Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 46
Link Posted: 11/27/2006 10:50:45 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
Bladerunner2347,

Has your lawyer had any luck getting a response from the authorities?

Mark

Not as of yet. They have remained beligerent about it.

Your best bet right now seems to be in your right to a *speedy* trial.
Link Posted: 11/27/2006 11:01:42 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
Damn man.  I am only a few minutes away and this is the first I have heard of this.  Scary.

Not sure why, but they have been keeping a tight lid on this. Not a peep in any news sources on any of the raids or nuttin. If you’re not on one of 4 boards I've posted this on, a LEO around here, or know me in proper person, you most likely wouldn’t know this is going on.

If you actually have 12 yrs worth of history with BATFE, that's probably why they're not publicizing this.  If they've missed taking you down/out in the past, they don't want to say shit until you're "safely" behind bars.
Link Posted: 11/27/2006 11:14:06 AM EDT

Quoted:
<snip>

Kid calls me from the range to say the cops were harassing him. Not unusual as some of the trap and skeet guys hate ugly black guns and the cops have been out to bug us before. When I asked why, referring to the visit he said because he was firing rapidly. No biggy as many of us have done that out there. Cops came to his house and threatened him and his family until he gave them the gun later on that day if I remember correctly. They stated they were ordered to confiscate it pending an ATF investigation. That’s when I started bugging them about it. Way I see it there was no reason for this level of harassment.

How well do you know this "kid"?  Any chance he could be a plant?

That might explain why they're not being forthcoming with his statements.

Find out who he's friends with, and/or related to.  Also have a PI do a background check on him; see if he's got a record of any kind, esp "charges pending" type stuff (as that could provide "motivation" to trade someone else's ass for his own).
Link Posted: 11/27/2006 1:06:42 PM EDT
Why didn't he drop the gun back off to you when he either started having technical problems or when he started getting hassled.  At that point he could have just clammed up.

Next, why did you still have ANY guns in your possession other than the problem firearm at the time of the raid?  Sounds like you had ample warning.

Somewhat rhetorical questions...
Link Posted: 11/27/2006 1:26:43 PM EDT
Something really sounds fishy in this whole thing.

The selector either rotates to the full auto position or it doesn't.

Did you have any f/a FCG parts laying around when they came knocking?  f/a bolt carriers?

Did the original Oly arms lowers have the shelf?  Has it been removed?
Link Posted: 11/27/2006 1:35:05 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Bladerunner2347,

Has your lawyer had any luck getting a response from the authorities?

Mark

Not as of yet. They have remained beligerent about it.

Your best bet right now seems to be in your right to a *speedy* trial.


I will be pushing them for it. I don't think it will get that far.
Link Posted: 11/27/2006 1:36:00 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Damn man.  I am only a few minutes away and this is the first I have heard of this.  Scary.

Not sure why, but they have been keeping a tight lid on this. Not a peep in any news sources on any of the raids or nuttin. If you’re not on one of 4 boards I've posted this on, a LEO around here, or know me in proper person, you most likely wouldn’t know this is going on.

If you actually have 12 yrs worth of history with BATFE, that's probably why they're not publicizing this.  If they've missed taking you down/out in the past, they don't want to say shit until you're "safely" behind bars.


Coulden't tell you one way or the other. Last run in they wanted the same charges, that was Oct 94.
Link Posted: 11/27/2006 1:37:22 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
<snip>

Kid calls me from the range to say the cops were harassing him. Not unusual as some of the trap and skeet guys hate ugly black guns and the cops have been out to bug us before. When I asked why, referring to the visit he said because he was firing rapidly. No biggy as many of us have done that out there. Cops came to his house and threatened him and his family until he gave them the gun later on that day if I remember correctly. They stated they were ordered to confiscate it pending an ATF investigation. That’s when I started bugging them about it. Way I see it there was no reason for this level of harassment.

How well do you know this "kid"?  Any chance he could be a plant?

That might explain why they're not being forthcoming with his statements.

Find out who he's friends with, and/or related to.  Also have a PI do a background check on him; see if he's got a record of any kind, esp "charges pending" type stuff (as that could provide "motivation" to trade someone else's ass for his own).


