Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
Page / 15
Link Posted: 9/14/2012 7:45:22 PM EDT



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.



 
Link Posted: 9/14/2012 11:34:06 PM EDT
Double Sucker punch - I'd love to see that on 60 minutes...
Link Posted: 9/15/2012 11:36:04 AM EDT
I will be sharing those broadly!
Link Posted: 9/15/2012 11:45:49 AM EDT
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...
Link Posted: 9/15/2012 12:14:56 PM EDT



Quoted:



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...


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?



 
Link Posted: 10/1/2012 4:15:21 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 10/1/2012 5:41:27 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 10/22/2012 5:27:09 PM EDT
Tag. Please keep us updated on this.
Link Posted: 10/25/2012 1:36:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/25/2012 1:49:51 PM EDT


they revoked his pre-sentencing release due to him violating the terms of his release (he failed a breathalyzer)
Link Posted: 10/25/2012 1:56:15 PM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 10/25/2012 2:23:17 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 10/25/2012 2:44:52 PM EDT
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...
Link Posted: 10/27/2012 6:56:24 AM EDT
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)
Link Posted: 10/27/2012 6:57:00 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 10/27/2012 7:26:12 PM EDT
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....
Link Posted: 11/20/2012 5:03:57 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 2:11:22 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 2:21:31 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 2:24:20 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 2:52:42 PM EDT
This "criminal crisis" wouldn't exist if not for government artificially creating high value, limited availability items.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 2:59:23 PM EDT
They don't have a clue how many items are out there.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 4:18:08 PM EDT
It will be interesting for this to go to trial. The trouble that this nfrtr rubber stamp testimony will cause the ATF is biblical.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 5:38:14 PM EDT
Quoted:
When the ATF is involved, always take the other side.


Even when the other side's committing fraud and conspiring to defraud others?
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 5:47:11 PM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 5:50:20 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 6:42:30 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 6:54:46 PM EDT
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...
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 7:07:32 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 7:21:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/23/2012 4:14:08 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/23/2012 5:01:43 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/23/2012 5:11:16 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/23/2012 7:33:53 AM EDT
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...
Link Posted: 11/23/2012 8:16:18 AM EDT



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...


We're gonna need that stamp awhile... anyone have some ChocoLax?

 
Link Posted: 11/23/2012 8:45:24 AM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 11/29/2012 6:55:15 AM EDT
thanks for updating this thread and explaining everything folks!

if anything, it's damn informative. (no pun intended)
Link Posted: 11/29/2012 7:13:58 AM EDT
Y'all check out the vann motion in limine.
Link Posted: 11/29/2012 7:20:50 AM EDT
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.

Link Posted: 11/29/2012 7:21:18 AM EDT


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.
Link Posted: 11/29/2012 7:22:20 AM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 11/29/2012 7:41:42 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/29/2012 7:51:48 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/29/2012 9:43:50 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/29/2012 12:22:21 PM EDT




Quoted:









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.
Link Posted: 11/29/2012 1:21:11 PM EDT
Quoted:

Quoted:


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.
Link Posted: 11/29/2012 1:40:13 PM EDT
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?

Link Posted: 11/29/2012 5:13:44 PM EDT
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.
Page / 15
Top Top