The Daily Dumbass Report

C

Canceled.LTroll.28

Banned
Have you been subjected to the nutbag "Oafkeeper" propaganda about this idiot in Wisconsin (David Olofson) who allegedly wound up in federal court because an AR-15 he loaned to someone "malfunctioned" and fired three rounds before jamming?

The sob story his McVeigh-wannabe buddies love to repeat has been infesting the internet, mostly on teabagger websites dominated by faux patriots and Walter Mitty warriors, the nerdy virgin teen boys and fat guys who sit around telling us how they'll rise up and kill lots of "Jack-booted thugs", i.e. police officers and federal agents.

Well, if the evidence that convicted him is true, and there's no reason to assume otherwise, Olofson modified his rifle to fire multiple shots with each pull of the trigger.

In fact, his nutso gun-buddy, Robert Kiernicki, admitted that he knew the rifle would fire bursts (something that cannot be done with an unmodified AR-15).

Kiernicki also confessed that Olofson's gun "had the extra pin" that allowed it to fire fully-automatically.

This would of course be an auto sear pin, and those aren't legal.

Now, sit back and enjoy the amusing spectacle of Oafkeepers and their deranged groupies claiming their fellow hoser was "framed" by the Evil Government...
 
interesting that you ignore certain facts of the case, like the government objecting to an expert witness for the defense being in the courtroom during ATF testimony. government always grants fair trials, doesn't it dumber than all y'all?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
interesting that you ignore certain facts of the case, like the government objecting to an expert witness for the defense being in the courtroom during ATF testimony. government always grants fair trials, doesn't it dumber than all y'all?
Click to expand...

See, that didn't take long.

I believe the BATF experts, and the investigating officers, both local and federal. In light of what they've testified to, the jury verdict in this case makes sense, as does the judge's sentence: 30 months in federal prison for Olofson.

A ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held:

"In sum, the defendant’s proffered jury instruction was not a correct statement of the law, and the district court properly rejected it. Furthermore, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain Olofson’s conviction, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2) are not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of this case. In addition, the district court did not abuse its discretion in either excluding the defendant’s firearms expert from the courtroom during the government expert’s testimony or in denying Olofson’s motion to compel the production of evidence he had requested from the government. Accordingly, we AFFIRM Olofson’s conviction."

You gonna drive your pickup truck to the prison and bust your comrade out?
 
Smarter Than All Y'All said:
See, that didn't take long.

I believe the BATF experts, and the investigating officers, both local and federal.
Click to expand...
of course you do, badge blower.

Smarter Than All Y'All said:
In light of what they've testified to, the jury verdict in this case makes sense, as does the judge's sentence: 30 months in federal prison for Olofson.
Click to expand...
further proof that you're a fucking idiot. Judges tell juries that their job is to determine the facts of the case and judge it by the law, AS THE JUDGE SAYS IT IS. Those of us who know better, are well aware of our duty as jurists.

Smarter Than All Y'All said:
A ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held:

"In sum, the defendant’s proffered jury instruction was not a correct statement of the law, and the district court properly rejected it. Furthermore, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain Olofson’s conviction, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2) are not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of this case. In addition, the district court did not abuse its discretion in either excluding the defendant’s firearms expert from the courtroom during the government expert’s testimony or in denying Olofson’s motion to compel the production of evidence he had requested from the government. Accordingly, we AFFIRM Olofson’s conviction."
Click to expand...
not unconstitutionally vague. shall not be infringed too fucking tough for your stupid ass? hey badge blower, how safe do you feel knowing that the cops and military are better armed than any civilian has the legal right to be? just a bit 'unamerican' considering that our great founding fathers distrusted big government and standing armies.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
of course you do, badge blower.

further proof that you're a fucking idiot. Judges tell juries that their job is to determine the facts of the case and judge it by the law, AS THE JUDGE SAYS IT IS. Those of us who know better, are well aware of our duty as jurists.


not unconstitutionally vague. shall not be infringed too fucking tough for your stupid ass? hey badge blower, how safe do you feel knowing that the cops and military are better armed than any civilian has the legal right to be? just a bit 'unamerican' considering that our great founding fathers distrusted big government and standing armies.
Click to expand...

It was not an abuse of discretion for a court to exclude the defendant's expert from the courtroom while the government's expert was testifying.

"[H]e argued that because Federal Rule of Evidence 703 permits an expert to base his opinion upon facts or data made known to him at trial, Savage 'should be allowed to be present to hear' the government expert's testimony. However, merely because Rule 703 contemplates that an expert may render an opinion based on facts or data made known at trial does not necessarily mean that an expert witness is exempt from a Rule 615 sequestration order. The text of Rule 615 plainly does not provide for such a per se exception; rather, Rule 615(3) confers discretion upon district courts to determine whether a given witness (of whatever stripe) is essential. We agree with the courts of appeals that have addressed the issue that Rule 703 is not an automatic exemption for expert witnesses from Rule 615 sequestration. Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 650 F.2d 1365, 1374 (5th Cir. 1981); Morvant v. Constr. Aggregates Corp., 570 F.2d 626, 630 (6th Cir. 1978); see Opus 3, 91 F.3d at 629. Therefore, the mere mention of Rule 703 by Olofson was insufficient to show that a Rule 615(3) exception was warranted."

Affirmed.

08-2294 U.S. v. Olofson

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Clevert, J., Manion, J.

So what are you gonna do about it, big brave boy? Be specific....
 
Smarter Than All Y'All said:
It was not an abuse of discretion for a court to exclude the defendant's expert from the courtroom while the government's expert was testifying.

"[H]e argued that because Federal Rule of Evidence 703 permits an expert to base his opinion upon facts or data made known to him at trial, Savage 'should be allowed to be present to hear' the government expert's testimony. However, merely because Rule 703 contemplates that an expert may render an opinion based on facts or data made known at trial does not necessarily mean that an expert witness is exempt from a Rule 615 sequestration order. The text of Rule 615 plainly does not provide for such a per se exception; rather, Rule 615(3) confers discretion upon district courts to determine whether a given witness (of whatever stripe) is essential. We agree with the courts of appeals that have addressed the issue that Rule 703 is not an automatic exemption for expert witnesses from Rule 615 sequestration. Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 650 F.2d 1365, 1374 (5th Cir. 1981); Morvant v. Constr. Aggregates Corp., 570 F.2d 626, 630 (6th Cir. 1978); see Opus 3, 91 F.3d at 629. Therefore, the mere mention of Rule 703 by Olofson was insufficient to show that a Rule 615(3) exception was warranted."

Affirmed.

08-2294 U.S. v. Olofson

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Clevert, J., Manion, J.
Click to expand...

translation: Mr. Savage would have eviscerated the governments case by being able to hear the ATF testimony, but since I'm the judge, and I have the rules on my side, I say neener neener.

Smarter Than All Y'All said:
So what are you gonna do about it, big brave boy? Be specific....
Click to expand...
the list of domestic enemies is growing and they will be held to account. would you like to be included?
 
The world reacts to the Oaf Keeper's revelation that he has a list of enemies:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC637PdFwg8"]YouTube- I'm so scared[/ame]
:lmao:
 
:palm:

good lord...the troll talks to himself...makes a post...logs in with the other troll to make another post...about the post he just made...

lmao...schizophrenia baby :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top