I have trubble beliveing a local kid right out of high school could somehow be a plant. More than likely they just have him scared. If they want to take this to trial all their backgrounds will be gone through.
Link Posted: 11/27/2006 1:41:21 PM EDT

Quoted:
Why didn't he drop the gun back off to you when he either started having technical problems or when he started getting hassled.  At that point he could have just clammed up.

Next, why did you still have ANY guns in your possession other than the problem firearm at the time of the raid?  Sounds like you had ample warning.

Somewhat rhetorical questions...



He was going to drop it off later that day. I was going to take him and the gun down to the cheif so that he would leave us alone. They showed up at his place something like 2 hours later and threatend him into giveing it to them for the ATF.

As for why I would still have guns around, what do I have to fear. I haven't done anything wrong, and they haven't taken anything incriminateing. Yes there was ample warning. But why would I really care.
Link Posted: 11/27/2006 1:43:55 PM EDT

Quoted:
Something really sounds fishy in this whole thing.

The selector either rotates to the full auto position or it doesn't.

Did you have any f/a FCG parts laying around when they came knocking?  f/a bolt carriers?

Did the original Oly arms lowers have the shelf?  Has it been removed?



Nope. No auto parts at all. But I have a around 3 sets worth of semi replacement parts. No carriers or bolts though. Amazingly they left the trigger groups here along with asembly jigs.

Yes it is a semi lower with the block. No, last time I had it the block was still there.
Link Posted: 11/27/2006 5:35:06 PM EDT
If it has the block, how was it firing full auto?

Does it now have a sear hole drilled in the lower?

If I remember correctly, the full auto FCG will not fit in the lower with the block in place.

Has your attorney filed any motions to inspect the evidence?
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 8:52:37 AM EDT

Quoted:
If it has the block, how was it firing full auto?

Does it now have a sear hole drilled in the lower?

If I remember correctly, the full auto FCG will not fit in the lower with the block in place.

Has your attorney filed any motions to inspect the evidence?

My impression was that he has a fool for a client is acting as his own attorney, with a member of the bar as a consultant.

He said something earlier about being able to do things in that capacity that his attorney/consultant would not be able to do.....

(btw, bladerunner, i may joke about people who represent themselves, but i understand that sometimes it's the only way to go, for a number of reasons)


ETA: Here's the statement, from this post on pg.2:

Yes I have an attorney for now. He will primarily help me as counsel. There are things I do that he can't. (Disbarment)
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 10:18:54 AM EDT
I would file a motion to inspect the evidence pre-Grand Jury ASAP under the pre-text that I am going to address the grand jury and that I need to inspect the evidence prior to my address.
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 11:16:05 AM EDT

Quoted:
I would file a motion to inspect the evidence pre-Grand Jury ASAP under the pre-text that I am going to address the grand jury and that I need to inspect the evidence prior to my address.


Nether I nor my attorney can address the GJ, or at least that’s what we have been told. They only get to here one side.

On the plus side they have apparently been the GJ before and not received a true bill.
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 11:21:47 AM EDT
Generally, you have the right to address the grand jury.  

Generally, thats a bad idea.

However, it may be a way to get to inspect this piece of evidence.

The truly odd part of your story (and I am sure that I show my ignorance here) is that absent  the hole for the disconnector, and the removal of the shelf, a selector should not be able to rotate to the F/A poistion.

Even if a F/A selector was installed, it would need a disconnector to work to trip the sear.

I have a 3rd burst trigger pack for my M-16 and it is a complicated mechanism with a rachet.

Absent a lot of parts and modifications, a semi AR should not fire 3rds at a time.

If you get in, take photos of hte oly AR-15 and post them.

I'm curious what was installed or worn.

You see, worn parts might allow the weapon to slamfire.

That shouldn't make it an MG.
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 11:22:47 AM EDT
Have you had a PI do a full, in depth, background check on the kid?

That's the best advice I have seen in this thread.
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 11:40:57 AM EDT

Quoted:
Evil men, like the ATF, rely on darkness...sealed warrants, cordoning off the free-press(though most of the time the MSM is a sympathizer with their cause), and intimidation(fear to speak up)..to operate. One of their main goals is to score points through headlines with the ignorant sheeple. To justify their existence and expand is the natural course of a Gov't Bureaucracy.


