woerm
Member
over at subguns.com on the nfa board Mr. Larson has some comments on a pending investigation in the wrenn case.
I have two question having not ever (thankfully) been in a fed ct house
do they really confiscate cell phone from joe average? they have taken to ignoring the 14th ammd as well a the rest of the BOR?
also when a fed judge initates a complaint against a fed persecuter are the results public?
text of Mr Larson's post:
linky: http://www.subguns.com/boards/mgmsg.cgi?read=553328
[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]
Subguns.com NFA Firearms Discussion Board
message for SOTs, others on NFRTR, etc.
Posted By: Eric M. Larson <[email protected]>
Date: 7/14/06 20:30
I’ve heard enough information about an ATF practice that has developed regarding inspections of Special Occupational Taxpayers (manufacturers of NFA firearms or devices, as well as federally licensed dealers in NFA firearms and devices), and related issues, that it seems timely to write up and post a couple of things. Actually various things that I believe are of common interest to the entire NFA community.
Apparently when conducting compliance inspections, and the NFA manufacturer or NFA dealer says to ATF: “I’ll be glad to assist, please show me your NFRTR printout and I’ll check it against my inventory.”
ATF has responded by (1) declining to provide an NFRTR printout of the dealer’s or manufacturer’s current inventory, (2) physically copying all of the NFA manufacturing or transfer information, and (3) telling the dealer or manufacturer: “We’re going to take this information and check it against our records, and if we have any questions, we’ll let you know.” Actually, this tactic has been used for several years in an effort by ATF to use dealer records to correct the NFRTR, which has been proven to be inaccurate and incomplete.
I would note that attorney Stephen P. Halbrook has documented the foregoing practice in FIREARMS LAW DESKBOOK (2005 Edition), on pages 456-457. Mr. Halbrook observes that: “Theoretically, BATF can correct some errors in the NFRTR by gaining access to dealers’ records and by checking out-of-business records in BATF’s custody. Such access does not exist for BATF-approved transfers between unlicensed persons in the same state, in regard to which the transferor is not subject to BATF inspection and is not required to keep records.” So, ATF can’t possibly correct the NFRTR to an acceptable extent, and it seems likely that innocent people will continue to be victimized by the fact that the NFRTR is inaccurate and incomplete and, therefore, unreliable.
While I’m not and never have been an SOT, if I was I would very much want to know what kinds of records the ATF had on me and my business, and particularly what the NFRTR printout said was in my current inventory. I would respectfully suggest that any SOTs who may have such concerns, should consider requesting their Congressional representatives to assist in encouraging ATF to provide NFRTR printouts of inventory to SOTs at the point when ATF shows up requesting to do an inventory of the SOT’s firearms.
This is also relevant because a recent federal prosecution (United States vs. Ernest Wrenn, Cr. No. 1:04-045, United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Aiken Division, 2005) included some information about the accuracy and completeness of the NFRTR, although not all of that information is reflected in the transcript of the trial. Briefly, ATF Inspector George W. Semonick did a compliance inspection of Mr. Wrenn’s NFA firearms inventory, and discovered 135 errors in the NFRTR. Upon examination, it was determined that the NFRTR itself was in error---NOT any of Mr. Wrenn’s records. Mr. Semonick stated under oath that there were “discrepancies” in the NFRTR records, and apparently because these were not relevant to any crimes with which Mr. Wrenn had been charged, the matter of errors in the NFRTR was not fully explored. Mr. Semonick’s testimony is available on the Internet at:
http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/SemonickTestimony.pdf
I would hope all of you who have read this far wouldn’t think I’d be posting this simply to repeat stuff already long in the public domain, and I’m not going to disappoint you. What’s NOT in the public domain (yet) is a videotape that Mr. Wrenn made when Mr. Semonick was doing his compliance inspection. There’s actually days and days and days of tapes, and there’s just (from my perspective) one small section of one tape that is of interest. The section of interest is where Mr. Wrenn asks Mr. Semonick if he or anybody else at ATF corrected the errors that Mr. Semonick found in the NFRTR. Mr. Semonick clearly answers “No.” Mr. Wrenn repeats the question, and Mr. Semonick clearly states no, the NFRTR errors he found in the NFRTR (which were ATF’s errors, not Mr. Wrenn’s errors) were not corrected. That’s what makes this court transcript so interesting.
This tape is not a product of my imagination. In fact, Mr. Wrenn sent me 4 copies of it, and I immediately sent 2 of them to --- let me put it this way --- entities that have people who are interested in such issues, who reviewed the tape and what was said. Were the right person to ask me for a copy, I would considering giving it to that person.
