowledge.
MR. HAANSTAD: I kind of wonder if we should resolve
that before we sort of risk confusing the jury on an issue
that's not going to be of any significance in the case.
I mean, I've read Staples and I'm familiar with
footnote 1.
End Excerpt
For those of you who don't understand the significance, the USSC's Decision in Staples, Footnote 1 basically states that a malfunctioning semi-auto is not a machine gun; Haanstad is stating otherwise in court
Well, I got emailed the transcript w/ Mr. Savage's testimony. I won't copy it all here; it's way too long. I did love this excerpt though, which occurred during a "sidebar" (Mr. Haanstad is the prosecutor, Mr. Fahl is the defense attorney):
Begin Excerpt
MR. HAANSTAD: (Interrupting) First of all, I'm not
sure if I understand why that's relevant, the hammer follow. I
mean, there's no indication that that's what was going on with
respect to this particular gun. And there's no indication that
it makes any difference under the statute. If you pull the
trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what
the cause it's a machine gun.
MR. FAHL: And that's where I think we have some
issues. The Staples case, footnote one Justice Thomas said you
have to -- you know, it has to go without stopping -- until then
-- and that was adopted by the 7th Circuit.
And under that jury instruction, if that one goes
through, you know, we'll have an issue about the hammer follow
and what happened with the three rounds and then stopping.
It definitely will go to knowledge.
MR. HAANSTAD: I kind of wonder if we should resolve
that before we sort of risk confusing the jury on an issue
that's not going to be of any significance in the case.
I mean, I've read Staples and I'm familiar with
footnote 1.
End Excerpt
For those of you who don't understand the significance, the USSC's Decision in Staples, Footnote 1 basically states that a malfunctioning semi-auto is not a machine gun; Haanstad is stating otherwise in court