The Olofson Case - Merged Threads - Page 9

Sturmgewehre · March 20, 2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

However, his consistent failure to follow the law, especially when its gun related, does dispute the idea that he had no intent to alter his weapon.

It does??? So, following your rationale then those same actions "dispute" the "idea" that he had intent to murder someone too. So, as I said, let's charge him with an unsolved murder. He obviously likes guns, he's used them in a crime before, this therefore "disputes" the idea he's not a murderer.

You say having been guilty of one crime doesn't mean you're automatically guilty of another, then you turn right around and say his commission of other crimes "dispute the idea that he had no intent to alter his weapon." That, my friend, is a contradiction.

DENALI · March 20, 2008, 02:46 PM

You're forgetting something, the USA does not, and did not have to prove he modified the AR, just that he was in possession of it! As to his long rap sheet, if it was allowed, and I see no reason it shouldn't have been, it more then demonstrates a scofflaw!

Sturmgewehre · March 20, 2008, 03:13 PM

Quote:

You're forgetting something, the USA does not, and did not have to prove he modified the AR, just that he was in possession of it!

They didn't charge him with possession, they charged him with transferring an unregistered machinegun.

DENALI · March 20, 2008, 03:30 PM

I stand corrected, same result, felony conviction. His past came back to haunt him...

STAGE 2 · March 20, 2008, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Do you know if this was allowed as evidence in his trial?

I have no earthly idea. However if you are going to play the "evil ATF" card, then we get to delve into this guys past, whether its admissible or not.

Quote:

It does??? So, following your rationale then those same actions "dispute" the "idea" that he had intent to murder someone too. So, as I said, let's charge him with an unsolved murder. He obviously likes guns, he's used them in a crime before, this therefore "disputes" the idea he's not a murderer.

Nope. Not analogous at all. There is a world of difference between murder (malum in se) versus machine gun laws/CCW violations (malum prohibitum.

Quote:

You say having been guilty of one crime doesn't mean you're automatically guilty of another, then you turn right around and say his commission of other crimes "dispute the idea that he had no intent to alter his weapon." That, my friend, is a contradiction.

No its not. Intent is but one element. You need to prove several other elements to convict someone of any particular crime.

His past violations of the law (and 18 is ridiculous) show at best a cavalier attitude and at worst a direct intent not to follow the law. So when he gets up on the stand and says "I would never knowingly transfer a machine gun" its questionable at best.

alan · March 20, 2008, 04:23 PM

If, as was mentioned in some posts, Olofson is/was a convicted felon, then the simple fact of his possession of ANY firearm and or ammunition would be a violation is existing federal law. Correct me if I'm wrong.

How come, I wonder, if the foregoing was the case, didn't the BATFE bring charges under the above specification, as there was zero need to become involved with/in/or about machineguns, registered or otherwise, as opposed to the possibility of malfunctioning semi-automatic rifles?

Sturmgewehre · March 20, 2008, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Nope. Not analogous at all. There is a world of difference between murder (malum in se) versus machine gun laws/CCW violations (malum prohibitum.

I disagree. For the sake of this argument a crime is a crime, regardless if you think one is "evil" and the other is just plain old wrong due to statue. But I'll amend my analogy.

So, let's substitute murder with drug dealing. If a guy will, say, carry a concealed weapon without a license then it stands to reason he would also manufacture Meth and distribute it.

Your second attempt is better, but still not quite accurate. It still assumes that if he committed one crime he therefore must have committed the other.

...and no, such evidence should not be allowed into court as it has absolutely no relevance to the case. None. Had he been arrested for an illegal suppressor, a previous machinegun charge, selling an illegal weapon, then his criminal history would have been relevant. But a misdemeanor charge of carrying a concealed weapon is not in the same league as manufacturing and transferring an illegal weapon.

Under Wisconsin Statutes Section 941.23, carrying a concealed weapon is a Class A misdemeanor. Transferring an illegal machinegun is a felony. Are you suggesting that because I've been charged and convicted of misdemeanors before (traffic violations) that I'm somehow more inclined to manufacture and transfer an illegal weapon? If I were brought up on such charges, would my driving record prove anything in court? Would it even be allowed in court? No.

DENALI · March 20, 2008, 07:41 PM

I can't believe Dobb's producers didn't hook up with this this guy's rap sheet. It just seems sort of mysterious that they would just gloss over it, for whatever reason's. Not being an attorney I can only speculate, but I have to think that if this fellow had had a greatly reduced sheet the USAO would never have gone after him so zealously, they wanted this guy!

Sturmgewehre · March 20, 2008, 07:50 PM

Why do you keep repeating that?

Do you think because he didn't pay a tax bill or didn't make a credit card payment, or that because he got charged with a misdemeanor that he's somehow guilty of transferring a machinegun based solely on that "evidence"?

