Embody vs Judge

[eRay]

We all know he does this stuff to get attention and they reward him by giving it to him. He is a licensed SOT Class 3 dealer and it is legal for him to possess the suppressor. The registration for the suppressor was wrapped around the suppressor in the gun case. The officers probably should have checked to make sure the rifle was unloaded, checked the registration on the suppressor, then give him a citation for disorderly conduct or something and sent him on his way. They did just what he wanted them to do. 

[gregintenn]

I guess the question remains "What do you do with someone like this?"

 

I know I used to really push the line on a lot of things as a high schooler. It drove my teachers nuts, gave the principal fits, and really didn't help me much other than relief from boredom.

 

I like to think I grew out of a lot of that. I don't believe Embody ever will.

[Wiljo05]

While filling out the paperwork for my next suppressor I found a new question on it...

Had a box that asked if I knew Lenny with his photo on there. Pretty sure if I check yes it goes into auto reject mode :-)

In all seriousness, he will cost us more than this will cost him if he keeps this crap up

[c.a.willard]

We all know he does this stuff to get attention and they reward him by giving it to him. He is a licensed SOT Class 3 dealer and it is legal for him to possess the suppressor. The registration for the suppressor was wrapped around the suppressor in the gun case. The officers probably should have checked to make sure the rifle was unloaded, checked the registration on the suppressor, then give him a citation for disorderly conduct or something and sent him on his way. They did just what he wanted them to do. 

 

IIRC his suppressor is a personal one registered to a trust not to him as an individual or one owned by his FFL because the chief LEO struck language through his original paperwork. It was one of his many frivolous lawsuits. So the tax stamp itself does not prove that its legal for him to possess, just that its registered to a trust.  he also has to prove that he is a trustee on that trust.  They couldn't even see the tax stamp until after the warrant to open up the case which was several hours after Lenny was arrested.  

 

Edited to add:  Hopefully Lenny consulted an attorney and his trust is set up properly, but from his displays of thinking he understands the law better than attorneys that specialize in it i think its likely that he did one of the many DIY NFA trusts out there.

 

Edited to add more:  He may have bit himself in the rear when in court he said he owned the suppressor.  If it is in a trust then he is not the "registered owner" the trust is, and he is just a trustee that can possess the property.

Edited August 22, 2013 by c.a.willard

[eRay]

IIRC his suppressor is a personal one registered to a trust not to him as an individual or one owned by his FFL because the chief LEO struck language through his original paperwork. It was one of his many frivolous lawsuits. So the tax stamp itself does not prove that its legal for him to possess, just that its registered to a trust.  he also has to prove that he is a trustee on that trust.  They couldn't even see the tax stamp until after the warrant to open up the case which was several hours after Lenny was arrested.  

 

Edited to add:  Hopefully Lenny consulted an attorney and his trust is set up properly, but from his displays of thinking he understands the law better than attorneys that specialize in it i think its likely that he did one of the many DIY NFA trusts out there.

 

Edited to add more:  He may have bit himself in the rear when in court he said he owned the suppressor.  If it is in a trust then he is not the "registered owner" the trust is, and he is just a trustee that can possess the property.

 

I guess that is possible, but I can see no reason for him to have paid a $200 transfer stamp to transfer it to a trust when as a Special Occupational Taxpayer, he can own and use as many suppressors as he wants without paying any transfer tax. He also would not need a chief law enforcement Officers signature to purchase it for his business. When I had a Class 3 license, I never transfered a firearm to myself.When I gave up the license, all machine guns and suppressors left in inventory became my personal property without having to pay $200 each to transfer them.

[c.a.willard]

I hope lenny doesn't f it up for everyone .  If you read the defenses to what he is charged with  TCA  39-17-1302

 

 

39-17-1302

 

B) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person’s conduct:

(7) Involved acquisition or possession of a sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, machine gun or firearm silencer which is validly registered to the person under federal law in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Records. A person who acquires or possesses a firearm registered as required by this subdivision shall retain proof of registration.

 

 

Thanks to lenny we may very well see case law that invalidates trusts in Tennessee.   If its registered to his FFL maybe everyone gets lucky.

Edited August 22, 2013 by c.a.willard

[Oh Shoot]

I guess that is possible, but I can see no reason for him to have paid a $200 transfer stamp to transfer it to a trust when as a Special Occupational Taxpayer, he can own and use as many suppressors as he wants without paying any transfer tax. He also would not need a chief law enforcement Officers signature to purchase it for his business. When I had a Class 3 license, I never transfered a firearm to myself.When I gave up the license, all machine guns and suppressors left in inventory became my personal property without having to pay $200 each to transfer them.

 

He hasn't been an FFL but for about a year, year and a half, pretty sure he already had some NFA stuff before that, seems unclear what all paperwork he had in court, but had different ones, heard on tape he and judge were looking at different ones at one point.

