The federal government allegedly suppressed evidence and edited a legal definition in a Wisconsin case against a man who ultimately was convicted of transferring a machine gun, according to an appeal document.Note on the affadavit in support of criminal complaint there was no mention of prior tests that showed the gun was not a machinegun.
I posted the appeals brief yesterday that details all the dirty tricks the government and the prosecution employed--from mischaracterizing technical points on the witness stand, to ignoring precedent established in the Staples case in re definitions, to failure to produce documents requested by the defense (the excuse was correspondence with the original manufacturer contained privileged tax information), to preventing the defense expert witness from inspecting the firearm and excluding him from the courtroom during when the "expert witness" for the prosecution testified--actually reneging on their agreement and legal requirements, and much, much more...all with the tacit consent of a complicit judge.
So far, there has been zero interest shown from the "gun blogosphere." This is news, people, as recognized by Bob Unruh and WorldNetDaily. It is important, and it affects all of us.
You can come back and kick my tail for a bad prediction later: I think there's a very good chance Olofson will get a new trial out of this.