Sorry, that's just plain ridiculous.

The guys "record" is pretty mundane. Having judgments against you in civil court for not paying a bill isn't a "record". Being charged with a misdemeanor concealed weapons charge isn't much of a criminal record.

There's a guy working in our local gun store who was charged with a misdemeanor concealed weapons charge a few years ago. His license expired and he got stopped. The way he saw it, as do most people around here, it's no big deal.

Why, as gun owners, are you all of a sudden offended by a person carrying a firearm, legal or not... especially in a state where it's nothing more than a misdemeanor? Do you get equally wound up when a friend for family member breaks the speed limit by 15+mph? Do you scream "CRIMINAL!!!!" and demand their driving record be brought up at every gathering of friends or family?

Some of you guys are gossipy old ladies... I swear.

Sturmgewehre · March 20, 2008, 08:11 PM

One of the motions filed by his attorney's. This gives you some insight into the case.

Wildalaska · March 20, 2008, 10:48 PM

Excellent motion!

WildwelldoneAlaska TM

ISC · March 31, 2008, 02:35 AM

Olafsen got screwed, plain and simple, and the spectacle of so many people jumping on the bandwagon to attack him and assume he was guilty is one of the most distasteful things I've seen in the firearms community in a long time. Shame on you and God help you if you ever have a weapon that malfunctions with the wrong ammo.

STAGE 2 · March 31, 2008, 12:08 PM

Quote:

and the spectacle of so many people jumping on the bandwagon to attack him and assume he was guilty is one of the most distasteful things I've seen in the firearms community in a long time

Who is assuming. A jury of his peers convicted him.

Yellowfin · March 31, 2008, 12:15 PM

I find it interesting that nobody mentions that the word "peer" has different meaning today then it did when it was written, and that its original intent is nearly never followed today.

Wildalaska · March 31, 2008, 12:42 PM

Quote:

I find it interesting that nobody mentions that the word "peer" has different meaning today then it did when it was written, and that its original intent is nearly never followed today.

Tell me how.

WildinanetfrenzyAlaska TM

TEDDY · March 31, 2008, 01:42 PM

one thing, if a charge is filed and a conviction takes place it becomes a president and the next judge can use it as reason to convict.that is why even hard core criminals should be found innocent if the law is wrong.was this man guilty in any of the cases before or were they just charges.have you ever had a gun repeat.bingo your guilty.before the 60s judges ruled the gun had to fire full auto or it was not a mg.even a belt fed browning was not a mg unless it would fire full.then they made the receiver a mg now a part such as a sear is a machine gun.good luck to you,I stick to bolt guns.you all have your necks out if you have a AR 15/AK47 type,or anthing that shoots semi auto.
your safer with no jury now adays.as so many are brain washed to be anti gun.and the attitude of "he must be guilty or he would not be charged"
well when Obama or Hillary gets in you wont have to worry.

-

STAGE 2 · March 31, 2008, 02:23 PM

Quote:

ne thing, if a charge is filed and a conviction takes place it becomes a president and the next judge can use it as reason to convict

I love it. Even in this thread, its Bush's fault

nobody_special · March 31, 2008, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Excellent motion!

WildwelldoneAlaska TM

WA, are you being serious or sarcastic here?

Wildalaska · March 31, 2008, 05:01 PM

Im serious, its well written and creative.

WilddontthinkitwillwinbutwelldoneAlaska ™

ISC · March 31, 2008, 10:50 PM

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.

I have several speeding tickets and had my driver's license suspended after I forgot to pay a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. Does my criminal past mean that any charge made against me is more likely to be true?

Absolutely disgusting. We don't have to worry about the anti gun crowd taking our guns away, all they have to do is fabricate some trumped up charges and members of our own community will hand them over.

DonR101395 · March 31, 2008, 10:57 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

STAGE 2 · March 31, 2008, 11:11 PM

Quote:

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.

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

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.

Wildalaska · March 31, 2008, 11:12 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

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

WildgodhelpusAlaska TM

ISC · April 1, 2008, 12:08 PM

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?