Finally, I’d like to close by doing something I’ve never consciously done before: Namely, to report on a rumor, which I am labeling as a rumor because I can’t independently confirm its validity with the Department of Justice. First, consider that Mr. Wrenn pled guilty in federal court during the course of a trial during the 2nd week of November 2005. Consider that it is now the 2nd week of July 2006, and Mr. Wrenn has not been sentenced. I’ve heard this is because there’s an investigation of prosecutorial misconduct going on, involving (1) ATF apparently using a paid informant who obtained information on trial strategy and related information from a witness at the Wrenn trial, and (2) a telephone call during the trial by Attorney General Gonzales himself to the prosecutor, expressing significant displeasure that the prosecutor dropped ALL firearms charges against Mr. Wrenn. For what it’s worth, I also understand that under instructions from Mr. Gonzalez, all cell telephone calls to and from federal courts are monitored and recorded (Mr. Gonzalez’ conversation occurred while the prosecutor was in trial court, on the federal prosecutor’s cell telephone).
I’ve heard there’s a deal in the works where (1) Mr. Wrenn’s conviction is going to be vacated with prejudice, (2) all attorney fees of Mr. Wrenn will be paid, (3) anybody who lost money dealing with Mr. Wrenn will get repaid, and (4) Mr. Wrenn will be gagged as a condition of this deal. That is, Mr. Wrenn will walk, have his attorney fees paid, and so forth, and then be prohibited from talking about it.
I have to say the notion of a paid federal informant dishing out defense strategy and similar information during the course of a federal prosecution, IF THAT HAPPENED, is more than unseemly. It does go a long way towards why ATF has been hanging up on Mr. Len Savage when he calls to find out what’s going on with firearms or devices he has submitted for technical examination. Figure---if a paid federal informant may have stolen some of the tape recordings Mr. Savage lawfully made of various telephone conversations, it would be kind of embarrassing for ATF to have to explain it this way: “We can’t talk with you because our paid informant has given us some tapes proving that you legally tape recorded our conversations, which memorialize and prove some kinda embarrassing things we’ve said to you that may reflect our technical or other incompetence---or be flat out illegal, like sending you a firearm we have ruled is a machine gun without any paperwork on it at the ATF end. OK, maybe that latter thing isn’t technically illegal because the Government doesn’t have to comply with the NFA, but it sure isn’t Role Model behavior and thus could embarrass us. The other thing is, we can’t decide who’s gonna have to take the fall for messing all this stuff up, and in the meantime we just don’t want to be creating any more evidence. Therefore, we have no choice but to not respond to Mr. Savage and to hang up on him when he calls and asks if we will please process his firearm or device submissions.”
I would like to emphasize that the above reflects (1) some information that has to be classified as “rumor” because I can’t verify it right now with the Department of Justice, and (2) my personal interpretation of what may be going on with at least some of this stuff. In the interest of full disclosure, I have no dog in this fight. I don’t know Ernest Wrenn, Mr. Wrenn has not contacted me about the above, and I’ve not even talked with him since at least last September 2005 or so, and have no plans to do so. I’m not doing any kind of business with Len Savage, have no business or commercial interests connected with Mr. Savage, and Mr. Savage had nothing to do with my decision to write this post tonight. Fact is, this stuff has been roiling around for a while---months in some cases, years in others, and it seemed like time to bring some of it into constructive focus.
Finally, I do know that there has been a formal investigation launched into alleged prosecutorial misconduct at the Wrenn trial, headed up by Mr. Fred Liner of the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Department of Justice. My impression is that Mr. Liner was assigned to investigate this case because of a complaint by the presiding Judge at the Wrenn trial, the Honorable Margaret B. Seymour, and if that’s true, that’s what makes the difference. The reason is that if a poisonous young weasel like me (that is, private citizen), or even a defense attorney, brings reliable and valid evidence of misconduct by the Government to the proper authorities, that instigates a chorus of:
“Jump in the lake,
eat a snake,
and come out with a belly ache!”
The tune may vary, but the rhyme is depressingly familiar to anybody who has taken the time to try and work through the system. What’s different here is that “the system” is much less inclined to arbitrarily and capriciously dismiss a complaint by a sitting Federal Judge; the reason is that Federal Judges don’t much care for prosecutorial misconduct and, unlike poisonous young weasels like myself (and defense attorneys), sitting Federal Judges (1) talk with each other, (2) are in a position to cause ATF and other entities significant trouble if they feel like it, and (2) ATF and other entities can’t do much about that because of the independence of the Judicial Branch.
This is the longest post I’ve done in a while, but I figure the Civics Lesson angle is useful and worth reminding myself about from time to time, and while I was reminding myself of it, I figured I’d share. Why not?