 

- OS

Edited August 22, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Dolomite_supafly]

In the court hearing he stated the suppressor was on a Form 3 which is a tax free transfer between dealers. So it was in the inventory of the business that holds the SOT. The suppressor my have been paid for by him but it was not his personally but it was in the inventory, and likely the property, of the business. I would be really, really upset if I found out he used a silencer I was waiting on approval on to do this. If it was on a Form 4 in his name then it would have been his personally. But because he is listed on the FFL/SOT he can possess the silencer that is technically the property of the business.

 

There is a lot of gray area here and to be honest the judge probably needs to have a representative of the ATF present to explain. The laws and rulings can get very confusing to anyone not familiar with them. I am far from an expert in these matters but I have read a fair amount on the subject. The judge has probably not read anywhere near what any of us has so he needs someone to help him make the right decisions.

 

A person can pay for their suppressor directly from a manufacturer. The manufacturer then files a Form 3 for a tax free transfer to a NFA dealer of the person's choosing and that is the first waiting period. Then after the Form 3 is approved the silencer is transferred from the maker to the dealer on that Form 3. Then the individual submits a Form 4 and the second, longer, wait begins. Even though the individual has paid for, and legally owns, the item they cannot take possession of it until a Form 4 has been stamped and returned the the individual.

 

There are some dealers that will let you use your suppressor in their presence but the dealer, or representative, must be present.

 

Whatever the ruling is it will set in stone the NFA rules for the state. I just hope my Form 1's come back before this case is settled.

 

Can you imagine if the lawmakers decided to prevent further problems by outlawing NFA items? Especially if he wins and all the copy cats come out of the woodwork looking for a payday.

[Dustbuster]

Good point,wait till Lenny has to subpoena ATF to appear to validate can ownership....if it takes 6 mos to churn a form 4 let's see how many years it takes to get an agent to testify. Hate to see the court crack his ATF forms as hearsay....

[DaveTN]

Good point,wait till Lenny has to subpoena ATF to appear to validate can ownership....if it takes 6 mos to churn a form 4 let's see how many years it takes to get an agent to testify. Hate to see the court crack his ATF forms as hearsay....

If he subpoenas an agent; they will be there. I’m pretty sure there will be at least one there anyway for the Prosecution, if this even goes to trial.

I’m surprised the state hasn’t asked for a mental health evaluation. Maybe they are waiting until the Grand Jury makes it decision.

[Dustbuster]

I hear ya Dave n agree.,I was being sarcastic while dropping a hint for mr pro se,in case he reads this. He's gonna have to cross the T' and dot all I 's on this one for his "client"... Edited August 22, 2013 by Dustbuster

[Guest nra37922]

Not likely but he could win.

[Oh Shoot]

Not likely but he could win.

 

Oh, I don't see how he's not gonna get out from under the single current charge, but "win"? He's already lost job and FFL, maybe permanently, . hours in the slammer, and time in general over this one. And three bills in bail if he didn't have $3k in a lump handy to plunk down.

 

His only win would be a big payout in civil suit, and I've give ya some good odds that won't happen.

 

- OS

Edited August 22, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[JayC]

I think there is a bigger issue here...  the way the TN law is written, a firearm does not equal a silencer...  and you're only required to 'retain' paperwork on a firearm under TN law.  Go read the 39-17-13xx definition of a firearm, and tell me how a NFA silencer falls under that definition.

 

Leonard is missing a lot of tricks a 2nd year law student would have used in front of the judge.  He should have made a bunch of different motions to dismiss...

 

1. The TN state law is in violation of federal law (the IRS 6013 rule).

2. TN State law doesn't require NFA paperwork to be retained on a silencer.

3. TN State law doesn't require that NFA paperwork to be shown on request by TN law

4. While the officers may or may not have had PC to perform the search, here is a copy of the paperwork, so they no longer have PC to proceed to trial.

 

One of those written motions would have worked, and ended this farce.

 

I guess Lenny is gonna find out for us.  See, he is good for something!

 

The tax thing seems like a technicality though, and I think this whole thing was to get them in a catch-22, where they could arrest him for having a prohibited firearm, but it was not a prohibited firearm based on documentation he isn't required to show them, so they could not determine that the firearm was legal.  I mean, imagine tooling around with a .50 cal machine gun on your jeep and then telling the cop to pound sand when he asks for your FA paperwork on it.  I mean, I guess in a perfect system we wouldn't need such silly things as tax stamps in the first place, but we do and it is generally not a good idea to pick a fight with a cop using technicalities.

 

[JayC]

I'm sorry but can you please provide a definition of 'threaten' that matches this statement?  Stupid? yes. Bad idea? most definitely.  Threatening?  Not in anyway shape or form.

 

I just can't agree. The guy just flat out threatened people in downtown Nashville, just so he could prove that he was abused, and get his payoff. So... let him prove it. HE is abusing the letter of the law. I'm not about to get pissed at the government for playing the same game in return. So, let's see who wins. It's Lenny's game. He brought it.

 

[TMF]

I think there is a bigger issue here... the way the TN law is written, a firearm does not equal a silencer... and you're only required to 'retain' paperwork on a firearm under TN law. Go read the 39-17-13xx definition of a firearm, and tell me how a NFA silencer falls under that definition.
.

Right on, I didn't know that.

