User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/14/2012 7:45:22 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: motion to dismiss for outrageous conduct: http://www.scribd.com/doc/105963156/Motion-to-Dismiss-Outrageous and a bad ass full on motion to suppress evidence.... holy shit. http://www.scribd.com/doc/105963162/Motion-to-Suppress-Evidence  Holy shit is right! Just finished reading them... and both motions... just damn. I wonder if the hearsay-producing informant is Brown. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2012 11:34:06 PM EDT
[#2]
Double Sucker punch - I'd love to see that on 60 minutes...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2012 11:36:04 AM EDT
[#3]
I will be sharing those broadly!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2012 11:45:49 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
motion to dismiss for outrageous conduct: http://www.scribd.com/doc/105963156/Motion-to-Dismiss-Outrageous and a bad ass full on motion to suppress evidence.... holy shit. http://www.scribd.com/doc/105963162/Motion-to-Suppress-Evidence Holy shit is right! Just finished reading them... and both motions... just damn. I wonder if the hearsay-producing informant is Brown. If the Judge dismisses both those motions in full, that's a pretty decent signal that the fix is in... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2012 12:14:56 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Quoted: If the Judge dismisses both those motions in full, that's a pretty decent signal that the fix is in...Quoted: Holy shit is right! Just finished reading them... and both motions... just damn.motion to dismiss for outrageous conduct: http://www.scribd.com/doc/105963156/Motion-to-Dismiss-Outrageous and a bad ass full on motion to suppress evidence.... holy shit. http://www.scribd.com/doc/105963162/Motion-to-Suppress-Evidence I wonder if the hearsay-producing informant is Brown. Not only that but the epic stupidity in the reasoning for dismissal would be very difficult to read, if not impossible. I should think that would be grounds for appeal. Had another thought: if these motions are dismissed wouldn't it still mean that Rodman et al would be allowed to present the arguments about entrapment? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2012 4:15:21 PM EDT
[#6]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/108641375/354-Motion-in-Limine-to-Public-Authority
http://www.scribd.com/doc/108641371/349-Proposed-USA-Voir-Dire and a hearing on all the stuff: 09/28/2012353 TEXT ONLY ORDER as to Randolph Benjamin Rodman, Idan C Greenberg - IT IS ORDERED setting a Motion/Evidentiary Hearing on all pending motions for 10/18/2012 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver. The Government's responses to Defendants' pending motions are due 10/5/2012. Defendants' replies are due 10/12/2012. A Final Pretrial Conference and Status Hearing regarding the juror questionnaires is set for 10/22/2012 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver. Ordered by Chief Judge Roslyn O. Silver on 9/28/2012. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CLB) (Entered: 09/28/2012) This hearing *should* be public, if anyone wants to go and give a report to us, please do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2012 5:41:27 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/108641375/354-Motion-in-Limine-to-Public-Authority http://www.scribd.com/doc/108641371/349-Proposed-USA-Voir-Dire and a hearing on all the stuff: 09/28/2012353 TEXT ONLY ORDER as to Randolph Benjamin Rodman, Idan C Greenberg - IT IS ORDERED setting a Motion/Evidentiary Hearing on all pending motions for 10/18/2012 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver. The Government's responses to Defendants' pending motions are due 10/5/2012. Defendants' replies are due 10/12/2012. A Final Pretrial Conference and Status Hearing regarding the juror questionnaires is set for 10/22/2012 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver. Ordered by Chief Judge Roslyn O. Silver on 9/28/2012. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CLB) (Entered: 09/28/2012) This hearing *should* be public, if anyone wants to go and give a report to us, please do. Let me check my calendar. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2012 5:27:09 PM EDT
[#8]
Tag. Please keep us updated on this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 1:34:33 PM EDT
[#9]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 1:36:57 PM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 1:49:51 PM EDT
[#11]
they revoked his pre-sentencing release due to him violating the terms of his release (he failed a breathalyzer) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 1:56:15 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
they revoked his pre-sentencing release due to him violating the terms of his release (he failed a breathalyzer) Is it normal for somebody facing these charges to be arbitrarily restricted from alcohol consumption? ...and is this kind of response normal for somebody who does break those terms, or is it seriously trumped up? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 2:23:17 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
they revoked his pre-sentencing release due to him violating the terms of his release (he failed a breathalyzer) Is it normal for somebody facing these charges to be arbitrarily restricted from alcohol consumption? ...and is this kind of response normal for somebody who does break those terms, or is it seriously trumped up? It's normal to make them abstain from alcohol. As to your second question, I don't know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 2:44:52 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