Respectfully Submitted,
Eric M. Larson
I have two question having not ever (thankfully) been in a fed ct house
do they really confiscate cell phone from joe average? they have taken to ignoring the 14th ammd as well a the rest of the BOR?
also when a fed judge initates a complaint against a fed persecuter are the results public?
text of Mr Larson's post:
linky: http://www.subguns.com/boards/mgmsg.cgi?read=553328
[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]
Subguns.com NFA Firearms Discussion Board
message for SOTs, others on NFRTR, etc.
Posted By: Eric M. Larson <[email protected]>
Date: 7/14/06 20:30
I’ve heard enough information about an ATF practice that has developed regarding inspections of Special Occupational Taxpayers (manufacturers of NFA firearms or devices, as well as federally licensed dealers in NFA firearms and devices), and related issues, that it seems timely to write up and post a couple of things. Actually various things that I believe are of common interest to the entire NFA community.
Apparently when conducting compliance inspections, and the NFA manufacturer or NFA dealer says to ATF: “I’ll be glad to assist, please show me your NFRTR printout and I’ll check it against my inventory.”
ATF has responded by (1) declining to provide an NFRTR printout of the dealer’s or manufacturer’s current inventory, (2) physically copying all of the NFA manufacturing or transfer information, and (3) telling the dealer or manufacturer: “We’re going to take this information and check it against our records, and if we have any questions, we’ll let you know.” Actually, this tactic has been used for several years in an effort by ATF to use dealer records to correct the NFRTR, which has been proven to be inaccurate and incomplete.
I would note that attorney Stephen P. Halbrook has documented the foregoing practice in FIREARMS LAW DESKBOOK (2005 Edition), on pages 456-457. Mr. Halbrook observes that: “Theoretically, BATF can correct some errors in the NFRTR by gaining access to dealers’ records and by checking out-of-business records in BATF’s custody. Such access does not exist for BATF-approved transfers between unlicensed persons in the same state, in regard to which the transferor is not subject to BATF inspection and is not required to keep records.” So, ATF can’t possibly correct the NFRTR to an acceptable extent, and it seems likely that innocent people will continue to be victimized by the fact that the NFRTR is inaccurate and incomplete and, therefore, unreliable.
While I’m not and never have been an SOT, if I was I would very much want to know what kinds of records the ATF had on me and my business, and particularly what the NFRTR printout said was in my current inventory. I would respectfully suggest that any SOTs who may have such concerns, should consider requesting their Congressional representatives to assist in encouraging ATF to provide NFRTR printouts of inventory to SOTs at the point when ATF shows up requesting to do an inventory of the SOT’s firearms.
This is also relevant because a recent federal prosecution (United States vs. Ernest Wrenn, Cr. No. 1:04-045, United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Aiken Division, 2005) included some information about the accuracy and completeness of the NFRTR, although not all of that information is reflected in the transcript of the trial. Briefly, ATF Inspector George W. Semonick did a compliance inspection of Mr. Wrenn’s NFA firearms inventory, and discovered 135 errors in the NFRTR. Upon examination, it was determined that the NFRTR itself was in error---NOT any of Mr. Wrenn’s records. Mr. Semonick stated under oath that there were “discrepancies” in the NFRTR records, and apparently because these were not relevant to any crimes with which Mr. Wrenn had been charged, the matter of errors in the NFRTR was not fully explored. Mr. Semonick’s testimony is available on the Internet at:
http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/SemonickTestimony.pdf
I would hope all of you who have read this far wouldn’t think I’d be posting this simply to repeat stuff already long in the public domain, and I’m not going to disappoint you. What’s NOT in the public domain (yet) is a videotape that Mr. Wrenn made when Mr. Semonick was doing his compliance inspection. There’s actually days and days and days of tapes, and there’s just (from my perspective) one small section of one tape that is of interest. The section of interest is where Mr. Wrenn asks Mr. Semonick if he or anybody else at ATF corrected the errors that Mr. Semonick found in the NFRTR. Mr. Semonick clearly answers “No.” Mr. Wrenn repeats the question, and Mr. Semonick clearly states no, the NFRTR errors he found in the NFRTR (which were ATF’s errors, not Mr. Wrenn’s errors) were not corrected. That’s what makes this court transcript so interesting.
This tape is not a product of my imagination. In fact, Mr. Wrenn sent me 4 copies of it, and I immediately sent 2 of them to --- let me put it this way --- entities that have people who are interested in such issues, who reviewed the tape and what was said. Were the right person to ask me for a copy, I would considering giving it to that person.