On another note, he doesn't want this farce to end. He is making a point. I'm not sure what that point is, but he is bent on making it.

[Oh Shoot]

....On another note, he doesn't want this farce to end. He is making a point. I'm not sure what that point is, but he is bent on making it.

 

Dunno. I think there's a good chance he was quite surprised it wasn't dropped at this hearing. If he was still gonna make an issue of it, especially the fact that TN doesn't have a right to see his "tax documents",  he wouldn't even have brought the Class 3 documentation, seems to me.

 

'Course, he's probably rationalizing to himself that this is just more fodder for a lawsuit payout.

 

This is gonna be kind of an odd one for a grand jury, seems. No idea how a rank and file assortment of folks is gonna see it -- especially if he doesn't bring a frigging lawyer for the next round. This is after all different waters for him, since this is first time arrested.

 

- OS

Edited August 22, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[eRay]

Oh, I don't see how he's not gonna get out from under the single current charge, but "win"? He's already lost job and FFL, maybe permanently, . hours in the slammer, and time in general over this one. And three bills in bail if he didn't have $3k in a lump handy to plunk down.

 

His only win would be a big payout in civil suit, and I've give ya some good odds that won't happen.

 

- OS

 

I think what you are overlooking is the fact that this will be settled by an insurance company, not a jury. A jury would probably rule against him in a civil suit, but the insurance people are afraid to take that chance. They will settle with him for a substancial sum to avoid the small chance that he might win a multimillion dollar judgement. I got sued once and the attorney advised me that it cost $35,000 minimum to try a case in court. If you can settle for that, you settle, even if you have an airtite defense. And in this case the governments insurance company has far from an airtite defense.

[Hershmeister]

The most he should get in a settlement is 50 lashes with a wet noodle for being such a doofus.

[mikegideon]

I think what you are overlooking is the fact that this will be settled by an insurance company, not a jury. A jury would probably rule against him in a civil suit, but the insurance people are afraid to take that chance. They will settle with him for a substancial sum to avoid the small chance that he might win a multimillion dollar judgement. I got sued once and the attorney advised me that it cost $35,000 minimum to try a case in court. If you can settle for that, you settle, even if you have an airtite defense. And in this case the governments insurance company has far from an airtite defense.

 

And, how is Lenny gonna come up with the cash for his end of this? I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the city stood their ground. He's not suing Eray. He's suing the City of Nashville. Their lawyers are already paid for, and I'm guessing, really tired of Lenny's shit.

Edited August 22, 2013 by mikegideon

[DaveS]

I look for Dumbody to have to get a court ordered mental evaluation, to see if his cheese is still on his crackers!

 

DaveS

[Oh Shoot]

I think what you are overlooking is the fact that this will be settled by an insurance company, not a jury. A jury would probably rule against him in a civil suit, but the insurance people are afraid to take that chance. They will settle with him for a substancial sum to avoid the small chance that he might win a multimillion dollar judgement. I got sued once and the attorney advised me that it cost $35,000 minimum to try a case in court. If you can settle for that, you settle, even if you have an airtite defense. And in this case the governments insurance company has far from an airtite defense.

 

Didn't faze the state to go for it in Radnor Lake thang.  Twice, once defending the ranger and again defending AG, who was named in second one challenging the constitutionality of it all. Heck, the second one, after losing,  the appeal judge threw it out,  then reconsidered and let it go forward again, even.

 

Might be an issue for small town budgets and risk, but he'll be taking on Nashville, and maybe the State again also, depending on what he files against who and what. Those entities don't see court time as "real money".

 

I'll betcha a nickel Leonard doesn't see a nickel out of any of this, even if he files federal suit either, or gets it federal level up through the long appeals process. The only "win" I see is either not getting indicted or being found not guilty or charges eventually dropped if he should be indicted.

 

But of course you could be right. And I'm good for the nickel. ;)

 

- OS

Edited August 22, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[mikegideon]

I look for Dumbody to have to get a court ordered mental evaluation, to see if his cheese is still on his crackers!

 

DaveS

 

He needs a court ordered frontal lobotomy

[mikegideon]

Didn't faze the state to go for it in Radnor Lake thang.  Twice, once defending the ranger and again defending AG, who was named in second one challenging the constitutionality of it all. Heck, the second one, after losing,  the appeal judge threw it out,  then reconsidered and let it go forward again, even.

 

Might be an issue for small town budgets and risk, but he'll be taking on Nashville, and maybe the State again also, depending on what he files against who and what. Those entities don't see court time as "real money".

 

I'll betcha a nickel Leonard doesn't see a nickel out of any of this, even if he files federal suit either, or gets it federal level up through the long appeals process. The only "win" I see is either not getting indicted or being found not guilty or charges eventually dropped if he should be indicted.

 

But of course you could be right. And I'm good for the nickel. ;)

 

- OS

 

Or, maybe he'll find true love...

 

Edited August 22, 2013 by mikegideon

[Oh Shoot]

Or, maybe he'll find true love...

 

 

Fix pic link, or vid or whatever it is, I bet it's a good one.