7th Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Right to a Fair Gunfight, if not a Fair Trial. A TRIUMPH OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE IN THE AGE OF OBAMA!
7TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECLARES YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND APPEALS PROCESS.
HOWEVER, YOU STILL HAVE A RIGHT TO A FAIR SHOOTOUT SHOULD YOU NOT WISH TO BE RAILROADED!
David Codrea reports:
David R. Olofson's conviction "for knowingly transferring a machinegun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)" has been upheld.
Gun Rights Examiner has the story, including a downloadable copy of the decision.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m5d4-Olofson-Machine-Gun-Transfer-Conviction-Upheld
This is bitter medicine for David Olofson and his family and no comfort to the rest of us potential victims of federal excess. However, the Sipsey Street Legal Advisor's analysis of this sorry case points out that even in the absence of a hint of the possibility of a fair trial, you are still entitled to a fair shootout should you not wish to be railroaded on bogus charges without possibility of legal remedy.
Something to think about. I wonder if the 7th Circuit thought about that unintended consequence? You can bet your ass that from here on out every ATF raid party member with half a brain will be thinking about it.
Miranda in the light of Olofson:
You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Not that it will do you any good. Do you understand?
Anything you do say, or we say you say if we have more witnesses than you, will be used against you in a court of law, if we think we can get away with it. Do you understand?
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. You will not have a chance to challenge our lack of standards or scientific method in our lab results and your expert witness will not be allowed to witness anything if we can help it. Do you understand?
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish, not that the sorry bastard will be worth anything or even be quick-witted enough when we deny him exculpatory material because we claim it is tax information. Do you understand?
If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney, unless we can scare you by threatening your wife and kids, or find some way to wheedle it out of her at the scene. Do you understand?
Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present? Because, remember it won't matter anyway, for your ass is ours. If the facts don't fit our case against you we will trim them. If the lab results come back showing your innocence, we will redo them until they agree with our preconception. If the US Attorney discovers we've messed up, he will ignore it. And if the Appeals Court even sees your case, they will be loathe to overturn it. We do all this to keep our system well-stocked with blackmailed snitches. Do you understand?
17 comments:
Anything you say can and will be used AGAINST you and absolutely nothing FOR you.
Sage advice from a law professor concerning the 5th Amendment, Part IAnd Part II
Um, yeah: choosing the shootout over the railroading is clearly the practical and pragmatic choice here.
Unless you're still in high school somewhere in Pennsylvania....
Not completely unexpected,but this is how we are dealt with now.
CIII
Here's a question: who reported the malfunction to authorities in the first place?
Makes me wary of going to the range if I see anyone there I don't personally know.
I just feel things rushing faster and faster towards the denouement. With Specter and Franken giving the Democrats a filibuster-proof senate, things will be accelerating in the coming months. Things will not get better unless they get much, much worse first. This includes the police-state we live in.
Keep your powder dry.
If you haven't yet, read "In the Spirit of Crazy Horse". This is the story of the killings of two FBI agents on the Pine ridge Reservation in the early 1970's and the FBI's framing of Leonard Peltier. Olofson ain't the only political prisoner in the US, nor is he the only one that was framed. By the evidence so far, a fair gun fight is a far better means of addressing the situation that trusting the courts.
If you haven't, read "In the Spirit of Crazy Horse". It is the story of the killing of two FBI agents on Pine Ridge Reservation, and their subsequent prosecuetion of Leonard Peltier. Olofson isn't the only political prisoner in the US, nor is he the only one framed. Framing seems to be the tactic the government uses when it needs to set an example but is unable to find real eveidence to support their position. That they resort to framing someone is an interesting admission on their part that the Constitution still holds enough sway in the courts and amoung the people that they feel they must get convictions rather than simply making the subjects disappear.
Considering Ruby Ridge and Waco and the events recorded in "In the Spirit of Crazy Horse" and Mr. Olofson's experience, a fair gun fight at least offers the satisfaction of making them give blood for the blood they would take.
Will you allow yourself to be arrested? It's making less and less sense to do so as time goes on, thanks to court cases like this one. Good cops had better be circumspect about what they decide to bother people about. Or quit and find some honest work...
"Everything we make you confess is true... WE MAKE IT TRUE"
-O'Brien to Winston Smith
"1984"
This nightmare is coming true before our eyes.
Anonymous said...
Here's a question: who reported the malfunction to authorities in the first place?
Makes me wary of going to the range if I see anyone there I don't personally know.
May 4, 2009 3:09 PM
I read the actual .pdf document and here's what it says: "Police received a telephone complaint of
automatic gunfire at the shooting range." (pg 3).
