For several years, a blogger who currently has a warrant out for his arrest, Daryl Grant MacAskill of Gangsterism Out, has presented a 22-page document he calls Operation Valley Cloak, as evidence that certain families in Canada are drug dealers, terrorists, gun runners and more.
The document, a rambling collection of photocopies and scans, has lived online and was even used by MacAskill (pictured above) as evidence in a defamation suit (the judge tossed it out as misinformation), as the blogger has continued to hector and harass people he has a grudge against.
So we decided to put Operation Valley Cloak to the test and verify whether or not it’s real, utilizing the knowledge of a retired police officer, a retired Canadian intelligence officer, and a long time crime journalist. All three received the document and were asked to verify its value as a piece of evidence. All three stated it was, without doubt, a forgery.
We’re keeping their names anonymous, as the blogger in question has a lengthy reputation for smearing those he disagrees with, and we won’t link to the document as we don’t wish to enhance its searchability, considering its defamatory nature.
We’ve put together the notes from the three experts in the following lengthy breakdown.
Signs That “Operation Valley Cloak” Is a Forged Document
Lack of Official Format and Letterhead
No Agency Letterhead or Author Identification: The document lacks any official letterhead, crest, or issuing authority. A genuine police or interagency report would typically begin with the originating agency’s header (e.g. RCMP or CFSEU logo) and include a title or memo metadata (dates, file number, “From/To” lines, etc.). In “Operation Valley Cloak,” page 1 jumps straight into a classification notice and a list of recipients, with no indication of the authoring office or officer. There is no “From” line or signature block identifying who compiled the report. This absence of basic attribution undermines its authenticity – real law enforcement documents (especially joint task force reports) explicitly state the issuing agency/unit and often the preparer’s name or position. The informal presentation (just a title and content) is not consistent with official police documentation standards.
Unconventional Structure: The document’s layout is highly irregular for a police report. It opens with a lengthy distribution list and security disclaimer as “Page 1,” rather than an executive summary or case introduction. The “Statement of Facts” section only begins after these notices, and the narrative is numbered like an affidavit or legal statement (paragraph 1, 2, 3, etc.) without any preceding summary or context section. Real investigative reports or affidavits would include a case synopsis or purpose statement before diving into numbered facts. Moreover, the integration of a distribution list on the first page (with two columns of recipients and their addresses) is odd – typically distribution is noted at the end of a memo or in a cover letter, not as the report’s first content. The document appears to be a mash-up of a cover memo and a report, all in one, which is unorthodox.
Missing Official References: Authentic police case files usually contain reference numbers (e.g. case file or occurrence number) and often a classification or handling caveat line. While this document does reference a case file number “2018-8-26738” in passing, it’s buried in the text rather than prominently in a header. There is also no court file number or warrant number, despite the content reading like it supports legal actions. The lack of these formal reference markers and an overall case file formatting (no section for “Subject”, “Date”, etc.) is a red flag that this is not an officially formatted report.
Classification Marking Anomalies
Unusual “Top Secret” Classification for a Drug Case: The document is labeled “TOP SECRET” on each page, with an indication of copy number (e.g. “Copy 8 of 20”). Using the highest security classification is highly atypical for a narcotics smuggling investigation. Top Secret is normally reserved for national security or military intelligence, not law enforcement drug operations. Even large joint operations by police are rarely classified at this level – they might be Law Enforcement Sensitive or at most Secret if intelligence sources are involved. The content described (cross-border drug helicopter flights and cartel links) – while sensitive – does not obviously meet the threshold of “exceptionally grave” threat required for Top Secret. This mismatch in classification level suggests the document’s author exaggerated its secrecy to appear important. Indeed, analysis of the leaked file notes it was explicitly marked “Top Secret (classified)” despite being a drug-smuggling case, which is not how such cases are normally handled.
Inconsistent Copy Numbering: Perhaps most telling, different pages carry contradictory copy designations. Some pages of the leaked PDF are marked as “Copy 6 of 20,” while others say “Copy 8 of 20.” In a genuine document, a single physical copy would maintain the same copy number throughout. It appears the pages may have been compiled from multiple source copies or the forger lost track of the numbering. This inconsistency is an obvious error a real classified report would not exhibit – each copy distributed is numbered uniquely and consistently from first page to last. The fact that one page shows Copy 8 while another showed Copy 6 (as recovered via OCR) is a clear sign of fabrication or clumsy assembly.