they revoked his pre-sentencing release due to him violating the terms of his release (he failed a breathalyzer) Is it normal for somebody facing these charges to be arbitrarily restricted from alcohol consumption? ...and is this kind of response normal for somebody who does break those terms, or is it seriously trumped up? It's normal to make them abstain from alcohol. As to your second question, I don't know. so they just randomly showed up to his house for a test.....in most places/circumstances that is not normal... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2012 6:56:24 AM EDT
[#15]
TEXT ONLY Minute Order: Set/Reset Motion Hearings as to Randolph Benjamin Rodman, Idan C Greenberg -On the Court's own motion, the Motion/Evidentiary Hearing set for 11/13/2012 is RESET to 11/14/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CLB) (Entered: 10/24/2012)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2012 6:57:00 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
so they just randomly showed up to his house for a test.....in most places/circumstances that is not normal... it's a condition of his release. they can show up with or without cause. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2012 7:26:12 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
so they just randomly showed up to his house for a test.....in most places/circumstances that is not normal... it's a condition of his release. they can show up with or without cause. Oh I know this...I worked for a Judge.... but to actually just randomly check is not normal... most times someone would mae a phone call or complaint or the police would go for some other reason.... to just show up.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2012 5:03:57 AM EDT
[#18]
There were hearings last week. Another "closing argument" hearing tomorrow if anyone would like to attend and report on. I believe it's just a motion hearing on evidence matters. Trial doesn't start until 27th or so.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2012 2:11:22 PM EDT
[#19]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/114160592/US-v-Clark-Gov-Witness-List
http://www.scribd.com/doc/114160598/11-21-12-Minutes-from-hearing-US-v-Clark http://www.scribd.com/doc/114160595/US-v-Clark-Joint-Proposed-Jury-Instructions http://www.scribd.com/doc/114160594/US-v-Clark-Memorandum-by-Rodman From the memo: Ms. Henson 2 testified that she did not approve any of the three transfer forms. She did not know who did and 3 that there was no way for her to find out who approved them. Ms. Henson stated that the 4 signatures on the forms were not signatures – they had been applied with a rubber stamp. She 5 explained that all of the examiners that she supervised were authorized to use the stamp. One fact proved by the government is that the ATF’s regulation of machineguns incapable 8 of being interfered with or obstructed by anything or anyone. The record establishes that a 19 licensed manufacturer and Special Occupational Taxpayer, George Clark, made significant 20 changes to 34 transferrable machineguns over a period of 17 years. In most cases, the barrel 21 lengths went from 6 inches to 3 feet and the overall length from 11 inches to four feet. Such 22 changes were so crystal clear as to be highlighted and red flagged to the point that they could not 23 be missed and invites a reasonable inference that the National Firearms Act Branch employees 24 responsible for compliance are uninformed, untrained, and unsupervised. The public interest in 25 scrupulous and exacting regulation of machineguns is very high. For the rubber stamp approvals 26 to have continued for a period of 17 years is compelling evidence. The ostrich-like tolerance by 27 ATF executives of the manner in which this very important function has been implemented is a 28 public disgrace. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2012 2:21:31 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/114160592/US-v-Clark-Gov-Witness-List http://www.scribd.com/doc/114160598/11-21-12-Minutes-from-hearing-US-v-Clark http://www.scribd.com/doc/114160595/US-v-Clark-Joint-Proposed-Jury-Instructions http://www.scribd.com/doc/114160594/US-v-Clark-Memorandum-by-Rodman From the memo: Ms. Henson 2 testified that she did not approve any of the three transfer forms. She did not know who did and 3 that there was no way for her to find out who approved them. Ms. Henson stated that the 4 signatures on the forms were not signatures – they had been applied with a rubber stamp. She 5 explained that all of the examiners that she supervised were authorized to use the stamp. One fact proved by the government is that the ATF’s regulation of machineguns incapable 8 of being interfered with or obstructed by anything or anyone. The record establishes that a 19 licensed manufacturer and Special Occupational Taxpayer, George Clark, made significant 20 changes to 34 transferrable machineguns over a period of 17 years. In most cases, the barrel 21 lengths went from 6 inches to 3 feet and the overall length from 11 inches to four feet. Such 22 changes were so crystal clear as to be highlighted and red flagged to the point that they could not 23 be missed and invites a reasonable inference that the National Firearms Act Branch employees 24 responsible for compliance are uninformed, untrained, and unsupervised. The public interest in 25 scrupulous and exacting regulation of machineguns is very high. For the rubber stamp approvals 26 to have continued for a period of 17 years is compelling evidence. The ostrich-like tolerance by 27 ATF executives of the manner in which this very important function has been implemented is a 28 public disgrace. Bureaucracy in action. And they gave me shit over the spelling on my sbr. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2012 2:24:20 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
