Olofson’s Court Documents 5-13-08

For those of you having problems reading this text, please place your cursor over the text and hold down the control key on your keyboard, (CTRL), and with the wheel of your mouse, roll the wheel towards yourself. This will increase the text size.

I found these on a site as I was looking for news on David Olofson. I don’t know if anyone has seen these, or if you are interested, I’ll update you with more information as I find it or get it. I wish I was in Wisconsin right now so I could be there to support David Olofson! I know those who are there will be supporting him today.

K.new information for everyone. More to come before the 8th.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 06-CR-320
DAVID R. OLOFSON,
Defendant.

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE
DAVID R. OLOFSON, by counsel, submits this memorandum in support
of his motion for the disclosure of evidence.

I. Background.
Olofson had previously requested disclosure of the SGW letter from the government on September 25 and December 10, 2007. The government refused to turn over the SGW letter. Accordingly, Olofson filed a motion to compel its disclosure, along with other documents not relevant here, on December 28, 2007. At the final pretrial conference on January 3, 2008, the Court refrained from making any decision regarding the SGW letter until it heard back from the government as to whether a SGW letter actually existed.

On January 7, 2008, the morning of Olofson’s trial, the Court inquired of the government as to the existence of a SGW letter. The government asserted that a SGW letter exists, but that it did not believe that the SGW letter was discoverable because, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), it contained privileged tax return information and was therefore protected under 26 U.S.C. § 6103. Moreover, the government contended that in any event the SGW letter was not exculpatory. Based upon the BATF’s representations, which were made through the government that the SGW letter contained return information, the Court denied Olofson’s motion to compel its disclosure. Olofson proceeded to trial and was found guilty of transferring a machine gun by a jury on January 8, 2008.

II. Argument.
Any correspondence from the BATF to SGW/Olympic Arms regarding the use of M-16 parts in its AR-15 rifles is not privileged return information as that term is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 6103 and is therefore discoverable. Moreover, the SGW letter is discoverable because it directly contradicts the government’s theory during the pendency of this case that because Olofson’s AR-15 contained the following M-16 parts, it qualified as a machine gun: a M-16 trigger, hammer,

1Olofson has never seen a copy of the SGW letter. The information regarding its contents comes from the recollection of Bob Schuetzen, owner of SGW/Olympic Arms. Schuetzen’s original letter from the BATF was destroyed in a fire a number of years ago.

disconnector and selector. Accordingly, the SGW letter is material to the issue of guilt or innocence and is discoverable under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

A. Return Information.
For the purposes of 26 U.S.C. § 6103, a return is any tax or information return that is required by, or provided for, or permitted under Title 26, which is filed with the Secretary by, on behalf of, or with respect to any person. 26 U.S.C. § 6103(b)(1); Ryan v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms,715 F.2d 644, 646 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “A ‘tax return’ is a return filed by the person liable for the tax to which the return information relates.” Ryan, 715 F.2d at 647, FN4. Return information includes, among other things, a taxpayer’s identity, amount of his income, assets and liabilities if they are received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return. 26 U.S.C. § 6103(b)(2)(A); Ryan, 715 F.2d at 646. According to Ryan, the proper test to determine whether something is return information is to look to the formality of the document and the standardized requirement of its filing. Id. at 647.

Under the standard created by then Judge Scalia of the D.C. Circuit, the SGW letter is clearly not return information. The document(s) in question 1 were generated by the BATF and address BATF’s concern regarding SGW/Olympic Arm’s use of M-16 parts in its AR-15 rifles and malfunctions that may be occurring because of the use of M-16 internal parts; the documents were not filed by the taxpayer. Nor were the documents generated to protect or regulate revenue streams or assess liability regarding a particular taxpayer. Instead, the correspondence issued from the BATF in response to safety concerns about SGW/Olympic Arms AR-15 rifles. Because the SGW letter is not a return as defined in § 6103, the contents of the letter are not return information and are not protected from disclosure under the statute.

B. BATF Memorandum.
Not only does the BATF’s position mistake the controlling law with regard to the § 6103 privilege, but its own internal policy on the subject contradicts its position. Olofson has been made aware of an internal BATF memorandum that discusses the sort of information that the BATF collects that should be considered return information.

The BATF memorandum at issue is BATF memorandum number 22889, which is dated August 18, 1980.2 The memorandum discusses whether the information listed on NFA transfer cards is protected under 26 U.S.C. § 6103 in response to a request for disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The BATF memorandum opines that the only the name the transferee on the NFA transfer form is return information because the transferee may be subject to tax or liabilities based upon the transfer. All other information on the NFA transfer forms would be discoverable under the FOIA. Because the SGW letter does not discuss the transfer of firearm or registration of firearm under the NFA, under BATF policy, the SGW letter does not contain return information for the purposes of 26 U.S.C. § 6103 and it is discoverable under the statute. C. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

Through the entire pendency of this case, the government has maintained that it is the presence of internal M-16 parts in Olofson’s AR-15 that make it a machine gun. See, e.g., Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at 3 FN1, Docket No. 80. Upon information and belief, the SGW letter directly contradicts the government’s assertion regarding the four internal M-16 parts. As such, that information is material to the issue of guilt and is discoverable under Brady.