That's sigline material right there!
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 11:48:57 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
Bladerunner2347,

Has your lawyer had any luck getting a response from the authorities?

Mark


Not as of yet. They have remained beligerent about it.


File motions asking the court to compel the BATFE to allow your own people to inspect the firearm by a fixed date. Every motion should have a specific date to comply with your request.

Take pictures of the agents in your home. Don't jame the camera in their faces but be assertive. If you're in my home doing something that can ruin my life I'm going to document everything you do.
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 12:05:35 PM EDT
I would videotape the BATF anytime they were in or near my home.

I would also pull out an Olympus Digital voice recorder and record all conversations with them.
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 12:07:12 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
If it has the block, how was it firing full auto?

Does it now have a sear hole drilled in the lower?

If I remember correctly, the full auto FCG will not fit in the lower with the block in place.

Has your attorney filed any motions to inspect the evidence?

My impression was that he has a fool for a client is acting as his own attorney, with a member of the bar as a consultant.

He said something earlier about being able to do things in that capacity that his attorney/consultant would not be able to do.....

(btw, bladerunner, i may joke about people who represent themselves, but i understand that sometimes it's the only way to go, for a number of reasons)


ETA: Here's the statement, from this post on pg.2:

Yes I have an attorney for now. He will primarily help me as counsel. There are things I do that he can't. (Disbarment)


I know where you are coming from. My problem is that I am schooled a fair amount in law and have taken care of myself before. Just not used to the federal system. Plus some things like challenging jurisdiction can only be done in propria persona, not in person as an attorney would. Challenge would be based among other things on the following from Title 18 as quoted in part from another post (this cover just a few jurisdictional problems the feds have if you raise the question).

“Title 18 USC sec 5 sec7 States that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT only has jurisdiction in District of Columbia, Porto Rico, Guam and insular possessions. Rule 53c of the rules of criminal procedure states that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT only has jurisdiction without the states and not within the states. PEREZ vs. US states that commerce is irrelevant. BATF is not a federal agency, they are not found in Title 31 under federal agencies.”
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 12:15:21 PM EDT

Quoted:
Generally, you have the right to address the grand jury.  

Generally, thats a bad idea.

However, it may be a way to get to inspect this piece of evidence.

The truly odd part of your story (and I am sure that I show my ignorance here) is that absent  the hole for the disconnector, and the removal of the shelf, a selector should not be able to rotate to the F/A poistion.

Even if a F/A selector was installed, it would need a disconnector to work to trip the sear.

I have a 3rd burst trigger pack for my M-16 and it is a complicated mechanism with a rachet.

Absent a lot of parts and modifications, a semi AR should not fire 3rds at a time.

If you get in, take photos of hte oly AR-15 and post them.

I'm curious what was installed or worn.

You see, worn parts might allow the weapon to slamfire.

That shouldn't make it an MG.


It would not per federal regs and court decisions. It must be designed or redesigned. Can't be mechanical failure.
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 12:15:57 PM EDT

Quoted:
Have you had a PI do a full, in depth, background check on the kid?

That's the best advice I have seen in this thread.


When the time comes.
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 12:18:22 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Bladerunner2347,

Has your lawyer had any luck getting a response from the authorities?

Mark


Not as of yet. They have remained beligerent about it.


File motions asking the court to compel the BATFE to allow your own people to inspect the firearm by a fixed date. Every motion should have a specific date to comply with your request.

Take pictures of the agents in your home. Don't jame the camera in their faces but be assertive. If you're in my home doing something that can ruin my life I'm going to document everything you do.


Would have loved to take photos. BUT they took all my digital film from my camera, and I was hauled off involuntarily for interrogation while they ransacked my house. I was not brought back until they were done. Of course officially I was not under arrest, I just wasn’t free to leave.
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 12:19:43 PM EDT

Quoted:
I would videotape the BATF anytime they were in or near my home.

I would also pull out an Olympus Digital voice recorder and record all conversations with them.



It would promptly disappear, believe me.
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 12:35:36 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
I would videotape the BATF anytime they were in or near my home.

