Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Is Mike Ruppert talking about Les Jamieson here? (21 posts)

  1. truthmod
    Administrator

    http://mikeruppert.blogspot.com/2008/12/russia-bla...

    Way back in the 9-11 movement from 2003 through 2005 there was one activist who just kept insisting that a solitary state politician would crack the case. The activist kept pushing the movement to spend time, money and energy convincing Spitzer to pick up 9-11 and run with it. Petitions, donations, pleas to organize and demonstrate to make Spitzer save the world. All I could say to myself was, "You f—ing idiot." I sighed in disgust at the belligerent naiveté and all the wasted energy and attention that was flushed.


    That particular 9-11 activist is in my number-four spot for having done more to damage the real 9-11 movement over time than anyone else.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  2. truthmover
    Administrator

    The Spitzer Complaint: "Justice for 9/11"

    In 2004 the staff and board members of 911Truth.org researched, wrote and presented a complaint to New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, petitioning him to immediately convene a grand jury on the still-unsolved crimes of September 11th, 2001. Advised by Attorney Carolyn Betts, we published this thorough, well-grounded legal pleading at www.Justicefor911.org, in a partnership with 911CitizensWatch and the World Trade Center Environmental Organization. Unlike other states, New York allows no formal process for filings with the Attorney General. Given that Spitzer was unwilling to even talk about a new investigation, and has now become Governor of New York, "Justice for 9/11" is as much a public campaign as a legal one. The Petition of Solidarity in support of the complaint currently stands at 15,000 confirmed signatories. The action shall now extend to filings with attorney generals in other states, in the hope of sparking a cooperative approach based on the model of the tobacco and Microsoft cases. We shall pursue this effort until an Attorney General does his duty by the citizens of New York, or until other prosecutors show the courage and conviction that truth, justice and the security of the people demand.

    http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20061014...

    As I recall, this was just winding down when we got involved with ny911truth. I don't recall that Les was all that invested. Nick could straighten this out for us.

    Nick?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  3. christs4sale
    Administrator

    I believe he is referring to David Kubiak or Kyle Hence.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  4. JohnA
    Member

    Back in those days the NY movement had some pretty solid people with Levis, Hence, Jamie Hecht, Mike Kane, Cristian Flemming and others. Jamieson was there, of course, but was viewed as somewhat of a well-intentioned but intellectually hapless participant. He was unable, at that time, to exert his will upon the group. There were simply too many smart people involved. But he was very dedicated and attended most of the vigils at ground zero and group meetings - etc etc.

    the bottom fell out soon after the one-two-three punch of Riverside Church (in which Sander Hicks destroyed our event) - Jimmy Walter's ballroom charade - and Bush's re-election.

    after that it appeared that all the old regulars - including myself - disappeared. Les took over and the next few meetings i attended were populated with what appeared to be all new faces. A new kid Luke materialized with huge posters he had printed up declaring the towers demolished. he seemed to have no reverence for the 'old guard' - and appeared to be Les' strongest supporter.

    Other weird Characters started showing up – like one guy who would wear a Charles Manson t-shirt at ground zero with “Crazy White Mother-F*cker” written on it.

    Another older guy (I think his last name was Martucci) started showing up and was deep into the illuminati nonsense. I seem to remember him at one point sending out a mass email to sabotage Nick Levis that was quite clearly intentional. Later, at the premier of my film in Tribeca, he tacitly threatened me, bragging about how he was able to ‘get people fired’ and ‘ruin people’s lives.’ Important to note here that Jamieson introduced Martucci to the group.

    And then, of course, Tom Fotti. Tom seemed like a smart guy. He played the role of the compassionate musician folksy guy – yet seemed impervious to real dialogue. I can remember thinking – gee – this guy seems cool (compared to the others) – I wouldn’t mind trying to work with him. But – there was definitely something wrong with him. There was very clearly a front.

    It is also important to note that Jamieson, as the new self-appointed ‘leader’ of the NY movement gained the partnership of Father Frank Morales and St Marks church.

    Do I really need to go there?