III. Conclusion.
WHEREFORE, David R. Olofson, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Court grant his motion to compel the disclosure of copy of any and all correspondence from the BATF to SGW/Olympic Arms or concerning SGW/Olympic Arms’ use of M-16 parts in the production of its AR-15 type weapons between 1980 and 1990, particularly the use of M-16 triggers, hammers, disconnectors and selectors.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 1, 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Brian T. Fahl
Brian T. Fahl, Wis. Bar #1043244
Counsel for Defendant

And these documents were also found on the same site… I found these both informative and fascinating to see just how much of a liar the BATFE was. Isn’t it incredible that they can lie so much and yet want the courts to believe them? I tell you, the court should throw this whole case out and those withholding evidence into jail. But that’s just my two cents…

1For the purposes of simplicity and clarity, Olofson will refer to the correspondence as the “SGW letter” from this point forward.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 06-CR-320

DAVID R. OLOFSON,

Defendant.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE

DAVID R. OLOFSON, by counsel, submits the instant motion to compel the disclosure of evidence. Olofson seeks to compel the government to disclose a copy of any and all correspondence1 from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and
Firearms (BATF) to SGW/Olympic Arms or concerning SGW/Olympic Arms’ use of M-16 parts in the production of its AR-15 type weapons between 1980 and 1990, particularly the use of M-16 triggers, hammers, disconnectors and selectors. The Court had previously denied Olofoson’s motion for disclosure based upon the ATF’s representations that the SGW letter contained privileged tax return information.

Olofson now seeks disclosure of the SGW letter because the BATF’s contention that the SGW letter contains privileged return information is both incorrect in law and contrary to internal BATF policy. Moreover, the SGW letter is exculpatory because upon information and belief, it contains evidence that directly contradicts evidence elicited by the government during trail that was central to its theory of guilt. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). In support of this motion, Olofson submits an accompanying memorandum of law.

WHEREFORE, David R. Olofson, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Court order the defendant to disclose any and all correspondence from the BATF to SGW/Olympic Arms or concerning SGW/Olympic Arms’ use of M-16 parts in
the production of its AR-15 type weapons between 1980 and 1990, particularly the use of M-16 triggers, hammers, disconnectors and selectors as soon as practicable.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 1, 2008.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Brian T. Fahl

Brian T. Fahl, Wis. Bar #1043244

Counsel for Defendant

517 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Room 182

Milwaukee, WI 53202

And, last but not least… Anyone know of any other sites where there is more information, I’m happy to go there and look. I am telling everyone I know about this that isn’t into the blogging world. This is so very important!!!

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 06-CR-320

DAVID R. OLOFSON,

Defendant.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 33.
DAVID R. OLOFSON, by counsel, submits the instant motion for a new trial pursuant to FED. R. CRIM P. 33. The instant motion is dependent upon Olofson’s motion to compel the disclosure of evidence, Docket No. 81. If the motion to compel is granted, the new evidence will require that a new trial be granted in the interest of justice. In support of his motion for a new trial, Olofson alleges the following:

1. The disclosure of the correspondence from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) to SGW/Olympic Arms constitutes newly discovered evidence. Because the instant motion is based upon newly discovered evidence and has been filed within three years of the verdict, it is considered timely. FED. R. CRIM P. 33(b)(1);United States v. Cavendar, 228 F.3d 792, 802 (7th Cir. 2000).

2. The SGW letter directly contradicts the government’s position at trial that Olofson’s AR-15 rifle was a machine gun because it had four internal M-16 parts. Contrary to a motion brought under Rule 29, the Court, in a motion under Rule 33, is allowed to evaluate the weight of the new evidence and make credibility determinations regarding it.United States v. Eberhart, 388 F.3d 1043, 1050 (7th Cir. 2004). After evaluation, it is clear that the SGW letter undermines the jury’s verdict in this case and creates a miscarriage of justice.United States v. Reed, 875 F.2d 107, 113 (7th Cir. 1989).

WHEREFORE, David R. Olofson, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Court grant his motion for a new trial pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 33. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 1, 2008.

Respectfully submitted,
s/ Brian T. Fahl
Brian T. Fahl, Wis. Bar #1043244
Counsel for Defendant
Federal Defender Services of
Wisconsin, Inc.
517 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Room 182
Milwaukee, WI 53202

I’m still searching for information on what is happening to David Olofson at this moment. I haven’t found anything so far and so if anyone hears anything I’d sure love to know about it. Thanks in advance. Otherwise, I’ll be waiting patiently until Lou Dobbs comes on tonight.

New UPDATE AVAILABLE: SEE HERE:

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Chain Mail
• letters
• CBF-SEA-BA Link 2007 No. 24

~ by justmytruth on May 13, 2008.