I would also pull out an Olympus Digital voice recorder and record all conversations with them.



It would promptly disappear, believe me.


File a motion for it's return stating you need the data in your defense. When your camera is returned with the images erased ask the court to find the BATFE in contempt for tampering with evidence.

What they're doing will piss off a judge if you have the proper representation to bring their transgressions to the court's attention. A judge can ignore your spoken complaints but can't ignore a motion.

File motions and take the fight to your adversary or clear up your affairs and get ready for prison. Get serious about this ASAP.
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 12:58:03 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
I would videotape the BATF anytime they were in or near my home.

I would also pull out an Olympus Digital voice recorder and record all conversations with them.



It would promptly disappear, believe me.


File a motion for it's return stating you need the data in your defense. When your camera is returned with the images erased ask the court to find the BATFE in contempt for tampering with evidence.

What they're doing will piss off a judge if you have the proper representation to bring their transgressions to the court's attention. A judge can ignore your spoken complaints but can't ignore a motion.

File motions and take the fight to your adversary or clear up your affairs and get ready for prison. Get serious about this ASAP.



I'll know more in a day or two about what els can be done at this point. Untill then I don't want to play maverik without the attornies go ahead.
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 1:12:34 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
I would videotape the BATF anytime they were in or near my home.

I would also pull out an Olympus Digital voice recorder and record all conversations with them.



It would promptly disappear, believe me.


File a motion for it's return stating you need the data in your defense. When your camera is returned with the images erased ask the court to find the BATFE in contempt for tampering with evidence.

What they're doing will piss off a judge if you have the proper representation to bring their transgressions to the court's attention. A judge can ignore your spoken complaints but can't ignore a motion.

File motions and take the fight to your adversary or clear up your affairs and get ready for prison. Get serious about this ASAP.



I'll know more in a day or two about what els can be done at this point. Untill then I don't want to play maverik without the disbarred attorney's go ahead.


Run away from any lawyer who isn't good enough to represent the Pope. You can bet the BATFE knows you're consulting this guy and will mention it to one of the judge's aides. After that anything you file will have the stain of a disgraced attorney on it and no matter how right you may be you will have less credibility.

Don't think for an instant your opponent won't use ex parte contact with the courts to screw you further.

Go into debt. Heavy, heavy debt. Get the best lawyer you can't afford.
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 1:25:25 PM EDT

Quoted:
If it has the block, how was it firing full auto?

Worn disconnector or disconnector spring?
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 3:48:58 PM EDT

Quoted:
“Title 18 USC sec 5 sec7 States that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT only has jurisdiction in District of Columbia, Porto Rico, Guam and insular possessions. Rule 53c of the rules of criminal procedure states that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT only has jurisdiction without the states and not within the states. PEREZ vs. US states that commerce is irrelevant. BATF is not a federal agency, they are not found in Title 31 under federal agencies.”
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 5:56:48 PM EDT

Quoted:
....take the fight to your adversary or clear up your affairs and get ready for prison. Get serious about this ASAP.


Agreed... it seems as though you think you'll have no problem getting out of this.  But after reading the BATFE's report about the rifle I'd say it sounds more like you're "FORKED".

If the report and tech says it goes FA, that's all the judge/jury needs to hear.

Link Posted: 11/28/2006 6:41:13 PM EDT

Quoted:
“Title 18 USC sec 5 sec7 States that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT only has jurisdiction in District of Columbia, Porto Rico, Guam and insular possessions. Rule 53c of the rules of criminal procedure states that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT only has jurisdiction without the states and not within the states. PEREZ vs. US states that commerce is irrelevant. BATF is not a federal agency, they are not found in Title 31 under federal agencies.”


What the FUCK is this drivel?  So, your going to piss the judge off with theold argument thAt the IRS cannot collect income tax or something akin to that?