Improper or Missing Classification Handling Marks: A legitimate Top Secret document has strict formatting protocols – including portion markings and classification authority lines. In “Operation Valley Cloak,” there are no portion markings (e.g. no (TS), (S), etc. preceding each paragraph to indicate its classification). This is inconsistent with government classification standards for documents that mix different sensitivity levels. The document also lacks a declassification or downgrading instruction and doesn’t cite who classified it or under what authority. For example, a real Top Secret Canadian document would typically include a marking like “Classified by: [Name/Position] on [Date]; Reason: [code]; Declassify on: [date/event]”. None of these appear in the forged report. The classification banner itself (“TOP SECRET”) is used, but without any caveats or handling instructions. Notably, despite involving U.S. and Australian recipients, the report does not carry any release markings such as “REL USA/AUS” or “NOFORN” (not for release to foreign nationals) that would normally accompany sharing intelligence with foreign partners. This lack of proper classification annotations and controls is indicative of someone mimicking a Top Secret document without knowing the full protocol.
Scanning Artifacts Suggesting Non-Official Handling: Every page is stamped with the classification at top (and likely bottom) in a manner that looks stamped/printed, but the PDF itself is a scan (image). The presence of the note “Scanned using Book ScanCenter 6100” in the file metadata indicates it was digitized on a public book scanner, likely at a library or copy shop – a very unlikely method for handling genuine Top Secret materials. A real leaker of a classified police dossier would not risk using a public scanner (which could log or expose the document); they would use more covert means. This odd scanning source suggests the document was not an officially controlled digital file but rather something printed out and scanned by an outsider, further undermining its legitimacy.
NOTE: MacAskill, who is homeless and uses a mental health facility in Vancouver to receive mail, is known to write his blog at the computer stations in local libraries.
Terminology and Language Inconsistencies
Misnamed Agencies and Titles: The forgery contains blatant errors in agency nomenclature that a real law enforcement or intelligence officer would not make. For example, it refers to the U.S. Drug Enforcement “Agency” in Spokane. The correct name is the Drug Enforcement Administration – a mistake that strongly indicates the author is not a DEA or law enforcement professional. Similarly, the document lists an “Agent” of US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in Seattle. CBP personnel at field offices are typically called Officers or Agents of specific sub-agencies (like Border Patrol agents or HSI agents), but referring to a generic “US Customs and Border Protection Agent” is unusual phrasing. This suggests the forger was not fully versed in U.S. agency titles. Another subtle error is the spelling of “North American Aerospace Defence Command” and “Western Air Defence Sector” with a “c” in “Defence.” The official NORAD name uses the American spelling “Defense.” A Canadian or British author might spell it with a “c” out of habit, but an official document would use the exact proper name of the organization. This inconsistency in spelling indicates a lack of rigor and points to a likely Canadian author trying to write about a U.S. entity, inadvertently inserting Canadian English spelling.
Unnatural Jargon and Tone: While much of the text attempts a formal tone, there are instances of odd word choice that betray inauthenticity. For example, the report repeatedly uses the term “flying object” to describe the helicopters (e.g. “unidentified flying object” was determined to be two helicopters flying in formation). Real aviation or radar reports would use terms like “aircraft,” “target,” or “contact.” The phrase “flying object” sounds amateur and even evokes UFO terminology – not something an experienced military radar unit or police air support would write. This indicates the author is mimicking technical language but not quite getting it right. There are also minor grammar and composition issues, likely not just OCR errors. For instance, the document states “it is generally accepted a transponder range will be 100 nautical miles…” which is a somewhat clumsy construction (missing the word “that” after “accepted”). Small linguistic hitches like this, while subtle, accumulate to an overall tone that doesn’t fully match polished official prose. The narrative sometimes reads like a dramatic after-action recap rather than the measured, precise language of actual police reports. (Notably, the Black Sheep Whistleblower summary of the file even describes one cartel enforcer as deciding “who lives and who dies in Canada,” a hyperbolic phrase that we would not expect to find in a factual official report – this suggests either the document itself used an overly dramatic characterization or the summarizer did.)
