Jeff "Folly" Folloder about to be struck by reality in the case of U.S. vs. Clark.
Remember this post? What they did, and didn't, talk about at the NFATCA public meeting at the SHOT Show. Whispers of ATF snitches and U.S. vs. Clark. Apparently Sipsey Street is getting under some folks' skins for writing home truths like ths:
(A) little bird tells me that there was a lot of gossip and grumbling behind the scenes about NFATCA President John Brown's recent outing as an ATF snitch and just exactly how he is getting sweetheart (i.e., teflon) status in the soon-to-implode case of U.S. vs. Clark. Inquiring minds, it seems, want to know. The background noise of grumbling among NFATCA members is growing. The commoners don't like the "special status" of the Lairds and are wondering how much Brown and his former compadre Dan Shea (a source tells Sipsey Street that the former friends have had a falling out) told the ATF bigwigs like Rick Vasquez about THEM. (See here and here for previous Sipsey Street revelations about Mr. Shea.)Just how long is the NFATCA going to tolerate a federal confidential informant as their "leader"? Inquiring minds want to know.
Well, this elicited a response from Jeff Folloder at the official NFATCA site.
The report from SHOT and a Response to the Voices of Discontent. . .First things first... The allegation that John Brown (or Dan Shea) is a confidential informant. Just because Savage or Vandy or even a lawyer claims it to be so doesn't necessarily make it a fact. Being a CI is a tremendously complicated process and is not something that is undertaken casually. Have a look at the guide: http://www.justice.gov/ag/readingroom/ciguidelines.htmSo Bob Sanders states in a motion that he believes through his own discovery that John is a CI... That's just an opinion. And it is done to cloud the issues surrounding the pending issues against his client. It's a sound tactic, whether it is true or not. Unfortunately, it isn't true. And what's worse, Bob Sanders represented John and the NFATCA, so there may even be some doubt as to whether ethics and propriety were violated by such a disclosure, true or not. It's called conflict of interest. I wonder what will be flipped on who when Bob gets his next client?As for ATF, it is now a holy charlie foxtrot. Sure, life would be easier if the ATF did not exist. Crappy legislation was given to a bunch of folks for interpretation and enforcement and then those folks have had to wing it on their own without leadership and with political agendas. It's not a good mix. But ATF isn't really going away any time soon so we chose to figure out how to push the ball forward instead of just banging the drum for their demise. It was a pragmatic and practical approach. We needed to get things done. And we met with initial rebuff, but eventually became an effective agency for change. It was an era of cooperation. At least with us.
Ah, yes, the "pragmatic" nest of snitches. As opposed to the "I-got-mine-but-I-need-some-mutual-favors-done-for-me-and-you" nest of snitches, no doubt.
Perhaps Folly can explain how John Brown got caught forwarding emails regarding Len Savage's case to the ATF, giving them an inside look at Len's positions?
Perhaps Folly can explain the strange case of Ramsey A. Bear and how it was Dan Shea who ratted out that stuffed child toy to the ATF -- a subject that has been established under oath in court depositions?
Perhaps Folly can explain the hows and whys of the internal investigation of ATF Firearms Technology Branch personnel who were close personal friends of Shea's and Brown's?
Perhaps Folly can explain how he, who folks tell me doesn't even have an FFL, got the job of rewriting the testing procedures of the Firearms Technology Branch which will affect not only the entire industry of which he is NOT, repeat not, a part but also defendants in criminal cases brought by the ATF?
And did you get this part?
And we met with initial rebuff, but eventually became an effective agency for change. It was an era of cooperation. At least with us.
Well, that's an admission, isn't it? "At least with us"? Isn't that the core of the allegations? That Brown and Shea and, by his own admission, Folly were getting special considerations from ATF by having their own concerns addressed? It is no secret that the NFACTCA board under Brown and Shea's leadership have been more than willing to throw the interests of their membership under the bus. For his part, Folly has routinely censored any complaints about Brown, Shea, the NFATCA board and the ATF at the SubGuns message board that he runs.
As for the rambling critique of "my" report on the NFATCA meeting results, that was straight from a linked article at an attorney's website. I will let Bob Sanders answer Folly's criticism of him directly, but an attorney I talked said Folly's attack on Sanders was "ignorant of the law and stupid in the first degree."
As for me, I can only extend the invitation, as I have several times in the past, to Brown, Shea and now, by dint of his volunteer ATF Snitch Anti-Defamation League work, Mr. Jeff "Folly" Folloder, that, if any or all of them believe that I have libeled, slandered or defamed them under the laws existing today, they can sue me. It is an open invitation. I stand by my sources. And I also am certain that I will enjoy the discovery process far more than they will, the guilty modern day Rumkowski's, who sell out their membership for the privileges of being "useful Jews."