Seriously, you need to get a good lawyer who is not disbarred.

the one thing that may sdave your ass is that your "friend" may have had the rifle in his possession for several months . . . this destroys the chain of custody if it really is firing full auto and raises reasonable doubt.  It may also negate the government's prima facie case for possession of a unregistered MG which might prevent you from being indicted by the GJ.
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 6:59:03 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
“Title 18 USC sec 5 sec7 States that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT only has jurisdiction in District of Columbia, Porto Rico, Guam and insular possessions. Rule 53c of the rules of criminal procedure states that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT only has jurisdiction without the states and not within the states. PEREZ vs. US states that commerce is irrelevant. BATF is not a federal agency, they are not found in Title 31 under federal agencies.”


What the FUCK is this drivel?  So, your going to piss the judge off with theold argument thAt the IRS cannot collect income tax or something akin to that?

Seriously, you need to get a good lawyer who is not disbarred.

the one thing that may sdave your ass is that your "friend" may have had the rifle in his possession for several months . . . this destroys the chain of custody if it really is firing full auto and raises reasonable doubt.  It may also negate the government's prima facie case for possession of a unregistered MG which might prevent you from being indicted by the GJ.


Law 101. First thing anyone must prove is jurisdiction. Fed jurisdiction is very limited. Yes the judges hate it, but there is not much they can do about it. You either reserve your rights up front or you wave them. I will never wave mine. We start with can they even file a complaint against me, then we can move on to if it has been fiddeled with, and then finally would I be responsable for a weapon that has been out of my hands for so long.
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 7:01:23 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
....take the fight to your adversary or clear up your affairs and get ready for prison. Get serious about this ASAP.


Agreed... it seems as though you think you'll have no problem getting out of this.  But after reading the BATFE's report about the rifle I'd say it sounds more like you're "FORKED".

If the report and tech says it goes FA, that's all the judge/jury needs to hear.



Keep in mind that complaint is only partly true. All the crap that would make me sound guilty is BS. Looks good for them on paper but as it never happened they have nothing to back it up.
Link Posted: 11/28/2006 8:03:18 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
....take the fight to your adversary or clear up your affairs and get ready for prison. Get serious about this ASAP.


Agreed... it seems as though you think you'll have no problem getting out of this.  But after reading the BATFE's report about the rifle I'd say it sounds more like you're "FORKED".

If the report and tech says it goes FA, that's all the judge/jury needs to hear.



Keep in mind that complaint is only partly true. All the crap that would make me sound guilty is BS. Looks good for them on paper but as it never happened they have nothing to back it up.


What you're not understanding is that the judge deals with these people every day. They can walk into court and say anything they want and be believed without question while you will have to work to prove every word you say.

Not only is it your word against theirs, but in the federal system the prosecution's word is golden and yours is shit.

Get a REAL lawyer or seek counseling for your suicidal tendencies.
Link Posted: 11/29/2006 5:52:41 AM EDT

What you're not understanding is that the judge deals with these people every day. They can walk into court and say anything they want and be believed without question while you will have to work to prove every word you say.

Not only is it your word against theirs, but in the federal system the prosecution's word is golden and yours is shit.

Get a REAL lawyer or seek counseling for your suicidal tendencies.


I understand it completely. I have always found it an uphill battle in court as they will always do there best to avoid basic pleadings that would nullify a government claim. But if you follow the proper steps they can be held to the letter of the law. Most of the stuff .gov advertises about folks trying "frivolous" arguments is when people make BS arguments not based in law but in there opinion trying to use emotion to sway the court. (My name is spelled wrong, I'm not in the US etc.) Fails every time. It is a really basic thing, dose the corporate US have proper jurisdiction to complain about a natural person. The law says in general no (upheld by the courts), but there are exceptions. Gotta watch them exceptions or they will jump up and bite you.
Link Posted: 11/29/2006 6:22:00 AM EDT
OK, let me get this straight,:  You are saying that the BATF has no jurisdiction as a federal law enforcement agency to bring weapons charges against you for violating a federal law?

Therefore, the US attorney has no jurisdiction to prosecute you for being in possession of an unregisitered machinegun?

Then, according to your theory, every weapons charge that was started by the BATF is null and void becasue they did not have jurisdiction?

Further, since the Oly Arms (alleged) MG was placed in interstate commerce, you are saying that the federal government has no jurisidiction over goods that were placed in interstate commerce?

Do you have any caselaw to back this up when the judge asks you to give him something to base his ruling in your favor on?