What the FFLs did was criminal and against the law, even if the ATF is bungling the investigation. To put it another way, you can't turn your Mustang into a Ferrari by welding the Ford's VIN onto an illegally-imported Ferrari. The FFLs would take a Mac-11 and move it between multiple dealers, each transfer slightly changing a characteristic on the form (model, barrel length, overall length, caliber) until the papers did not reflect a Mac, but something much more valuable, such as a 1919 or M60. They would then cut out the Mac's serial number and weld it onto the 1919's receiver and sell the 1919 to an unsuspecting buyer. Rule of thumb: SWD never made M16s, M60s, 1919s, etc, and/or if the serial number starts with "86-" tread very carefully. Kharn So what? If I take a Mustang VIN and build a Ferrari around it, in all shapes, forms, and content and sell it or keep it, thus enriching myself while paying all applicable taxes, why should the government care? I did not increase the number of cars on the road nor did the .gov lose any revenue. This..... They still get their tax. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2012 2:52:42 PM EDT
[#22]
This "criminal crisis" wouldn't exist if not for government artificially creating high value, limited availability items.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2012 2:59:23 PM EDT
[#23]
They don't have a clue how many items are out there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2012 4:18:08 PM EDT
[#24]
It will be interesting for this to go to trial. The trouble that this nfrtr rubber stamp testimony will cause the ATF is biblical.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2012 5:38:14 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
When the ATF is involved, always take the other side. Even when the other side's committing fraud and conspiring to defraud others? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2012 5:47:11 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
It will be interesting for this to go to trial. The trouble that this nfrtr rubber stamp testimony will cause the ATF is biblical. Can you explain to the lay person they who/what/why's of that statement? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2012 5:50:20 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
When the ATF is involved, always take the other side. Even when the other side's committing fraud and conspiring to defraud others? But the people who bought the guns got what they were paying for; fully functional MG's that sold for the current market rates so the buyers weren't defrauded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2012 6:42:30 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When the ATF is involved, always take the other side. Even when the other side's committing fraud and conspiring to defraud others? But the people who bought the guns got what they were paying for; fully functional MG's that sold for the current market rates so the buyers weren't defrauded. Frauded if they have to give them up with no compensation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2012 6:54:46 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
It will be interesting for this to go to trial. The trouble that this nfrtr rubber stamp testimony will cause the ATF is biblical. Isn't that kind of SOP for EVERYTHING they do, tho? I mean, they don't have standards for testing at FTB, either.... but no one seems to give a shit about that... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2012 7:07:32 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
When the ATF is involved, always take the other side. Even when the other side's committing fraud and conspiring to defraud others? Though that didn't happen; yes. Absolutely. The ATF is an unconstitutional agency, and any action that can be taken to weaken it is a positive action. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2012 7:21:58 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
It will be interesting for this to go to trial. The trouble that this nfrtr rubber stamp testimony will cause the ATF is biblical. Isn't that kind of SOP for EVERYTHING they do, tho? I mean, they don't have standards for testing at FTB, either.... but no one seems to give a shit about that... Daubert? Frye? Who are they? What do they have to do with anything? We're the gummint - we do what we want! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2012 4:14:08 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
It will be interesting for this to go to trial. The trouble that this nfrtr rubber stamp testimony will cause the ATF is biblical. Can you explain to the lay person they who/what/why's of that statement? It's in the memo I posted. Apparently one of the document examiners supervisors says she has a rubber stamp, that she didn't remember signing the form 4's, and that anyone could have used her stamp and that everyone is authorized to use her stamp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2012 5:01:43 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It will be interesting for this to go to trial. The trouble that this nfrtr rubber stamp testimony will cause the ATF is biblical. Can you explain to the lay person they who/what/why's of that statement? It's in the memo I posted. Apparently one of the document examiners supervisors says she has a rubber stamp, that she didn't remember signing the form 4's, and that anyone could have used her stamp and that everyone is authorized to use her stamp. Lol... If I have a device that makes my mark, that can be operated by anyone, unauthenticated, I sure as shit would be keeping it on my person, or under lock and key. They could always get with the 21st century, and go digital. Set up some form of PKI and digital signatures. Would probably speed up turnaround time too, and the digital sigs would be damn near impossible to truly counterfeit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2012 5:11:16 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
