Navy Seals Suppressors

NcWhitetail

New member


ALEXANDRIA, Va. – A judge has questioned the viability of a prosecution against a man accused of illegally building hundreds of untraceable rifle silencers under what had been a secret contract with the Navy Seals.

At a pretrial hearing Friday, Judge Leonie Brinkema suggested that there may be classified evidence in the case that shows California race-car mechanic Mark Landersman had legitimate — but off-the-books — authorization to build the silencers from the Navy. If so, she said, she doubted that prosecutors could win their case.

Prosecutors Friday disagreed with Brinkema's assessment of the case.

Landersman's lawyers maintained that his actions were lawful and authorized.

Court records indicate that Landersman was paid $1.7 million in 2012 to build 349 suppressors.


http://splashurl.com/py4bnm6

"legitimate — but off-the-books — authorization" HUMMM.....

Darn that's only $4,871.06 each. I wish I could get a deal like that.
 
See even the gov. thinks the suppressor laws are stupid. I'd like to find info on where they are used in crimes, or why they should be restricted. Other than because the gov. says so. And he likely built suppressors that can handle 50 caliber rounds, if they were that much money. Plus included replacement parts etc. That's how a lot of military contracts are. I'm sure this case will be swept under the rug real quick. I think I'm going to try to build one myself now
 
I've found some more info on it and it sounds like the guy ripped off the gov. It only cost about $10,000 Total to have them built. And his brother pulled some strings from the pentagon. He's more a thief than anything. Another fleece of the taxpayer. And he went online for build specs.

Quote:
Federal authorities are investigating three senior Navy intelligence officials as part of a probe into an alleged contracting scheme that charged the military $1.6 million for homemade firearm silencers that cost only $8,000 to manufacture, court records show.

Quote:
Court records describe Mark Landersman as a down-on-his-luck mechanic who struggled to keep his Temecula repair shop in business. He and his wife declared personal bankruptcy in July 2012.

A month later, according to charging documents, Mark Landersman received a series of e-mails from his brother at the Pentagon about firearm silencers, including a link to a Web site with do-it-yourself instructions for building a certain model.

“Wow! Very simple,” Mark Landersman replied in an e-mail on Aug. 14, 2012, according to the charging documents.

The next day, Navy finance officials informed David Landersman that they had approved a $2 million budget supplement he had requested for “studies, assessments and research.”



http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... print.html
 
1.7 million divided by 349 = $4871 per unit. So Id also have to say yea he ripped the taxpayers off & it sounds like the usual money grabbers at the pentagon had their fingers in the pot.
 
This gets a lot better. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nati...c4bf_story.html
Quote:
A Navy intelligence official at the Pentagon has been indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly running a murky scheme to illegally manufacture hundreds of unregistered firearm silencers for Navy SEALs.

Lee M. Hall, a 52-year-old civilian Navy official, was charged with conspiracy and theft of government money, the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia announced Friday. Prosecutors allege that Hall arranged a contract to bill the government $1.6 million for a batch of automatic rifle silencers that cost only $10,000 to make.


According to court documents filed by prosecutors and federal investigators, the no-bid contract was awarded to the brother of Hall’s boss in Navy intelligence at the Pentagon.

The brother, Mark Stuart Landersman, 53, a California hot-rod mechanic, was indicted on a conspiracy charge in the case in November. He has pleaded not guilty. One of his attorneys, Cary Citronberg, said Friday he had no immediate comment.

Hall was named in court papers filed by investigators last fall as a conspirator in the case, but he was not charged until Thursday, when he was indicted by the federal grand jury in U.S. District Court in Alexandria. Hall’s attorney, Danny Onorato, did not return a phone call.

The matter has been under investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service for more than a year. Although many details have been sealed by a judge overseeing the case, the investigation has already taken several unusual turns.

In January, Robert C. Martinage, the Navy’s second-ranking civilian leader, resigned under pressure after investigators looking into the silencer deal stumbled across evidence that he had engaged in personal misconduct, according to Navy officials. The officials said the misconduct was unrelated to the contract. Separately, prosecutors have said in court that Martinage was not under criminal investigation.

The purpose of the silencers remains a mystery.

According to court papers, one unnamed witness told investigators that the firearm suppressors were intended for SEAL Team 6, the elite commando unit that killed Osama bin Laden. But officials with SEAL Team 6 told investigators that they were unaware of the contract and hadn’t ordered the silencers.

In January, prosecutors said in court that the silencers were acquired for a “special access program,” or a highly secretive military operation. One document filed in the case says the silencers were needed to support “the UPSTAIRS program,” but does not give details.

Hall served as an intelligence director in the office of the deputy undersecretary of the Navy. His boss was the auto mechanic’s brother: David W. Landersman, the senior director for intelligence in the Navy’s directorate for plans, policy, oversight and integration intelligence.

David Landersman has not been charged. But an affidavit filed by federal investigators refers to a co-conspirator named “David” who works for Navy intelligence. Moreover, court records state that David Landersman’s Pentagon office was searched by investigators last year.

Asked for comment, his attorney, Stephen M. Ryan, said: “I expect that my client will not ever be indicted. He has served the government honorably, in every respect.”