Please, take me back to "LAW 101" as I seem to have forgotten some basic tenets of federal jurisidiction and constitutional law.
Link Posted: 11/29/2006 6:23:41 AM EDT
The BATF is a federal agency.  Aren't they under the treasury department?

Bladerunner, not going to get confrontaitonal here, but you have made some statements that will annoy the hell out of hte Judge and there is no reason to destroy your case by coming across as a crackpot.  

So convince me with rational legal theory and proof.
Link Posted: 11/29/2006 6:42:14 AM EDT
It will likely just piss off a judge, but he may be on to something.  Wouldn't their jurisdiction (or lack thereof) be wedded to the degree of Bladerunner's culpability?

IOW, was there any 922(o) "making" on his behalf?  If not, then it's a mere possession/ownership issue, which would be the simple "crime".  That said, Lopez, while diminished by Raich, was not overturned.  Lopez (to the best of my recollection so early in the morning) is the only real limiter on interstate commerce and essentially said that "crime" or "crime prevention" was too far removed from interstate commerce to be actionable through same.

Or do I need to go across the street and get a cup of coffee?


I was up until 4:45am with a crying baby, so I may be hallucinating a little.
Link Posted: 11/29/2006 6:44:14 AM EDT
By the way:

BATFE *was* formerly under Treasury, but with the 2002 Homeland Security Act, it got shifted/shuffled to being under DoJ.
Link Posted: 11/29/2006 6:59:02 AM EDT
<< disclaimer: not a lawyer>>

Assuming your gun really WASNT a converted full auto, why not just present the following comparison?



If it only had semi features, what could they do?
Link Posted: 11/29/2006 7:27:58 AM EDT

Quoted:
I've read this twice now and its awefully confusing.

Was your gun actually an MG?  First it says the person who borrowed it fired in tri-burst then the feds say that they tested it and it fired full auto.  I mean how does this happen?  Did you do anything too it?  I have heard stories on AKs where broken disconnector springs caused full auto fire; I don't know if that happens with ARs.



I'm confused as well. It was mentioned by this guy you loaned the gun to, and in the report, it would fire a three round burst, "if the selector switch was placed in the unmarked third position". Semi auto AR-15's have no such third position. Being as this whole thing centers around this gun lets keep this on that topic as this is all becoming unnecessarily confusing. True or false?? 1.) You "loaned out" this gun to some guy for an extended period of time. 2.) The gun obviously fired in some type of full auto mode because this is what started this whole ball rolling. 3.) The gun had an "unmarked 3rd position" on it's selector switch, that when engaged allowed it to fire in some type of full auto mode so therefore it couldn't be "worn out" to cause this.

If this guy didn't have the knowledge or ability to convert it, and you didn't, then who could have possibly done it? That is what seems to be the $64,000 question here.  Bill T.
Link Posted: 11/29/2006 7:46:48 AM EDT

Quoted:
OK, let me get this straight,:  You are saying that the BATF has no jurisdiction as a federal law enforcement agency to bring weapons charges against you for violating a federal law?


I don’t know enough about how the agencies are arranged to say whether or not they are federal or not. It gets into what the US treasury is under now. But if they are, or do claim to be federal then there are some questions that must be answered. 3 in law and 3 in fact. If those can be answered then they would have jurisdiction and we move on to the next step.

I hope this is not too long and arduous, but here is some of what I have used in the past in the State courts to defend others in everything from a felony to a few misdemeanors and a ton of smaller things like traffic tickets. If you really wish to go over some of it in detail we should start another thread.

2. There are six elements that must be met for in personnam jurisdiction to be proven, thereby giving this court the jurisdiction necessary over the physical body of Michael xxxxxxxxx needed to move forward and hear the charges brought against him in equity.  3 of these elements are matters of law, and three are matters of fact.
3. Element one (in law) is a court created in Law, organized and sitting.  
4. Element two (in law) is the authority given to it to hear and determine causes of the kind in question.
5. Element three (in law) is the power given to it by law to render judgments such as it assumes to render.
6. Element four (in fact) is the authority over the parties to the case if the judgment is to bind them personally as a judgment in personnam (against the natural person).
7. Element five (in fact) is authority over the thing being adjudicated upon by it’s being within the courts territory, and seized if libel to be carried away.
8. Element six (in fact) is the authority to decide the question involved, witch is acquired by the question being submitted to it by the parties for a decision.