It's in the memo I posted. Apparently one of the document examiners supervisors says she has a rubber stamp, that she didn't remember signing the form 4's, and that anyone could have used her stamp and that everyone is authorized to use her stamp. What an unbelievablely retarded thing for somebody to say. If you have a stamp, and you have a bunch of people who work for you that are authorized to use the stamp, then any policies \ proceedures regarding the use of that stamp and any use of that stamp are yours- and if they stamp it then you signed it. If that's not the case, then the stamp isn't valid as a signature in the first place. You can't have it both ways. Whoever that bitch is; lock her up until she has an epiphany. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2012 7:33:53 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's in the memo I posted. Apparently one of the document examiners supervisors says she has a rubber stamp, that she didn't remember signing the form 4's, and that anyone could have used her stamp and that everyone is authorized to use her stamp. What an unbelievablely retarded thing for somebody to say. If you have a stamp, and you have a bunch of people who work for you that are authorized to use the stamp, then any policies \ proceedures regarding the use of that stamp and any use of that stamp are yours- and if they stamp it then you signed it. If that's not the case, then the stamp isn't valid as a signature in the first place. You can't have it both ways. Whoever that bitch is; lock her up until she has an epiphany. Forget that - someone steal her stamp while she's in the bathroom... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2012 8:16:18 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: Forget that - someone steal her stamp while she's in the bathroom...Quoted: What an unbelievablely retarded thing for somebody to say.It's in the memo I posted. Apparently one of the document examiners supervisors says she has a rubber stamp, that she didn't remember signing the form 4's, and that anyone could have used her stamp and that everyone is authorized to use her stamp. If you have a stamp, and you have a bunch of people who work for you that are authorized to use the stamp, then any policies \ proceedures regarding the use of that stamp and any use of that stamp are yours- and if they stamp it then you signed it. If that's not the case, then the stamp isn't valid as a signature in the first place. You can't have it both ways. Whoever that bitch is; lock her up until she has an epiphany. We're gonna need that stamp awhile... anyone have some ChocoLax? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2012 8:45:24 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's in the memo I posted. Apparently one of the document examiners supervisors says she has a rubber stamp, that she didn't remember signing the form 4's, and that anyone could have used her stamp and that everyone is authorized to use her stamp. What an unbelievablely retarded thing for somebody to say. If you have a stamp, and you have a bunch of people who work for you that are authorized to use the stamp, then any policies \ proceedures regarding the use of that stamp and any use of that stamp are yours- and if they stamp it then you signed it. If that's not the case, then the stamp isn't valid as a signature in the first place. You can't have it both ways. Whoever that bitch is; lock her up until she has an epiphany. Forget that - someone steal her stamp while she's in the bathroom... Approved Individual MG form 1's for everybody?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2012 6:42:32 AM EDT
[#38]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2012 6:55:15 AM EDT
[#39]
thanks for updating this thread and explaining everything folks!
if anything, it's damn informative. (no pun intended) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2012 7:13:58 AM EDT
[#40]
Y'all check out the vann motion in limine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2012 7:20:50 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Y'all check out the vann motion in limine. Opening paragraph: "The United States, by and through undersigned counsel, moves in limine to preclude Randolph Benjamin Rodman and Idan C. Greenberg, the defendants, from using or referring to the ATF’s National Firearms Act Branch Standard Operating Procedures Training Manual because they do not confer any rights on the defendant and lack any relevance to the trial. Mr. Ernest Lintner testified in trial on November 28, 2012, that the defendant’s exhibit #402–ATF’s NFA Branch Standard Operating Procedures Training Manual–was completed in mid-2008. The last approved transfers of firearms in this case was February, 2008. Therefore, this manual was not implemented at the time of the Defendant’s transferred their firearms. Defendant’s cross examination or presentation of this material will cause jury confusion and has no basis in law" Keep reading, it gets better. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2012 7:21:18 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/114895520/Motion-in-Limine-by-James-Vann http://www.scribd.com/doc/114895519/US-v-Clark http://www.scribd.com/doc/114895513/US-v-Clark The United States, by and through undersigned counsel, movesin limineto precludeRandolph Benjamin Rodman and Idan C. Greenberg, the defendants,from using or referring tothe ATF’s National Firearms Act Branch Standard Operating Procedures Training Manual because theydo not confer any rights on the defendant and lack any relevance to the trial. Mr. Ernest Lintner testified
