imported post
These are the links I have. Also included are a few excerpts from some of the forums I talk on. Just for those who don't already visit some of the dozen or so forums I hang out on.
http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/
Bladerunner,
Apparently the prosecution's "star" witness now claims to be a
Sgt. in the U.S. Army.
You think he fired expert on machinegun?
Next artical.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59650
http://www.jpfo.org/alerts02/alert20080116.htm
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/01/who-shall-guard-guards.html
http://hosts.radioamerica.org/podcast/GGL/audio/Liddy_thu_17-01-08_H1.mp3
G. Gordon Liddy podcast that covers my case.
Ok. This is about as close to a smoking gun as you are ever likely to find in a case such as this. It is what myself and others would call proof that the ATF, through the AUSA willfully purgered themselves in, and dishonored the court in this case. That being they told the judge he could not view ANY of the documents we requested. As this document from the ATF chief counsels office shows not only should ALL of the documents been given to the judge, but all but one should have been given to the defense. The last one could have been disclosed by the judge after he had it with the removal of just a few bits of information. Excerpt is below. Whole document is available by following the link. Everything you never wanted to know about a section 6103 tax argument. The excerpt is from page 14 near the center and underlined. You all wanted proof of criminal and prosecutorial misconduct for a long time; here it is in black and white. Anyone still think the government is on the level with you on this?
http://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.
More to come.
http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=192&Itemid=37#usercomments
New article from Jeff Knox. A shortened version of this will be running both in the shotgun news and in some other firearm periodicals.
I wonder if this was agent Kookee from this case….?
http://www.fdlreporter.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080207/FON0101/80207020
Posted February 7, 2008
ATF agent leaves gun in bathroom at Milwaukee airport
The Associated Press
MILWAUKEE — A special agent returning to Mitchell International Airport left her firearm in a bathroom there Tuesday night, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said.
The special agent immediately alerted authorities when she realized she left her weapon, assistant special agent in charge Guy Thomas said Wednesday. He said it was either recovered by local authorities or a civilian.
Thomas said he didn’t know how long the weapon was left in the bathroom but said the situation ended quickly.
“The important thing here is that the firearm is in the appropriate control,” he said.
The incident is being investigated by the ATF, which is standard procedure, said Thomas, who is based in St. Paul, Minn.
He wouldn’t provide details about the Milwaukee-based agent, such as how long she had been with the bureau.
“It’s a sensitive situation as you can imagine,” he said. “The agent is embarrassed.”
She has not been suspended or placed on leave, Thomas said. He could not say what the outcome of the investigation would be.
The agent was returning home from a long detail assignment and there was some question as to whether she was fatigued, Thomas said.
He said he believed the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department investigated the matter Tuesday night and determined that the agent did not leave her firearm on purpose.
The sheriff’s department referred questions on the matter to the ATF.
Looks like Mr. Savage picked up on this report.
Link to original article about the ATF agent forgetting her gun in the airport bathroom.
http://www.fdlreporter.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...ON0101/80207020
Link to article that was posted today.
Titled ” If the ATF shoe were on the other foot....”
http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/2008/02/if-atf-shoe-were-on-other-foot.html
Looks like we have a few more articals out there.
[url]http://jerrythegeek.blogspot.com/2008/01/reds-trading-post-len-savage-duck.html[/url]
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=55908
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.
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.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2008/03/13/ldt.tucker.govt.guns.cnn
Link to part one.
Part 2:
www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/03/14/tucker.government.guns.part.2.cnn
[align=center]JPFO Film Footage of BATFE Criminality on CNN.
[/align]
The old expression, you can run but you can't hide is so true, especially when the camera never blinks. On March 14th and 15th the Lou Dobbs show discussed the Olofson case, using film footage from "The Gang" documentary to expose the phony testing procedures of the BATFE, that are being used to send innocent gun owners to prison.
Here are the links to both broadcasts .....
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2008/03/13/ldt.tucker.govt.guns.cnn
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/03/14/tucker.government.guns.part.2.cnn?iref=videosearch
We encourage you to join the national movement to abolish the BATFE. Get a copy of "The Gang", show it to everyone you know and save our Second Amendment today.
The Gang order page ...
http://shop.jpfo.org/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=84