Finally, I’d like to close by doing something I’ve never consciously done before: Namely, to report on a rumor, which I am labeling as a rumor because I can’t independently confirm its validity with the Department of Justice. First, consider that Mr. Wrenn pled guilty in federal court during the course of a trial during the 2nd week of November 2005. Consider that it is now the 2nd week of July 2006, and Mr. Wrenn has not been sentenced. I’ve heard this is because there’s an investigation of prosecutorial misconduct going on, involving (1) ATF apparently using a paid informant who obtained information on trial strategy and related information from a witness at the Wrenn trial, and (2) a telephone call during the trial by Attorney General Gonzales himself to the prosecutor, expressing significant displeasure that the prosecutor dropped ALL firearms charges against Mr. Wrenn. For what it’s worth, I also understand that under instructions from Mr. Gonzalez, all cell telephone calls to and from federal courts are monitored and recorded (Mr. Gonzalez’ conversation occurred while the prosecutor was in trial court, on the federal prosecutor’s cell telephone).
I’ve heard there’s a deal in the works where (1) Mr. Wrenn’s conviction is going to be vacated with prejudice, (2) all attorney fees of Mr. Wrenn will be paid, (3) anybody who lost money dealing with Mr. Wrenn will get repaid, and (4) Mr. Wrenn will be gagged as a condition of this deal. That is, Mr. Wrenn will walk, have his attorney fees paid, and so forth, and then be prohibited from talking about it.
I have to say the notion of a paid federal informant dishing out defense strategy and similar information during the course of a federal prosecution, IF THAT HAPPENED, is more than unseemly. It does go a long way towards why ATF has been hanging up on Mr. Len Savage when he calls to find out what’s going on with firearms or devices he has submitted for technical examination. Figure---if a paid federal informant may have stolen some of the tape recordings Mr. Savage lawfully made of various telephone conversations, it would be kind of embarrassing for ATF to have to explain it this way: “We can’t talk with you because our paid informant has given us some tapes proving that you legally tape recorded our conversations, which memorialize and prove some kinda embarrassing things we’ve said to you that may reflect our technical or other incompetence---or be flat out illegal, like sending you a firearm we have ruled is a machine gun without any paperwork on it at the ATF end. OK, maybe that latter thing isn’t technically illegal because the Government doesn’t have to comply with the NFA, but it sure isn’t Role Model behavior and thus could embarrass us. The other thing is, we can’t decide who’s gonna have to take the fall for messing all this stuff up, and in the meantime we just don’t want to be creating any more evidence. Therefore, we have no choice but to not respond to Mr. Savage and to hang up on him when he calls and asks if we will please process his firearm or device submissions.”
I would like to emphasize that the above reflects (1) some information that has to be classified as “rumor” because I can’t verify it right now with the Department of Justice, and (2) my personal interpretation of what may be going on with at least some of this stuff. In the interest of full disclosure, I have no dog in this fight. I don’t know Ernest Wrenn, Mr. Wrenn has not contacted me about the above, and I’ve not even talked with him since at least last September 2005 or so, and have no plans to do so. I’m not doing any kind of business with Len Savage, have no business or commercial interests connected with Mr. Savage, and Mr. Savage had nothing to do with my decision to write this post tonight. Fact is, this stuff has been roiling around for a while---months in some cases, years in others, and it seemed like time to bring some of it into constructive focus.
Finally, I do know that there has been a formal investigation launched into alleged prosecutorial misconduct at the Wrenn trial, headed up by Mr. Fred Liner of the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Department of Justice. My impression is that Mr. Liner was assigned to investigate this case because of a complaint by the presiding Judge at the Wrenn trial, the Honorable Margaret B. Seymour, and if that’s true, that’s what makes the difference. The reason is that if a poisonous young weasel like me (that is, private citizen), or even a defense attorney, brings reliable and valid evidence of misconduct by the Government to the proper authorities, that instigates a chorus of:
“Jump in the lake,
eat a snake,
and come out with a belly ache!”
The tune may vary, but the rhyme is depressingly familiar to anybody who has taken the time to try and work through the system. What’s different here is that “the system” is much less inclined to arbitrarily and capriciously dismiss a complaint by a sitting Federal Judge; the reason is that Federal Judges don’t much care for prosecutorial misconduct and, unlike poisonous young weasels like myself (and defense attorneys), sitting Federal Judges (1) talk with each other, (2) are in a position to cause ATF and other entities significant trouble if they feel like it, and (2) ATF and other entities can’t do much about that because of the independence of the Judicial Branch.
This is the longest post I’ve done in a while, but I figure the Civics Lesson angle is useful and worth reminding myself about from time to time, and while I was reminding myself of it, I figured I’d share. Why not?
Respectfully Submitted,
Eric M. Larson