Several days ago the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") released two heavily redacted documents covering reports, investigations, and communications with respect to Patriot Front.

Patriot Front is consistently and haphazardly labeled across the media spectrum as a Federal intelligence operation, overwhelmingly penetrated and/or co-opted by Federal law enforcement to such degree as to render the organization either a hostile effort against right-wing citizens in the United States, or useless as a vector for sociopolitical activity.

Throne Dynamics has previously released a formal analysis of Patriot Front. The Founder has also provided a more direct personal review.

This Company Report from Risk Division provides linked review of the released FBI files, analysis of their content, and presents clinical conclusions on that content from the standpoint of Throne Dynamics.

The files in question were publicly released under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") 5 U.S.C. § 552 through the FBI Vault website, which formally identifies itself as follows:

The Vault is our new FOIA Library, containing 6,700 documents and other media that have been scanned from paper into digital copies so you can read them in the comfort of your home or office.

Included here are many new FBI files that have been released to the public but never added to this website; dozens of records previously posted on our site but removed as requests diminished; files from our previous FOIA Library, and new, previously unreleased files.

Authentic provenance of the Patriot Front files release is not contested as originating from official sources. Direct access to the released files is available here:

• https://vault.fbi.gov/patriot-front/patriot-front-part-01/view
• https://vault.fbi.gov/patriot-front/patriot-front-part-02/view

Risk Division has reviewed each of the 950 pages within the two released files. As the purpose of this Company Report is not to exhaustively delineate each item of review, but rather to provide summary of overall findings and conclusions, the Company does not provide a page-by-page analysis but rather examination of certain interests and concerns exhorted by uninformed, partisan, and uneducated individuals seeking media attention.

The first concern expressed by amateur analysts is that the overwhelming majority of content in the files has been redacted. Redactions of content within documents released under 5 U.S.C. § 552 are covered within subsection (b). This subsection provides specific criteria for withholding of information by government agencies. Those criteria include the following:

(b) This section does not apply to matters that are—

(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;

(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;

(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), if that statute--

(A)(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or

(ii) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; and

(B) if enacted after the date of enactment of the OPEN FOIA Act of 2009, specifically cites to this paragraph.

(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency, provided that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or more before the date on which the records were requested;

(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;

(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or

(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.

The extent of redactions in the Patriot Front files are therefore wholly unremarkable for several mundane reasons.

The content originates from the FBI, a law enforcement agency, and are therefore "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes" under (b)(7). Consumers of the Patriot Front files are advised to remember in consequence that redaction will therefore be applied to most information by default and extent of redactions is not an external measure of specific information sensitivity; to portray the level of redactions as "proof" that the FBI is protecting Patriot Front from disclosure as a hostile Federal psychological warfare operation against the citizens of the United States is absurd and easily crosses a singularly inappropriate threshold of paranoia.

Similarly, Federal grand jury review of Patriot Front activity does not indicate, in any manner, that the grand jury was constituted for the purposes of specifically reviewing Patriot Front.

Grand juries operate within specific parameters:

Unlike a petit jury, which resolves a particular civil or criminal case, a grand jury (typically having twelve to twenty-three members) serves as a group for a sustained period of time in all or many of the cases that come up in the jurisdiction, generally under the supervision of a federal U.S. attorney, a county district attorney, or a state attorney-general, and hears evidence ex parte (i.e. without suspect or person of interest involvement in the proceedings).

As example (File 1; pages 48-53) a complaint was received in the spring of 2019 regarding Patriot Front stickers applied to a political campaign sign. Rather than dramatic addition of the sticker incidents to an ongoing Patriot Front investigation at the Federal level, in high probability the complaint was referred to a standing Federal grand jury reviewing potential election crimes as a routine matter of course.

Other redactions include the names and contact information of individuals filing complaints regarding sticker and/or banner activity; expense reports and approvals filed in the course of FBI activity; and other mundane and normal redactions.

The second concern frequently raised is supposed disclosure by an informant sharing familiarity with Patriot Front individual(s) (File 1; pages 100-101). Direct review of that portion of the file produces two noteworthy considerations:

1. None of the redactions are related to subsection (b)(7)(D) covering the identity of confidential sources.
2. The content across those pages of the file constitute a report taken from a former member of a leftist political group; hostile to Patriot Front; who ended her participation in that leftist group from dissatisfaction with their inadequacy; and was taking it upon herself to push the FBI towards both Patriot Front and her former associates.

This is both routine, and typical, in activist organizations that fail to adhere to core mission, advancement of discipline, and compliance with standards of discretion and reliability. Expectation by turncoats within political groups of sudden law enforcement scramble to validate and support kinetic resolution of their personal angst is mirrored by the disinterest for amateur drama, exasperation with civic immaturity, and closure filing of routine reports by law enforcement at all levels from municipal to Federal.

However, paperwork is paperwork; due diligence is due diligence; and one cannot expect officers of the State to ignore tips or fail to follow up within the context of the national security apparatus.

This includes the conduction of surveillance where appropriate against individuals brought to attention of law enforcement.