I don't know the laws in Wisconsin, but automatic fire isn't illegal where I live (in one of the neighboring states). I've gone to the range with my semi-auto firearms and done double- and triple-tap 'bursts', but haven't attracted any LE attention. My range has a '3-round burst max' rule so it even allows automatic weapons.
But, the fact that people called to complain about automatic fire coming from the RANGE says a lot about those people, and about the cops.
Ok, I just looked up the laws, and class-3 firearms are allowed in Wisconsin with all the regular BATFE processes. So, in a state that allows automatic weapons, someone either at the gun range or someone living nearby called the police to report automatic fire FROM the gun range, and the cops actually responded? Wow. I've been pissed off for a very long time about this, but this is making me physically sick. I may be developing an ulcer.
A fair shootout, to the government, is one in which one side decides time and place, number of shooters and types of weapons, with the option to target the opponent's six o'clock with the opening volley from cover.
Or am I being too harsh, Mr. Horiuchi?
Does anyone know where he is being held?
Why don't some Liberty minded folks do something about that?
've read the judges opinion and had a night's sleep on it. Here's my read and I'm not a lawyer or have any claim to be a legal pro. What I see from the judges side is a willingness to take one part of this case and hang the conviction on the defendant and totally look the other way on many issues that would have likely had the jury find the defendant not guilty.
When the lawyers for the DOJ can withhold information that would show the defendant didn't commit a crime and say the information was private taxing information when it was clearly needed information by the defendants lawyers, is criminal in itself. This is only one such part of the case the appeals judges over looked and I believe it was done with full intent.
What the judges did was take a part of the case where the government's witness stated that the position of the safety/fire switch could be placed in a position that would allow it to misfire. Is it now a felony to own and keep a firearm that is legal but has a miss-function? If you have a gun that functions incorrectly but is not designed or was never intended to function as a full auto but does misfire. Is there any grace period to get it fixed? If so what is a fair amount of time, once the gun's owner knows the gun has a problem? Should the gun be broken down into pieces until it can be shipped that way to a gunsmith or the manufacture that built it. Does the ATF/government have a demand on them to tell people that they have a gun that was in a recall and need to break it down so it can not be fired until its fixed. That's the kicker in this case. Once government knew this firearm was in a recall for the very problem it was having. Should the government told the defendant that you need to break this firearm down and send it back to Olympic to be fixed in the recall. If you do not do that and we hear or see this firearm being put in use we can take it from you and file X charges against you. Is it not the government's job to serve the people? Seemingly this case makes it clear that government is not there to serve the people but to convict citizens by splitting hairs for some kind of political agenda.
Clearly this case sends shock waves throughout the citizen population because it shows government's willingness to not serve the people but to wedge itself as a master over the people. This is a very dark day for Americans and their freedoms and Constitutional rights because the government just told us we are their servants.
Mike,
Why are we still not shooting?
I know you've said no Ft. Sumters and that we would know when the time had come by one action.
Why is this not it?
Remember the scout sniper who said he would get 100 for you?
How is Mr Olofson less of a canary in the shaft than you?
The ATF has proven in this case and the ongoing crap with Mr Savage that they have no interest in objectivity. WHATEVER they want to deem full-auto will be. They will do whatever is necessary to make it so.
Why do we allow them to RULE over us when they have no interest in being answerable to us?
"Ok, I just looked up the laws, and class-3 firearms are allowed in Wisconsin with all the regular BATFE processes. So, in a state that allows automatic weapons, someone either at the gun range or someone living nearby called the police to report automatic fire FROM the gun range, and the cops actually responded? Wow. I've been pissed off for a very long time about this, but this is making me physically sick. I may be developing an ulcer."
Thanks to the media demonization automatic fire is assumed by the general populance to be illegal.
Semi-auto will be next followed by gunfire at all.
Thankfully I live somewhere I can shoot in my backyard and no one really cares. Most of my neighbors do it too.
I'd like to know if Olafson is going to, or even can (due to procedure rules) appeal to the Supreme Court? If there is such a blatant case of injustice, of ignoring the rules by the prosecution (and it surely seems that there has been), then the USSC is the place to finally put a stop to this garbage.
There seems to be a distinct and purposeful ignoring of the unintended consequences of individual cases. Someday, someone is going to do some very nasty things because they will KNOW that there is absolutely no justice, no possibility of a fair hearing. Cases like this accelerate the time frame of such a backlash.
the problem with a gunfight rather than a fair trial is one has to know they are coming.
Post a Comment