E-mail Exchange Between Len Savage And The Firearms Testing Branch Of The ATF

From: "fire_tech"
To: Len Savage
Subject: Reference Urgent Request / Phone Calls
Date: Monday, July 07, 2008 5:50:51 PM

Mr. Savage,

FTB's response to your last written request concerning letter #3311/2008-472 is being reviewed.

FTB has been instructed to hold your property until proper registration has been completed by you with the National Firearms Act Branch.

Please contact NFA at (304) 616-4500.

Mr. Spencer will provide you with FTB's response once the review process has been completed.

Thanks for contacting FTB!

From: [Len Savage]
To: fire_tech@atf.gov
CC: [Suppressed]
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:28:24 +0000

Acting Director Sullivan
Chief John Spencer
Asst. Chief Rick Vasquez

Your e-mail of July 7th has been received. I am glad your are reviewing my correspondence outlining a gross error in guidance document #3311/2008-472.

Your e-mail communication also states "FTB has been instructed to hold your property until proper registration has been completed by you with the National Firearms Act Branch."

This statement has me gravely concerned on two levels. First, FTB is not recognizing the fact that an error may have occurred at FTB. Secondly, FTB is ignoring the fact that this firearm was properly registered with the NFA branch of the ATF.

I must point out that the above statement is clear and reliable proof that you refuse to even consider human error occurs at FTB. There were far more errors in the guidance document #3311/2008-472 than were addressed in my correspondence. I had wrote them off to Firearms Enforcement Officer Max Kingery's inexperience with firearms. In order to be more specific:

* The firearm was made from sections of a destroyed semiautomatic PKM receiver made by "Wise Lite Arms", not a machinegun PKM receiver.
* The document claims parts and portions have been removed when in fact this was a ground up construction, nothing was removed at anytime from this firearm, only added by me the manufacturer.
* The document hints at but fails to note that other than the feed device, no other PKM part or component will fit on or in the submitted firearm.
* The document contains photos on pages three and four show clearly that the submitted firearm receiver design is unique from the PKM machinegun receiver, but fail to note that fact in the text.
* Although a photograph of the "Calico Upper", [classified a non firearm by FTB] was supplied with the submitted firearm, no comparative analysis was ever noted in the document.

Since you are being instructed to hold my property, and fail to explain who is instructing you, I would respectfully ask that you share the following information with those persons "instructing you":

* Firearms Enforcement Officer Max Kingery was assigned to a position of authority over me five months after testifying against him in US v. Olofson. This appearance of impropriety is clear to anyone, the onus is on FTB at this point.
* There is a prior pattern of FTB actions that is supported by clear and reliable documentation that after or during my participation in the Federal District Court cases that FTB/ATF should consider 18 USC, section 242. "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States,"
* My submitted firearm was properly registered with the NFA Branch of the ATF. FTB is "holding" my property. I have demanded my property back, under the "color of authority". FTB is refusing to return my property claiming it is "not properly registered", when if fact you could instruct the NFA branch to put a "hold" on any lawful transfer, and return my property immediately. This would prevent any sales at the moment while the noted errors by FTB are addressed administratively by the acting Director of the BATFE.
* When the FTB guidance document #3311/2008-472 is compared to FTB guidance document #3311/2004-379 there is clear and reliable evidence that FTB did not comply with "Agency Good Guidance Practices" set forth by Office of the President of the United States, and mandated by him in signed executive orders.
* It appears that FTB is not aware of the "2007 Courtroom Security Act", I was a witness in Federal District Court.

In summary, 1.) The submitted firearm was not made from a machinegun, is not a machinegun, and is my property, that I want returned immediately. 2.) Assignment of Max Kingery after a very heated and public trial less than six months post trial appears improper. 3.) The choice of FTB to install several versions of a "conversion device" in order to induce full auto fire are clear and reliable evidence that they were contrived to deny my constitutional rights as evidenced by the document #3311/2004-379 as well as the other "shoestring letters" by FTB. 4.) FTB is clearly in violation of 18 USC, section 242 as documents by FTB have clearly and reliably proven. 5.) FTB is clearly violating the mandates of the Office of President of the United States Agency Good Guidance Practices as evidenced by FTB documents.

I look forward to your continued communication.


Len Savage

GOF Home