I dont see how anyone who has read even one of the factual pages representing what happened in this case, and would believe this guy to be anything but a crackpot.
Unfortunately even the cases of people who you feel are crackpots need to be tried with the absolute scrutiny you would reserve for someone you agree with.
Unfortunately most of the cases where someone appealed a case multiple times and is then for example a case the SCOTUS agrees to hear are not someone you would want as your neighbor.
The Constitutionality of the NFA laws for example were challenged by a bank robber and moonshiner back in the Miller case. He would have won that challenge if he had lived or someone spoke on his behalf. He died before they appeared before the Supreme Court.
They court essentialy said he would have won the challenge if someone would have come and shown short barreled shotguns had military use (and they had been used extensively in WW1.)
They however could not consider facts not presented, and nobody showed up to present any becase Miller died, and nobody cared enough to come argue on his behalf anyways.
The entire Constitutionality of short barreled weapons and likely machineguns (which could also have been shown used for previous militia/military purposes) and the NFA as a whole would have been challenged and defeated.
The GCA in 1968 that Amended the NFA to add Destructive Devices, limiting the bore to .50, added AOWs and a host of other things could not have been done in light of that ruling.
Our entire nation would have far more firearm rights, all because a bank robber and illegal moonshiner challenged the constitutionality of the law.
You do not ususaly get to pick and choose the type of person you want challenging gun laws. The Supreme Court of the United States refuses to hear far more cases than they agree to hear. Many great cases have never been granted writ of certiorari. Some bad cases have been. So you have to work with what you get, and if the law is wrong or unconstitional you work with circumstances and cases that you can demonstrate that with.
In this situation he is using various cases to show actions taken by the ATF that are wrong. That does not mean they do not do wrong things to better prosecute some bad guys or others who are less than perfect. Yes some of the guys they use crooked tricks to convict are not the most upstanding or great role models.
If your local police plant evidence to convict bad people it would still be wrong whether the people they planted evidence to convict were better off in jail or not. It is a similar principle. By stopping that type of action you would not only protect the criminal's rights, but good people in the future who would get tangled up in the web of corruption. Or people the corrupt cops thought were bad guys who were not.
It would not mean you liked the gang member and drug dealer that they were unable to take off the streets and so planted evidence to convict.
That has nothing to do with it.