    And lastly – there were these two new guys – Max and Julian who had a combined height of about 15 feet. They seemed like the only reasonable ones in Les’ weekly circle of activists. None of the old guard was there anymore. Levis showed up sporadically, but grew increasingly frustrated – as did Max and Julian and myself. What in HELL was Les doing with NY911Truth????

    It all ended when we attempted to confront Les on his distribution of Criminal Politics – and we approached Frank Morales on his support for Les. How COULD a priest allow the distribution of this material – and speakers like Nico Haupt – appear in his church.

    Morales seemed very fair. Too fair. Big tent fair. Come one come all – everyone can have their turn and speak at St Marks.

    So – we reserved time for our very own Nicholas Levis to speak.

    Morales weeks later reneged. no explanation given. It appeared that Les Jamieson now had full control of the church and the shell of what was once NY911Truth – and activists like Levis, Max, Julian and myself walked away permanently.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  5. truthmod
    Administrator

    I believe he is referring to David Kubiak or Kyle Hence.

    Yeah, I thought Les Jamieson might be below Mike Ruppert's radar...

    That's a fairly good synopsis of NY911Truth, as far as I can tell. It seems as if Les has used his voodoo to do some revisionism on this history--because now he is synonymous with NY911Truth and there are probably only a few people who remember the pre-LJ history that John brings up.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  6. christs4sale
    Administrator

    Les is definitely a local figure. I should also say that my own personal experience with Kyle Hence was very positive and none of my personal experience with him would ever make me think that he was intentionally trying to hurt the movement. His involvement in 9/11 Citizen's Watch and 9/11: Press for Truth was really great in my opinion. On the other hand it is certainly possible that Mike or Jenna were personally witnessing how Kyle or David Kubiak were handling things at the time. They could have legitimately had the wrong idea of what to strategically do at the time.

    Two important things I have learned about agents and movement figures, especially after listening repeatedly to several hundred episodes of the great Mae Brussell:

    1) Just cause people admit that they were wrong, does not mean that they are clean and will not do further harm. A perfect example of this is the Loose Change crew. They release a poorly documented film that has the perfect bait in it to attract widespread attention, most of which was easily discredited later. They later redeem themselves in the eyes of many by making Final Cut, which makes everyone think that they are clean, trustworthy and OK. It is important to look at someone's actions in terms of time. It seems very simple, but it is often overlooked.

    2) Almost everyone that gains celebrity status in a movement like ours should be avoided. I am not saying that there are not legitimate people at that level, but once you hear Mae Brussell's evaluations of the various JFK researchers, and I mean ones who are still revered by many today, you will see that many are covering something up or are not to be trusted. I am talking about figures such as: Mark Lane, Silvia Meagher, Carl Oglesby, Dick Gregory and Mary Ferrell. I think it is safe to say that this movement is largely in the same predicament. We really need to be ruthless in weeding people out at the top.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  7. JohnA
    Member

    i'm glad you have the courage to list Loose Change in your analysis. This has always been my personal opinion about them as well.

    But, you left out one very notable name in the JFK not-to-be-trusted movement.... Dr. James Fetzer.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  8. christs4sale
    Administrator

    I completely agree on Fetzer. I was just referring to the people Mae Brussell was talking about in the 1970s around the time of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. These are people to this day that are generally regarded as pillars to the JFK research community. People like Peter Dale Scott has given many accolades to Sylvia Meagher over the years, but she admitted that she encouraged Tom Bethell (he had infiltrated the Garrison team as a researcher and eventually wrote for the American Spectator of all things) to give the prosecution's trial plan to Clay Shaw's defense team. Mae and her each did indexes of the Warren Commission's 26 Volumes (Mae's being far more comprehensive, but never published) and Mae said that Sylvia's index left out key Nazi connections.

