RE: Letter from Bulletproof Securities Dated July 18th, 2013 to your office.
Good Morning Ms Meyer,
My name is Frank K. Koehn and I am the editor of Savethewatersedge.com. For the past two years SWE has been following the events surrounding the attempt to permit a mine in the Penokee Hills.
As you may know this is a controversial project and the letter of July 18, 2013 has raised more questions, concerns, and the occasional eyebrow.
The arrival of Bulletproof Securities, armed with weapons that appear to be automatic, the facemasks, and the secrecy surrounding this "deployment" only exacerbated the public's apprehension concerning this project.
The specific reason for contacting you is to ask the following questions in response to your correspondence with Bulletproof executives.
1. Do you think or does your agency believe that three hours notice is ample time for a military style security firm to grasp the situation, understand the issues involved, and prepare to drive across the country to set up an outpost in the woods of Northern Wisconsin?
2. Have you or anyone else from your agency followed up on Tom Parella's assertion he contacted local sheriff's department, DNR, the Governor's office, and other local and state agencies to determine the accuracy of information in his letter of July 18th, 2013? Names rather than the offices of the persons contacted will be most helpful, as there seems to be confusion about who was contacted and when.
3. SWE would like some documentation of the six days of Bulletproof's in which their soldiers observed "many activists sneaking through the woods".
4. SWE would like to review the permits, the application for permits, and the licenses that have been issued to Bulletproof. This firm is expected to be back in the North woods as GTac executives have indicated this is the case.
5. Please explain exactly what authority your agency gives to Bulletproof in terms of the following:
a. What kinds of weapons may Bulletproof's officers carry?
b. What is the protocol under which they may fire these weapons or use deadly force?
c. Will Bulletproof have the authority to detain anyone on the site?
d. To what extent, if any, will Bulletproof operatives be allowed to physically restrain, use pepper spray, handcuffs, electronic devices, other weapons or items members of the public they perceive a threatening?
e. What are the specific training requirements your agency requires before issuing permits for security forces to operate within Wisconsin?
f. Do you have the authority to release the names, experience, and license information on each of Bulletproofs security force members who may be deployed to Northern Wisconsin?
g. Will Bulletproof Security have the authority to make arrests?
3. The assertion made by Bulletproof "our firm is run identically to a law enforcement agency" is at the very best misleading. Possibly in Arizona this statement may be accurate, but not in Wisconsin. Local sheriffs are elected and work through the county by a county board committee. As a matter of fact, I served on the Bayfield County Sheriff's committee during the spear fishing controversy years ago. Police officers from around our state came North the protect fisherfolk. None of these men and women wore military uniforms, walked around with automatic weapons, drove military style vehicles or wore facemasks.
Please let me know how to access the above requested information on line or how to make an appointment to review the information requested.
If Bulletproof Securities is redeployed; public meetings will be held in Iron County, Ashland County, Red Cliff and Odanah - Local law enforcement, DNR, GLIFWC, and Bulletproof will be invited to discuss the role and parameters of private security forces in a Democratic society and in the Treaty Lands in Northern Wisconsin.
In closing SWE is interested in whether or not you or someone from your agency contacted the individuals who made complaints. Seems that Bulletproof has addressed these complaints. Did each of these people have the opportunity to respond to your agency regarding these complaints? Or is the investigation ended by the rationale supplied by bulletproof in the letter or July 18, 2013?