Inconsistent Use of Time and Measurement Formats: Genuine cross-border operations typically adhere to standard formats for times and measurements for clarity. In the Valley Cloak document, times are given as “approximately 10:35 PDT” and “11:42 PDT” on August 9, 2018. It’s unclear if these are morning or night, as no 24-hour format or “AM/PM” is specified. Law enforcement and military reports usually use 24-hour clock for operational times (e.g. 22:35 for 10:35 PM) or explicitly state the time of day. The omission is confusing, especially since the blog source indicates these were night flights. Such an ambiguity would be uncommon in an official report, suggesting oversight by the forger. Similarly, the document gives coordinates and distances in a mix of formats (degrees/minutes/seconds and decimal headings, nautical miles for distance). While not incorrect, the presentation of coordinates was garbled in parts of the scan, and one coordinate was written as “48°8°S7.61°N…” in the OCR output, which makes no sense. This was likely an OCR glitch (probably meant “48°37.61’ N”), but it raises the question of whether the original had formatting issues. A real report would ensure coordinates are clearly and correctly notated, given their importance. These little inconsistencies in technical formatting hint that the document may not have gone through the normal rigorous review and formatting checks of authentic reports.
Improper Structure and Protocol Deviations
No Signatures or Approval Stamps: Notably, the report does not conclude with any signatures, approval lines, or official seals. In a legitimate interagency operation file, one would expect a sign-off by the reporting officer or a supervising authority – for example, an RCMP Staff Sergeant or Task Force Commander might sign an executive summary or an affidavit would be sworn before a judge. Here, there’s no indication of a signed conclusion or even a last page with author details. The document seems to just stop abruptly (the leaked version ends mid-sentence: “An Order To…” with no continuation). The lack of a proper ending, signature, or even a “//End of Report//” marking is highly suspect. It suggests we might be looking at an incomplete or haphazardly compiled text rather than a formally issued document. If this were a court affidavit or official report, the absence of a concluding authentication (like a notarization or at least a name/title of the preparer) would render it invalid – a real officer would never submit such an important document unsigned.
Mixing Intelligence with Operational Reporting: The content of “Operation Valley Cloak” tries to serve many purposes at once – it reads like an operational incident report, an intelligence dossier, and a collection of evidence all in one. It lists numerous “Exhibits” (maps, transcripts, financial records, land title searches, even a Mexican military service record) within the narrative. In practice, case evidence would be compiled in appendices or disclosed separately, rather than embedded in a Top Secret narrative distributed widely. For example, the document references “Exhibit F1 – Map of Flight Path” and “Exhibit T1 – BC Land Title Survey”, as well as CRA (Canadian tax) files and FINTRAC reports, all with complex alphanumeric codes. This is an unusual way to catalog exhibits in an interagency file. Law enforcement would typically use either simple numeric or alphabetic exhibit labels (e.g. Exhibit A, B, C or 1, 2, 3) in an affidavit, or cite separate intel reports by reference number. Here we see odd codes like “BLT8-18-27-N/C-T1” or “CRA9-18-11-CONF-AO1” embedded in the text, which do not correspond to any standard evidence numbering system and appear overly convoluted. It looks as if the author tried to invent a coding scheme to appear official, but it comes off as inconsistent and overly complex. This patchwork structure – part narrative, part evidence log, part intelligence briefing – does not fit the standard format of any single type of official document, which is another indicator of forgery.
Timeline and Continuity Issues: The operation is said to take place mainly in August 2018, yet the document (per outside descriptions) allegedly contains information as late as 2024 in some portions. If true, that means the file would be updated over six years with intelligence on cartel figures – a very odd practice for a single “report.” Normally, a case file might have multiple reports over time, but a single report wouldn’t later incorporate events from years in the future without clearly delineating them as separate updates. It’s possible the blog summaries conflated outside info, but if the document tried to include such updates, it shows a lack of coherent timeframe. Additionally, certain operational details seem off – for instance, the helicopters supposedly flew hundreds of kilos of cocaine weekly into B.C., yet none of this ever made public news in 2018, and the case remained “hidden from public view”. While not impossible for sensitive cases, the scale described (multi-hundred-kilo shipments, multi-agency task force, cartel involvement) is such that it’s strange no prosecution or announcement followed. A forged document often paints a grandiose scenario that in reality would be difficult to completely keep secret or unresolved. This discrepancy between the document’s sweeping claims and the lack of any corroborating official actions (like arrests or press releases) is another circumstantial sign that the “report” isn’t genuine.
