He's not a snitch, he's just my special NFATCA friend.
Testimony under oath by Richard Vasquez, former grand poobah in ATF's Firearms Technology Branch, in the case of United States of America vs. Randolph Benjamin Rodman and Idan C. Greenberg, November 28, 2012.
Question by Mr. Sanders, trying to get to the truth of why John Brown of the NFATCA got special treatment from ATF.
Q. He supplied e-mails from a party in litigation with ATF and you supplied -- and you supplied them to the ATF counsel and prosecutors of that case; isn't that right?
A. That is correct. Like I said, John Brown's friendship was a friendship. Anything to do with ATF business, there was nothing hidden so any information given to me, I immediately passed it on.
. Q. M'hum. And you would not consider that being an informant?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. What would you consider it?
A. Passing on information that had to do with an -- it wasn't even an investigation. It was -- I guess a term, litigation.
Q. It was a case in progress?
A. It was not a case. It was not a criminal case.
Q. It was a forfeiture?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. And you passed the information on to the --
A. Absolutely.
6 comments:
Mike, could you post a link back to the original article showing the special treatment Brown received? Some people might not be familiar with the whole story.
It's called "The Buddy System"....
If you've got a buddy
Tried and true
"Stick" your buddy
Before he "sticks" you!
He is just trying to catch up with the "Small Arms Review" folk that helped get R.A. Bear special attention...Yes, many a FUDD owns NFA. Actually, a large percentage of them are FUDD-LIKE, including a number of SOTs I have known, most especially the ones that do a lot of LEO/Mil business.
Welcome to the land of "I got mine and don't care if you can get yours..."
I got into an argument with one of their representatives on February 27th and 28th this year and he tried to make it seem like they were trying to trade our Trust rights for losing the cleo sign off. Looks like he only succeeded in getting half done, but who cares he got his stuff, right? These are people who are fine with us losing our rights because they are trying to protect their own interests. I believe the whole schpeil about eliminating the CLEO sign off was just a cover for what they were really trying to achieve, limiting who can be a NFA collector. This in my opinion is contemptible and they need to be called out about this every opportunity we get. NFATCA is only in it for the NFATCA and thats it. They are not your friend.
I canceled my SAR magazine subscription over this - and you can bet i'll not be buying any more nfacta raffle tickets or anything for that matter
I had a discussion with NFATCA's Jeff Folloder, Executive Director and Sec/Treasurer. He was the "Wise Individual" that actually started the whole mess that has resulted in 41F. He filed suit to have 41F enacted just so he could throw a form 4 in the face of the sheriff in his county of residence, to hell with the fact that it totally screws those of us that use trusts for what trusts are meant for. I have never used a trust to circumvent a CLEO, I used my trust as an estate planning document---ONLY. But thanks Jeff, I really appreciate that I have to send for prints and fingerprints to my brother in law in Texas before I can buy a can in North Carolina, where our General Assembly recently passed legislation compelling CLEOs to sign if there was no legal reason to deny a firearms at all.
Also I want to thank Jeff for giving the CLEO written notification so that the CLEO CAN do a seperate check if he so feels like it, I mean who is going to tell a CLEO you CAN NOT do a check and then the CLEO just calls the BATFE with "Important Information" thus endangering the individuals ability and right to make a regular gun purchase by bumping him up on that Anti-NFA Sheriff's radar.
Next time that Jeff wants to piss in the CLEO of his county's oatmeal, I wish he would think of something else to do.
Post a Comment