I guess expecting better from government clowns would be too much to hope for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2012 7:22:20 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Y'all check out the vann motion in limine. Can you break it down for us? The way I read it, basically saying that ATF internal rules can't supercede law, which would be a no-brainer. ETA - I guess maybe this is the great grey area of NFA. They can make up their own rules as they go, but can't be held to them in court because it's not law? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2012 7:41:42 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Y'all check out the vann motion in limine. Can you break it down for us? The way I read it, basically saying that ATF internal rules can't supercede law, which would be a no-brainer. ETA - I guess maybe this is the great grey area of NFA. They can make up their own rules as they go, but can't be held to them in court because it's not law? the atf internal policies aren't law. but they use them in a quasi law sense. for instance, where in the statute does it tell the atf to use "soft primer ammunition to determine whether or not a gun is a machine gun?" it doesn't, but the atf internal policies do. they used it on olfoson and some others to determine their guns were machineguns. so, if it's good enough for atf to use as a sword, then the defendants should be able to use it as a shield. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2012 7:51:48 AM EDT
[#45]
God this nonsense is infuriating. And people wonder why folks here have no compassion when bad things happen to folks affiliated with the ATF and others in government that knowingly enforce unjust laws or intentionally try to game the legal system in contravention in any sensible notion of justice.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2012 9:43:50 AM EDT
[#46]
That would be like the EPA shutting down a factory because it failed a test that is internal to the EPA even though the factory passed the required EPA tests that allowed it to start up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2012 12:22:21 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Quoted: http://www.scribd.com/doc/114895520/Motion-in-Limine-by-James-Vann http://www.scribd.com/doc/114895519/US-v-Clark http://www.scribd.com/doc/114895513/US-v-Clark The United States, by and through undersigned counsel, movesin limineto precludeRandolph Benjamin Rodman and Idan C. Greenberg, the defendants,from using or referring tothe ATF’s National Firearms Act Branch Standard Operating Procedures Training Manual because theydo not confer any rights on the defendant and lack any relevance to the trial. Mr. Ernest Lintner testified I guess expecting better from government clowns would be too much to hope for. Am I stupid or is their arguement torpedoed by the reality that these internal procedures were the process by which the ATF approved the transfers of the very machine guns it later claimed were criminally possessed? Again, I think the idea of cutting serial numbers off of MAC-10s and welding them onto BARs, etc. was too clever by half, but the BATFE examiners did (literally) rubberstamp the transfers (and no body at the BATFE "did nuffin'") so at the end of the day, there were approved Form 4s on these. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2012 1:21:11 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/114895520/Motion-in-Limine-by-James-Vann http://www.scribd.com/doc/114895519/US-v-Clark http://www.scribd.com/doc/114895513/US-v-Clark The United States, by and through undersigned counsel, movesin limineto precludeRandolph Benjamin Rodman and Idan C. Greenberg, the defendants,from using or referring tothe ATF’s National Firearms Act Branch Standard Operating Procedures Training Manual because theydo not confer any rights on the defendant and lack any relevance to the trial. Mr. Ernest Lintner testified
I guess expecting better from government clowns would be too much to hope for. Am I stupid or is their arguement torpedoed by the reality that these internal procedures were the process by which the ATF approved the transfers of the very machine guns it later claimed were criminally possessed? Again, I think the idea of cutting serial numbers off of MAC-10s and welding them onto BARs, etc. was too clever by half, but the BATFE examiners did (literally) rubberstamp the transfers (and no body at the BATFE "did nuffin'") so at the end of the day, there were approved Form 4s on these. Is seems like they're trying to say that he shouldn't be able to introduce those procedures as evidence, because they didn't exist until after the incidents in question. But that opens another door: So what procedures did they have before this one was adopted? My guess is none. Fuck them, I hope they just shot themselves in the foot with an 8 gauge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2012 1:40:13 PM EDT
[#49]
wouldnt this be like taking a 4banger mustang automatic, stripping it down completely removing the front clip and frame and replacing it all with drag racing bigblock v8 goodness? only thing that remains is the original VIN?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2012 5:13:44 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
wouldnt this be like taking a 4banger mustang automatic, stripping it down completely removing the front clip and frame and replacing it all with drag racing bigblock v8 goodness? only thing that remains is the original VIN? No, it's more like taking the vin off of a Pinto and putting it on an HMMV. Selling it for HMMV price and registering it as a pinto. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