Unusual Distribution and Recipients
Foreign Agency Involvement Without Clear Justification: The distribution list on the cover page includes an Australian Federal Police Sergeant in Adelaide (Sgt. Lawrence Macquarie) as a recipient. This is highly unusual for a Canadian/U.S. regional drug investigation report. Why would an Australian police officer be directly receiving a Top Secret Canadian task force file about North American drug smuggling? Inclusion of a foreign agency typically occurs only if there’s a direct nexus (e.g. an Australian suspect or a formal joint operation), which is not evident here. AFP’s involvement appears random and thus suspect – it hints that the forger added an international partner perhaps to lend gravity or because of some tangential link (the Sandher family, mentioned as targets, have an Indian surname; maybe the forger thought to connect Sikh separatists and involved Australia for an unrelated reason). Regardless, sharing Top Secret intel with a foreign police sergeant would require extraordinary clearance and usually a “Need to Know” – it wouldn’t be routine. The broad, apparently indiscriminate distribution (including local RCMP units, multiple U.S. federal agencies, and a foreign police force) doesn’t ring true to how such sensitive information is handled.
Lack of Release Caveats for International Sharing: Building on the above, if this were truly disseminated to U.S. and Australian partners, the document should contain caveats like “REL TO USA, AUS” (Releasable to USA and Australia) or a statement of the intelligence-sharing framework (e.g. “Five Eyes” distribution). No such markings are present. The cover note does reference Canada’s Security of Information Act and “Policy on Government Security,” implying Canadian control, yet it simultaneously hands the info to foreign entities. This contradiction suggests the protocol is off – a real Top Secret Canadian document shared with foreign nationals would, at minimum, note the terms of that release or be downgraded appropriately. The absence of these procedures indicates the document’s author may not have been fully aware of how international info-sharing is normally executed, further hinting at a forgery.
Over-Inclusion of Agencies: The recipient list reads like a who’s-who of every possible agency: DEA, CBP, FAA, FBI (two field offices), NORAD, HSI, multiple RCMP divisions, and even an Australian liaison. While task forces are indeed multi-agency, it’s odd to see everyone listed by name and office in one report. Typically, a task force report would be shared through a centralized chain (e.g. to a task force commander who then disseminates internally as needed). Listing individual agents and mid-level officers across agencies as direct named addressees is overkill and a breach of need-to-know, especially at Top Secret. It feels as if the creator of the document wanted to impress the reader with a broad interagency scope, rather than actually follow practical distribution protocols. Realistically, many of those agencies (e.g. FAA or Australian police) might contribute info, but wouldn’t each get a full Top Secret dossier; instead, specific intel would be shared with them. The forged document’s distribution is more theatrical than plausible.
Evidence of Forgery in Presentation
Scanning and Compilation Signs: The PDF being a scan of printed pages (with uneven text baselines, some blurriness, and scanner marks) is itself a clue. An authentic leaked report might be a scan, of course, but one can often tell if a document has been assembled from disparate pieces. In this case, the inconsistent “Copy X of 20” markings suggest pages from different originals. Auditors noted that the font and formatting of certain sections vary slightly, which could indicate cut-and-paste or retyping. For instance, the cover page uses a two-column layout for addresses, whereas the main text is single-column narrative – possibly compiled separately. If one examines the margins and text alignment, they may not line up perfectly across all pages, hinting that the forger might have inserted or replaced pages. Such subtle inconsistencies are hard to catch without the physical document, but the copy number error already exposes that pages were not all from one continuous print. This is a classic hallmark of a fabricated dossier: it’s literally pieced together.
Independent Reviews Have Flagged it: Finally, it’s worth noting that independent experts who reviewed “Operation Valley Cloak” concluded it was a fake. The combination of the above discrepancies – formatting errors, incorrect terminology, procedural implausibilities, and factual anomalies – led auditors to deem the document inauthentic. In legitimate law enforcement records, all these elements would align coherently. Here they do not. Each mistake alone might be explainable, but taken together they paint a picture of a document created by someone outside the law enforcement community, trying to simulate an official report. The cumulative weight of these observable signs firmly undermines its credibility and identifies “Operation Valley Cloak” as a forgery.
Sources: Independent audit observations are based on the content of the leaked Operation Valley Cloak PDF and its public analysis. Key anomalies in nomenclature and distribution are documented in reporting on the lea, and the circumstances of the document’s release (a scanned “Top Secret” file available online) further call its authenticity into question. These elements collectively reveal the hallmarks of a forged report rather than a genuine law enforcement file.
Conclusion: The document is a fake and should be disavowed, taken offline, and deleted.