Ryan said David Landersman was “still a Navy employee” but declined to comment further.

Two people familiar with the case said David Landersman and Hall were placed on administrative leave from their Navy jobs last spring.

Cmdr. Tamara Lawrence, a Navy spokeswoman, said Hall was still a Navy employee but that she could not comment further on his status because of personnel privacy concerns. Speaking generally, she said an indictment can serve as a trigger to suspend a employee without pay, but the employee must be legally notified first and given an opportunity to respond.
 
If the contract was fraudulent and he knew it was fraudulent, it was an invalid contract, meaning he had no contract to build then for the Navy. So besides being part of the fraudulent contract, he will get to do time for the illegal build.
 
More gov. waste. While we all barely get by. They are probably on paid leave to, like when crooked cops get busted. When is it going to be enough already, and we take back our gov.
 
Quote:like when crooked cops get busted.....Snaggletoof, what is it with you and such a low opinion of LEOs???...If you really check your facts, you will find that agencies don't tolerate 'dirty cops' and prosecute them when discovered...Most officers don't want to work around one that isn't honest...
 
I think the issue is that in business, or non Government in some form, we do things like this, and you go to jail..
Government in general (not all) typically walk away with an Opps and usually don't loose thier job, just get transfered. They should go to Jail and be fired and loose everything associated with the privilages of the job. (pension, bennefits and so on)
 
Hey old turtle if you weren't so thick headed and read my post, you would see that my point is about the guys being put on leave, and probably paid. I'm a natural skeptic of people in authority, you should try it sometime, instead of being a yes man.
 
Snaggltoof...I've been the 'people in authority' as well as an 'Internal Affairs Investigator' for a police department (if you were to talk to some of my previous Chiefs, you would lear that I'm anything but a "Yes Man")...Some Paid Leave situations are afforded to an officer involved in a questionable situation, just the same as any other person is presumed innocent until proven guilty...When it's an obvious 'open and shut' he did wrong, it usually involves immediate termination and in some cases, incarceration...

There are two type of errors...An Error of Judgement and the other, an Error of the Heart...Most officers in critical situations have, at most, three seconds to make a judgement as to their next action, not all decisions are the correct one, but they are judged on the facts known to them at the time and if, based on that, were their actions reasonable...There is a big difference when someone has time to reflect on a situation and then does something wrong intentionally...
 
Look what's your point, I have no problem with cops, I just don't have much use for them. I protect myself and my family. Seems as you may have personal issues with people that have opinions that differ from you. Now there is no need to drag this into the gutter, I'm done argueing over your refusal to understand logic.
 
OT, you have surely heard the old saying about getting in a pissing match with a skunk? You have a guy here who makes a broad statement based on ignorance no facts and he knows it. When called out for saying stupid sh^^, people like this throw a temper tantrum to divert attention away from their own lack of logic and fear that honest discussion will remove all doubt as to their idiocy.
 
Last edited:
How does one come to have such a lowly opinion of law enforcement officers?

I suspect by having several bad experiences with law enforcement?

Maybe we should behave in a manner that lessens our encounters with law enforcement?

I have a high opinion of LEO's, but I don't conduct myself in a manner that crosses my path with theirs very often either.




Chupa
 
Originally Posted By: SnaggltoofHey Steve what's the broad statement? Let me guess you are a pig

I understand that you have little apparent use for law enforcement. That's fine; we're all entitled to our opinion and the opportunity to express it in a positive manner. However, repeatedly calling out those you believe to be LEOs or to support LEOs on the chance that they'll engage you is of little value to this forum. Your contributions are welcome and encouraged, but should be offered in a manner more conducive to civil discourse. Please conduct yourself in a more gentlemanly fashion in the future.

That goes for everyone. We can have lively debate, but the borderline personal attacks are getting old. Please revisit the Terms of Service and post accordingly.

Thank you.
 
Some of the guys and their families that have problems with LEO should spend some time in a country that doesn't have a law enforcment prospective and then see how little they need LEO.

Even if you can protect yourself and family it sure is nice to have some one out there heading off some of the trash before I have to deal with it myself. If you think you can protect your family at all times and don't need someone enforcing the rule of law, you must have a shut in family, as mine are always headed in different directions and it would be impossible for me alone to provide any means of security to them if I'm not there.

I believe in the rule of law over the rule of man. We need to have people out there that are supporting the rule of law and for the most part LEO's have a very tough job and they don't need me out there making problems for them. By far the average LEO both State and Federal I have met or worked with, sometimes deployed into combat zones around the world with, have been upstanding human beings and just as good as any other soldier that has been on either side of me.

By far they are not all perfect but the exception is not the rule and while every News service points out what LEO's do wrong, very few take the time to show the things they do right day in and day out. Things that fall outside of actual law enforcement and fall into the public safety sector. The first responders on most fire, accident, and emergency scenes are often LEO's. Hard to save the family when you are crumpled in the car with them. My guess is then you would want a LEO there to help.

I have experienced enough of life to know, while I may be able to do it on my own it sure can be easier if others help out. None of us are an island. Not having to worry about my families security ( due to having a law enforcment pressence) allows me the free time to do things that would be out of the realm of possibility if we had no rule of law.


Tim

 
Back
Top