    Fetzer is a much newer figure in the JFK research community and does not have the elevated figure status of the people that I mentioned. I think that he got a lot of practice for his treatment of 9/11 with JFK. It is interesting that he promotes video fakery in both movements.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  9. JohnA
    Member

    yes - i see.

    do you think the Garrison investigation was even legitimate? i'm not saying it wasn't. but it would not surprise me - given the number of fake lawsuits and fake investigative cul-de-sacs we've seen in the 9/11 movement - if the entire Shaw / Bannister / Joe Pesci story was one giant red herring.

    i, of course, have zero evidence of this, and near nil knowledgability on the subject. i just always wondered how a DA in Louisiana could get so close to the case without being shut down by the feds on national security issues. there was - afterall - a clear cuban resistance element in the mix - and in those days the government could shut down almost anyone in the media or legal system - at will.

    Oswald was definitely well-connected. (the man denounced his US citizenship in Russia - returned - and went to work developing U2 spy plane photographs?) that alone was always enough for me to declare the official story ( a lone commie nut) a probable cover-up.

    same thing in 9/11. Too many coincidences and peculiar connections to be dismissed.

    i think this is one more reason why 911 Truth is remains important - because it possibly sheds light on so many other systematic cover-ups of similar ilk. there is a precedent here that transcends the simple prosecution of a crime. it could conceivably open a pandora's box of questions.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  10. christs4sale
    Administrator

    Garrison was completely legitimate in my view and so was his case. Read Destiny Betrayed by Jim DiEugenio or Let Justice Be Done by William Davy to see how Garrison's case was completely sabbotaged from inside and outside. The media completely took one side and still to this day portrays Garrison as a completely negative figure.

    Check out ctka.net for some of the best recent information on the JFK case. A completely Fetzerless site. The scholarship level of their work is what the 9/11 movement should aspire to (at least in terms of quality, not visibility).

    Posted 16 years ago #
  11. mark
    Member

    "i just always wondered how a DA in Louisiana could get so close to the case without being shut down by the feds on national security issues."

    Read Garrison's book On the Trail of the Assassins, which answers this well. Any decent investigator in New Orleans at that time would have a hard time NOT getting close to the case, its activities were somewhat blatant. And Garrison's efforts were definitely shut down by the feds, sometimes in a heavy handed way, sometimes with great subtlety.

    see

    http://www.oilempire.us/jfktruth.html for some parallels

    Posted 16 years ago #
  12. JohnA
    Member

    Very interesting. I will check out those sources.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  13. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Whoever Ruppert means, he doesn't name, so though I can make a good guess, I won't. And I probably disagree. Also, while he doesn't mean me, his critique could have described me and the people I was working with on the Justice complaint in the latter part of 2004 (though not from 2003-2005). We were fully aware of the shortcomings of the approach. Of course we knew Spitzer wasn't obligated to respond to the petition. We weren't expecting him to act, but at the time saw his office as the right crux point for a campaign to raise pressure for any and all possible legal actions. The idea, which lost momentum at the end of 2004, was to create a probable cause case for investigation usable by other jurisdictions (county DAs, other state AGs, USAs, etc.). But more importantly, to use this campaign as a public platform for the "best evidence" approach.

    As for Garrison: yes, I think he was absolutely genuine and the treatment he received has ever since served as an example to any who would follow his lead in pursuing parapolitical crime cases like the JFK assassination.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  14. emanuel
    Member

    I'm just glad Ruppert named Amy Goodman as #2.

    Emanuel

    Posted 15 years ago #
  15. Victronix
    Member

    People like Peter Dale Scott has given many accolades to Sylvia Meagher over the years, but she admitted

    Is there any indication he is aware of this? Has anyone talked to him about it?

    I especially like your point about avoiding those with celebrity status. I haven't read much on the whole JFK movement, but it seems to be pretty much repeating, and isn't that hard to understand once you have just a few examples.

    Whoever Ruppert means, he doesn't name

    Wonder why.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  16. christs4sale
    Administrator

    Even Mae admitted that Sylvia Meagher's book "Accessories After the Fact" is excellent for what it is. It thoroughly demolishes the official JFK assassination narrative established by the Warren Commission. No book except for maybe Gerald McKnight's new book "Breach of Trust" does it better. On the other hand to consciously undermine Jim Garrison's investigation could potentially be excusable at the time. There was so much mud being thrown at Garrison at the time that Meagher could have really believed that he was hurting the JFK case. Mae believed that it was more than that (through not mentioning the Nazi connections). John Judge, through my correspondence, believes that Sylvia might have fallen for the bad-jacketing and media onslaught. There are certainly many instances of researchers doing great work and then doing something incredibly stupid, while still being authentic (see Ruppert's treatment of John Hankey after Gary Webb's death).