Therefore, the US attorney has no jurisdiction to prosecute you for being in possession of an unregisitered machinegun?


If no jurisdiction exists then no. If it dose then one of the things to be looked at is whether I ever had a MG. (I have not)




Then, according to your theory, every weapons charge that was started by the BATF is null and void becasue they did not have jurisdiction?


If they had no jurisdiction to start, and I don’t volunteer to give them to it then that would be correct. If they did have jurisdiction from the start then any further arguing over it after it is ruled on is moot.




Further, since the Oly Arms (alleged) MG was placed in interstate commerce, you are saying that the federal government has no jurisidiction over goods that were placed in interstate commerce?


In my under standing of what interstate commerce is this alleged borrowing of the weapon would not fall under it. There was no transaction of any form of money, no trades, and no crossing of state lines. Although I should probably look it up before commenting on it here I will let it stand at that pending a correction.



Do you have any caselaw to back this up when the judge asks you to give him something to base his ruling in your favor on?


Plenty, but they have a bad habit of trying to ignore it.

When the jurisdiction of any tribunal is challenged, that tribunal bears the burden of proving jurisdiction over both the Person and subject matter.  Once jurisdiction is challenged it must be proven [see: Hagins vs. Levine, 415 U.S. 533, note 3 (1974)].  Jurisdiction once challenged cannot be assumed and must be decided. [Maine vs. Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 2502].  Again, once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist [see: Stuck vs.  Medical Examiners, 94 CA2d 751, 211 P2d 389].  Until the alleged plaintiff submits uncontroversial evidence that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, which is failing in the instant Complaint; the court is proceeding without subject-matter jurisdiction [see: Loos vs. American Energy Savers, Inc., 168 Ill. App. 3d 558, 522 N.E.2d 841 (1988)].  Therefore, it is necessary that the Record present the fact establishing the jurisdiction of the tribunal. [see: Lowe vs. Alexander 15 C 296; People vs. Board of Delegates of S.F. Fire Department.  14 C 479] Jurisdiction of the court must be challenged.  You do this by requesting the federal judge to give you the factual sufficiency of his jurisdictional conclusions of his jurisdiction and not his philosophical conclusion.

Quote  "All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the
government authorities only, not human/creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process...." Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (US Department of Labor), 769 F. 2nd 1344,1348 (1985).

Government created JURISTIC PERSONS and these FICTIONS OF LAW have legislatively created PRIVILEGES.

"The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill
the different departments of its government, but in the People, from
whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their
discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the
constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both
in reference to the federal and state government." Spooner v.
McConnell, 22 F. 939 @ 943
"n common usage, the term `person' does not include the
sovereign, [and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily
construed to exclude it." United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S.
600, 604 (1941); accord, United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S.
258, 275 (1947). Particularly is this true where the statute imposes
a burden or limitation, as distinguished from conferring a benefit
or advantage. United States v. Knight, 14 Pet. 301, 315 (1840).
There is nevertheless "no hard and fast rule of exclusion," United
States v. Cooper Corp., supra, at 604-605; and much depends on the
context, the subject matter, legislative history, and executive
interpretation. Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979)



Please, take me back to "LAW 101" as I seem to have forgotten some basic tenets of federal jurisidiction and constitutional law.


No biggy. I’m no expert in it. I just have learned some things over the years that have served me well.
Link Posted: 11/29/2006 7:51:36 AM EDT

Quoted:
<< disclaimer: not a lawyer>>

Assuming your gun really WASNT a converted full auto, why not just present the following comparison?

If it only had semi features, what could they do?


If needed I'm sure we will offer such a comparison with expert testimony. And I'm not sure what they can do, or think they can. But apparently they think they have something.
Link Posted: 11/29/2006 7:57:03 AM EDT
WRT the issue of jurisdiction, see my earlier post stating they are no longer under Treas.  DoJ now.
Link Posted: 11/29/2006 7:59:51 AM EDT

Quoted:
The BATF is a federal agency.  Aren't they under the treasury department?