It is important to understand that "surveillance" does not revert by default to the stereotypical cinema portrayal of vans filled with men in sunglasses, hunched over arcane and all-powerful digital machines, supported by fleets of drones and unmarked vehicles, with costumed men on the streets dogging the steps of suspects. Monitoring of communications likewise does not default to placement of wiretaps, hacking of phones, or other active digital penetration measures.

Observation and recording by any and all levels of law enforcement, of Patriot Front members conducting a public march, is both inevitable and also appropriate. It further constitutes surveillance; instances of surveillance reports within the files released by the FBI comport with such public recording, including observed license plates, of participants in Patriot Front marches, and their clearly well-organized presence at third party public events.

Sections of File 2 covering identification of Patriot Front members is also routine and falls within normal jurisdictional interest. It is important to note that identification of Patriot Front members is not restricted solely to some purpose of "adding people to a list" or otherwise malevolently marking them for hostile State action. As the report notes:

Individuals or groups named in this EC have been identified as participating in activities that are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Their inclusion here is not intended to associate the the protected activity with criminality or a threat to national security, or to infer that such protected activity itself violates federal law. However, based on known intelligence and/or specific, historical observations, it is possible the protected activity could invite a violent reaction towards the subject individuals or groups, or the activity could be used as a means to target law enforcement. In the event no violent reaction occurs, FBI policy and Federal law dictates that no further record be made of the protected activity. [Emphasis added]

Objective analysis, combined with specific, historical infiltration of Leftist activist groups and concordant observations, indicates that part of the surveillance conducted during Patriot Front events and public presence is in part from concern of violent action being taken against constitutionally protected activity by Patriot Front and its members.

Finally, the concern most often expressed of Patriot Front being riddled with informers is unsupported by granular review of the actual file redactions.

Easily verified by casual but complete review of document markup within the files, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of redactions in the files are the result of application of subsection b(7)(C) and b(7)E) preventing unwarranted intrusion of personal privacy, and/or disclosure of law enforcement processes which would aid violation of the law if disclosed, respectively.

There are extremely few b(7)(D) redactions as a proportion of the whole; furthermore, as noted prior and severally in this Company Report, informants clearly exist within Leftist groups and are utilized in forming a fuller picture of the observable operating environment of Patriot Front. Furthermore, b(7)(D) also includes private institutions and their personnel, which is the case where universities are reporting Patriot Front sticker activity and/or providing content from their surveillance cameras.

As example, the identity of a campus security guard reporting a Patriot Front sticker on a parking meter would present as a b(7)(D) redaction. Such instances do not extrapolate to the dramatic image of sworn Federal officers operating wholesale under the masks of full-fledged Patriot Front members.

While the Company does not consider all b(7)(D) redactions to necessarily be inert, it is likely that most are. Consequently it is the finding of Risk Division that the presence of Federal informants in Patriot Front is adjudged to be, at most, very low; a proportion of which would be related to non-Federal law enforcement utilization of individuals facing criminal liability for unrelated crimes.

An individual charged with an unrelated offense, pressured into providing information in return for reduced liability, is a common practice in every criminal jurisdiction at every level in the United States.

Risk Division therefore offers the final clinical conclusions to our investors, partners, and clients with respect to the contents of the FBI files released on Patriot Front:

• Accusations that Patriot Front is in fact a hostile Federal operation designed to entrap American patriots, said accusations often referred to as "fed jacketing", are wholly unsupported by the files.
• Concerns that Patriot Front is riddled with Federal informants is unsupported; and observably well-deprecated by analysis of redaction patterns and the content itself within the files.
• Depth and frequency of expense reports and authorizations within the files do not support the existence of any substantial effort on the part of the FBI to engage in direction of emplaced assets or deployment of substantial surveillance effort.
• Other than emplacement of stickers on Federal property (at the Supreme Court) or in the context of election proceedings, Patriot Front is not engaged in activity that warrants escalation of attention by Federal agents or grand juries.
• It is probable that individual instances exist of Patriot Front members facing criminal charges, regardless of whether those charges are related to Patriot Front activity, being subjected to pressure to provide reports to law enforcement.
• It is improbable that Federal resources are devoted to maintenance of full time Patriot Front informants, let alone emplaced Federal agents posing as members, in observable absence of predictable return on that investment.

Risk Division further notes that existing and ongoing intelligence gathering and analysis by the Company over time; from public and private sources, including individuals, organizations, and institutions on the Hard Right and Hard Left; and from emplaced Hagakure Kan assets in relevant arenas of interest, supports the conclusions delivered in this Company Report.

It is a common practice for human beings to become histrionic and dysregulated when faced with tumultuous proclamations of betrayal and drama, spread by public figures who thrive on the ensuing arrays of incoherent, frightened noise.

The work of militant activism in the Third World War is not advanced by adherence to such incompetent conduct. The Company recommends direct, sober, and clinically objective review of the FBI files on Patriot Front by any individual, organization, or institution not satisfied with the conclusions expressed in this Company Report.

Members of the public are strongly encouraged to take their complimentary Raw Human Capital assessment, read the Founder's Substack, and join the Movement.

Individuals who seek immediate and ongoing notification of Company Reports and Risk Division Advisories may also subscribe to our official Telegram channel.

Investors, partners, and clients with questions should reach out to their Relationship Manager.