    Posted 15 years ago #
  17. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Amy Goodman ain't no No. 1 on that (crowded) list. I participated in the "Waking Amy" campaign but her reach is exaggerated; and unlike some others, she actually does some good.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  18. NicholasLevis
    Member

    I am having a tough time resisting making such a list. So many to choose from! There are those playing the inside as propagaters of disinformation and internal conflict, snitch-jacketers, sensationalists, ideological and celebrity piggybackers, big-gesture clowns, niche marketers, false friends or fake whistleblowers from within the intelligence community, etc. I think the greatest single damage was done by the guy who threw around 3 million dollars to fund pods and no-planes, don't you?

    And then there are those attacking from without as permanent debunkers, "experts" or "journalists," distractors, outright pro-Bushists and, most of all, conspiracy panickers. For most of this sort, I prefer the term "conspiracy panickers" to gatekeepers, since that is what they do: spread panic about the "dangers of conspiracy theory." (Learned it recently from Jack Bratich via Bryan Sacks.) The gatekeeper label should really only be applied to those who have an institutional authority to gatekeep or deny access to larger audiences, such as editors, funders and owners of television and print. As for writers, if supposedly critical and progressive people let their thoughts be limited by what Chomsky, Cockburn or pathetic minor lights like Chip Berlet find acceptable, whose fault is that?

    Posted 15 years ago #
  19. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Afterthought: big-tent enablers. Gate-openers or trash-inviters, if you prefer.

    Vic:

    Wonder why.

    I bet we both know. Just as well, I might add, because in this case he's wrong, going by the person's objective contributions.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  20. JohnA
    Member

    what Chomsky and Amy fail to realize is that, ultimately, it does not matter what the people believe. without an avenue to pursue transparency and accountability from our elected officials - not only is democracy dead - so is our entire legal system.

    every prosecutor knows that a man is innocent until proven guilty. but if the public is not allowed to pursue what appears to be prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, there would be no prosecutions based on 'conspiracy' to commit fraud, 'conspiracy' to commit murder, 'conspiracy' to commit war crimes.

    every legal prosecution starts with a 'conspiracy' theory - and SHOULD end with a fair day in court with a full hearing of the facts and evidence before the american public.

    instead Amy offers up time to 'loose change' - as a way of knocking down straw men - and substituting her own opinions as teh voice of authority - instead of real grassroots activism.

    and when these figureheads dismiss the calls of the public to investigate the assassination of their president - or the mass murder of thousands on 9/11 - simply on the grounds that 'we should not be connecting those dots ourselves - because we are creating conspiracy theories' - then they are effectively contributing to the paradigm that insists that these 'matters' are best left up to the experts - and not the public.

    unfortunately - there are no 'experts' in positions of power willing to trade their own names in exchange for a world of trouble.

    Like John Candy said to Garrison in JFK:

    "The government's gonna jump all over your head, Jimbo and go cock-a-doodle-doo."

    we all know this is true. even Amy and Chomsky know that it is an unspoken truth that you cannot fight city hall. But, what they ARE guilty of is institutionalizing a RATIONAL for not sticking their necks out - and they call it 'conspiracy theories'

    Posted 15 years ago #
  21. emanuel
    Member

    what Chomsky and Amy fail to realize is that, ultimately, it does not matter what the people believe.

    This is true. We have come to the point where the American public is completely powerless. I think propaganda today may be more for soldiers in the military than the general public. I have read that during Vietnam, rebellion in the ranks of the soldiers was more important in ending the war than was domestic dissent at home.

    I am reminded of the email that went around everywhere back in 2004 showing a bunch of soldiers in Iraq lying down in the desert sand to spell out with their bodies a giant "REMEMBER 911".

    Emanuel

    Posted 15 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.