Think they were, but moved.



Bladerunner, not going to get confrontaitonal here, but you have made some statements that will annoy the hell out of hte Judge and there is no reason to destroy your case by coming across as a crackpot.  

So convince me with rational legal theory and proof.


I do not take rational discussion as confrontational. Nor do I hold it against someone to have an opinion different from mine so don’t worry…

Yes, I have only had 1 judge in the past that bothered to answer all the questions and then proceed to dismiss a case. Every other one was a big fight to get them to toe the line and they always got mad. No judge likes to have his courts authority questioned. Neither do and of the PD’s.  I don’t argue any opinions, just the law as written. If there is case law or written law that contradicts what I have found it would nullify all or part of my argument and change my opinion on some things. Read some of what I have posted and let me know if you have something different.

Understand it is a simple progression for a court to follow due process. Making sure jurisdiction is there is just the first step, there are many after that, each one harder to prove for the defendant.
Link Posted: 11/29/2006 8:05:15 AM EDT

Quoted:
It will likely just piss off a judge, but he may be on to something.  Wouldn't their jurisdiction (or lack thereof) be wedded to the degree of Bladerunner's culpability?

IOW, was there any 922(o) "making" on his behalf?  If not, then it's a mere possession/ownership issue, which would be the simple "crime".  That said, Lopez, while diminished by Raich, was not overturned.  Lopez (to the best of my recollection so early in the morning) is the only real limiter on interstate commerce and essentially said that "crime" or "crime prevention" was too far removed from interstate commerce to be actionable through same.

Or do I need to go across the street and get a cup of coffee?


I was up until 4:45am with a crying baby, so I may be hallucinating a little.



I’ve had my morning coffee and your making my head hurt already. I’m not used to getting this in depth this fast. But I’m all for the opinions on it.

I just wish the judges would not get so mad at someone simply wanting to stand on there rights and asking for proper due process. I find it a shame. Think of both how many folks would not be in jail/prison, and of how many there would feel better about it if the courts walked them through everything from beginning to end instead of skipping steps and not telling folks if they don’t catch the steps glossed over they are consenting to it
Link Posted: 11/29/2006 8:07:32 AM EDT

Quoted: But apparently they think they have something.


They do, your full auto, unlicensed machine gun!  Bill T.
Link Posted: 11/29/2006 8:21:12 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted: But apparently they think they have something.


They do, your full auto, unlicensed machine gun!  Bill T.



So they claim. As I have never had a class 3 anything I find it hard to believe. If both are true then there are a lot of additional facts missing neither of us know about. One of the pitfalls of long term borrowing of a waepon that I will keep in mind for the future.
Link Posted: 11/29/2006 8:24:28 AM EDT
Do not argue over jurisdictional issues as a basis for your defense!

Expend your resources arguing the facts, not legal theories. Either the rifle in question was full auto or it wasn't. You can create all sorts of hassles (contempt of court, sanctions, etc) for the BATFE for not sharing evidence or obeying the court's orders.

If the judge is going to get mad let it be at your opponents and let it be for tampering with evidence, refusing to share evidence, and disobeying court orders (re: your motions).

People who argue legal theory do so because they don't have a REAL defense and are trying to shift the focus away from themselves. Don't do that. It's the argument of fools and liars, and the judges generally won't take the bait.
Link Posted: 11/29/2006 8:29:29 AM EDT

Quoted: So they claim. As I have never had a class 3 anything I find it hard to believe. If both are true then there are a lot of additional facts missing neither of us know about.


Look, this isn't that complicated. There are enough people who witnessed the gun fire in full auto. They have the gun. They tested it and found it does in fact fire full auto. There is nothing more to argue on that clear point. It all boils down to the fact it's your gun. If you didn't convert it, and the ATF seems convinced the kid you loaned it to didn't, then your going to have to come up with the individual who did or your going to go down for this. Your wasting way to much time playing lawyer with all this jurisdiction crap.  Bill T.
Page / 46
An error occurred on the server when processing the URL. Please contact the system administrator.

If you are the system administrator please click here to find out more about this error.