Wildalaska · April 1, 2008, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Its all in this thread here:

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:

March 20, 2008, 07:50 PM	#209
Sturmgewehre Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2006 Location: Indiana Posts: 4,212	Why do you keep repeating that? Do you think because he didn't pay a tax bill or didn't make a credit card payment, or that because he got charged with a misdemeanor that he's somehow guilty of transferring a machinegun based solely on that "evidence"? Sorry, that's just plain ridiculous. The guys "record" is pretty mundane. Having judgments against you in civil court for not paying a bill isn't a "record". Being charged with a misdemeanor concealed weapons charge isn't much of a criminal record. There's a guy working in our local gun store who was charged with a misdemeanor concealed weapons charge a few years ago. His license expired and he got stopped. The way he saw it, as do most people around here, it's no big deal. Why, as gun owners, are you all of a sudden offended by a person carrying a firearm, legal or not... especially in a state where it's nothing more than a misdemeanor? Do you get equally wound up when a friend for family member breaks the speed limit by 15+mph? Do you scream "CRIMINAL!!!!" and demand their driving record be brought up at every gathering of friends or family? Some of you guys are gossipy old ladies... I swear. __________________ Visit my YouTube channel for reviews, tests and more. Ex Mea Sententia

March 20, 2008, 08:11 PM	#210
Sturmgewehre Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2006 Location: Indiana Posts: 4,212	One of the motions filed by his attorney's. This gives you some insight into the case. __________________ Visit my YouTube channel for reviews, tests and more. Ex Mea Sententia

March 31, 2008, 01:42 PM	#216
TEDDY Junior member Join Date: December 10, 2006 Location: MANNING SC Posts: 837	????? one thing, if a charge is filed and a conviction takes place it becomes a president and the next judge can use it as reason to convict.that is why even hard core criminals should be found innocent if the law is wrong.was this man guilty in any of the cases before or were they just charges.have you ever had a gun repeat.bingo your guilty.before the 60s judges ruled the gun had to fire full auto or it was not a mg.even a belt fed browning was not a mg unless it would fire full.then they made the receiver a mg now a part such as a sear is a machine gun.good luck to you,I stick to bolt guns.you all have your necks out if you have a AR 15/AK47 type,or anthing that shoots semi auto. your safer with no jury now adays.as so many are brain washed to be anti gun.and the attitude of "he must be guilty or he would not be charged" well when Obama or Hillary gets in you wont have to worry.--

March 20, 2008, 02:46 PM	#202
DENALI Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2008 Location: Northwestern WI Posts: 103	You're forgetting something, the USA does not, and did not have to prove he modified the AR, just that he was in possession of it! As to his long rap sheet, if it was allowed, and I see no reason it shouldn't have been, it more then demonstrates a scofflaw!

March 20, 2008, 03:30 PM	#204
DENALI Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2008 Location: Northwestern WI Posts: 103	I stand corrected, same result, felony conviction. His past came back to haunt him...

March 20, 2008, 04:23 PM	#206
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,847	If, as was mentioned in some posts, Olofson is/was a convicted felon, then the simple fact of his possession of ANY firearm and or ammunition would be a violation is existing federal law. Correct me if I'm wrong. How come, I wonder, if the foregoing was the case, didn't the BATFE bring charges under the above specification, as there was zero need to become involved with/in/or about machineguns, registered or otherwise, as opposed to the possibility of malfunctioning semi-automatic rifles?

March 20, 2008, 07:41 PM	#208
DENALI Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2008 Location: Northwestern WI Posts: 103	I can't believe Dobb's producers didn't hook up with this this guy's rap sheet. It just seems sort of mysterious that they would just gloss over it, for whatever reason's. Not being an attorney I can only speculate, but I have to think that if this fellow had had a greatly reduced sheet the USAO would never have gone after him so zealously, they wanted this guy!

March 20, 2008, 10:48 PM	#211
Wildalaska Junior member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 14,172	Excellent motion! WildwelldoneAlaska TM

March 31, 2008, 02:35 AM	#212
ISC Junior member Join Date: August 5, 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 1,982	Olafsen got screwed, plain and simple, and the spectacle of so many people jumping on the bandwagon to attack him and assume he was guilty is one of the most distasteful things I've seen in the firearms community in a long time. Shame on you and God help you if you ever have a weapon that malfunctions with the wrong ammo.

March 31, 2008, 12:15 PM	#214
Yellowfin Senior Member Join Date: January 7, 2007 Location: Lancaster Co, PA Posts: 2,311	I find it interesting that nobody mentions that the word "peer" has different meaning today then it did when it was written, and that its original intent is nearly never followed today.

March 31, 2008, 05:01 PM	#219
Wildalaska Junior member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 14,172	Im serious, its well written and creative. WilddontthinkitwillwinbutwelldoneAlaska ™

March 31, 2008, 10:50 PM	#220
ISC Junior member Join Date: August 5, 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 1,982	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. I have several speeding tickets and had my driver's license suspended after I forgot to pay a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. Does my criminal past mean that any charge made against me is more likely to be true? Absolutely disgusting. We don't have to worry about the anti gun crowd taking our guns away, all they have to do is fabricate some trumped up charges and members of our own community will hand them over.

April 1, 2008, 12:08 PM	#224
ISC Junior member Join Date: August 5, 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 1,982	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?