PACIFIC PATRIOTS NETWORK INFORMATION LEAK
Part One
February 4, 2016
BUCKLE UP AND LET’S HAVE SOME FUN
[ click here to download full training manual ]
In the recent weeks the Pacific Patriots Network has been involved in the ongoing situation in Burns, Oregon. Though members of the network were not and are not involved with the continued occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge buildings, we have been and continue to research the reasons behind the continued abuse of the people of Harney County.
The situation in Harney County and the corruption is so extensive that reports will need to exposed in a step-by-step process on each issue. The issues to be exposed include the dealings of Steve Grasty and his involvement in the Sage Grouse environmental aspects as well as involvement with and for the Free Masons along with involvement with environmental extremists, BLM/DOI, and his direct involvement in the abuses of the Hammond family. Next Brent Grasty, brother to Steve, who is involved in the continued abuse by BLM against citizens and their personal property via his employment with the BLM Vale District. Grasty’s wife, Cynthia Grasty, and her involvement in with environmental extremists. Pete Runnels and Dan Nichols will also be exposed for their personal gains which are directly related to the continuous fight for conservation projects and continued Federal Land Management in Harney County. Former Sheriff Glerup and his abrupt resignation will be exposed. The outlandish expenditures of the Refuge itself on supposed necessary research and volunteer expenses. The interest in minerals in Harney County by Private Corporate Giants and evidence thereof. The Department of Interior’s direct disregard for the rights of the people and their personal property, specifically the Hammond Family. The list goes on and on and the corruption starts at the county level, through state government including the current and previous Governors, and lands at the feet of Washington D.C. and the Secretary of the Interior. The evidence and documentation is overwhelmingly, but in case anyone is worried the evidence is secured across the United States and Internationally as well.
We will begin with the training and policies of the United States Fish and Wildlife Law Enforcement Officers.
Documents were provided to the PPN and provide proof of the continuous forward movement in mentality of the Federal Government and Law Enforcement associated and employed by the Federal Government toward a militarized police state.
According to policy 054 FW 1 – Serious Incident Notification Procedures
Section 1.5 – “What is a serious incident? A serious incident is a law enforcement incident, emergency condition, unusual event, or homeland security concern that could focus public interest on the Department or the Service or result in inquiries to the Secretary of the Interior of the Director.”
Oh well we wouldn’t want the focus of the public to be on law enforcement since that might mean they need to be held accountable for their actions.
Section 1.7 “What incidents do you report to the Service Duty Officer?”
Sub – section A. “Serious Incidents Servicewide: Table 1-2 summarizes the types of serious incidents you must report (see section 1.8 for information on how and when).”
There is a long list of events under this section but specifically under bullet point number 3 titled “Criminal incidents” is listed “Demonstrations involving civil disobedience.” Further down on that same list is “Crimes that might result in significant media or political attention.”
This continues to forward the less than transparent attitude of law enforcement on a large scale.
Moving on we see in the course materials for the LEFS-R/E 1502 Law Enforcement for Supervisors Refresher continued militaristic traits being taught.
On the Agenda page the scheduled event for Wednesday, 06/17/2015 is “Use of Force & Human Performance (Hold on, this one is going to be GOOD)!” which according to documents was to be taught by Ken Tassie, DHS FLETC (Department of Homeland Security, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center)
In the training materials section titled “Personal Liability Litigation Against Federal Employees” the section titled “When this briefing is over, you will:” which explains the benefits of committing an offense while on duty “Understand that your risks are low. Rest Assured legal counsel will almost always be available to you. Appreciate powerful legal defenses that can be raised on your behalf.” This section is taught by Paul Michael Brown, Senior Counsel, Constitutional Torts Staff, Torts Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice.
Further in the lesson there is a section that explains why the attorney will retire in his current job titled “Unfortunately, Business is Good” where bullet points explain some of the reasons why Federal employees are sued including “Some segments of society hostile to government” and “Agenda litigation by those opposed to government policies.”
This would lead us to believe that LEO are ingrained with the idea that people are against them because they are against unjust administrative policies and procedures. Continued statements throughout this section of the training manual further prove this belief, those include:
“Continuous tension and scrutiny of government conduct vs. the citizenry”
“Claim: Bad Motive or Retaliation, Strategy: Be a good Bureaucrat”
“Challenges to Searches” in reference to the section showing common arguments to amendment rights.
“Miscellaneous Personal Legal Issues: Liens against personalty (assumed to be personal) and realty filed by kooks.”
In another section where it is described the possibility of a critical incident such as a shooting while on duty titled “Emergency Interim Rep” it states “Problem: Criminal investigation by locals, Solution: Private counsel at govt expense”
Under legal defenses we again see it stated further that “For state law tort claims, federal employees enjoy absolute immunity” and again reinforcing their absolute immunity by stating “If employee is nevertheless sued, he is entitled to substitution of the United States in his place”
The next discussion point in the training section is the pros and cons of federal employees securing insurance it is stated “Insurance not really necessary: Risk is low, DOJ almost always available, Powerful legal defenses, US often co-defendant” which shows the continued promise that federal employees can act as they wish because they will “be covered.”
The next section to pay close attention to is titled “Law Enforcement for Refuge Officers” is it stated under “What is Jurisdiction” it is stated that the broad definition is “The governments general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory.”
Under the next section “Refuge Law Enforcement Program” in the portion specific to “Region 1 Major threats and Issues” which covers Idaho, Oregon, and Washington states, it states “Growing Anti-Federal Government Sentiment.” It is significant to mention that this is the only “region” that mentions that specific issues or “threat.”
Under Chapter 2 titled “Oath of Office and Management of Law Enforcement Authority” we see the oath taken by federal law enforcement employees, which is closely related to the oath taken by other forms of law enforcement. It should be noted that under the oath is stated “(Using the phrase ‘So Help Me God’ is discretionary and depends on an officer’s religious affiliation)” It is becoming customary to remove God from every aspect of this nation.
In the last section “An Introduction to the Federal Wildlife Canine Program” on page 38 under the “Drug Search” section it is stated “Ask consent to search the vehicle’s interior (Just to see their reaction), Do not tell them you are going to use a K9.”
As stated at the beginning of this report, we are seeing a continued push to train federal law enforcement with the mindset that people do not have the right to stand up and ask questions when they feel their rights are violated. Also, we have seen that the training being received by these officers promises them time and time again that if they step outside of the bounds of citizens’ rights they will be protected, in other words giving a free pass for officers to abuse citizens.
| 
