Ryan Comments

Change is not a 'different group with a different agenda', it is a youth group, intended for people under 30. Luke formed a group of young people to get involved and form camaraderie amongst us, and it has been a much bigger success than anything anyone else has done. Unlike 6 months ago before Luke formed Change, now a majority of the people who do street actions both at Ground Zero and other places are under 30.

Tom, Luke, and myself along with a few others have been very dedicated in doing street actions throughout the week since the summer, actions that Les or many others who seem to think they suddenly have authority have NOT ONCE been a part of. We have been harassed by the cops a few times, but nothing that we have not experienced at Ground Zero. The only difference between anything we did during the week that was any different than what NY truth activists have done every Saturday for the past four years is that we go throughout the city to places other than Ground Zero.

When someone came to a Wednesday meeting a few months ago passing out a paper saying that ny911truth should have democratic elections and that leaders should be transparent about their backgrounds you, Les, said that "authority in the group is based on who puts in the most work" and you also said that "anyone who wants to do a presentation can do a presentation, and anyone who wants to do a street action can do a street action." You went on to say that we can't "let people who don't put the work in try to take over the group."

By your very definition Les, 'who puts in the work' has authority. Tom, Luke and and others have put in much more work than you in spreading 911 truth in recent months.

You then said "people know me as a facilitator and not a power-hungry, turf-grabbing, ego-driven leader. As I've stated before, I've facilitated and contributed to everything you've wanted to do"

As long as you are a facilitator and contributor, your background and religious beliefs are irrelevant. However, due to your position (whoever placed you) in ny911truth, THE most important citizens group in the world right now, you have become well known.

Since you are a well known leader of this group it was INEVITABLE that someone was going to look into your background, however irrelevant it may be.

I heard about your involvement with Urantia back in the beginning of the summer, as well as the claims about CIA connections. I was told to look it up on Google, did so, and came to the conclusion that is was harmless, especially so long as Les is a 'facilitator and contributor'.

Nico Haupt was a well respected NY 911 truth activist before Les ever popped up and was declared leader. He is a well respected researcher, especially on the topic of war games, and his research is cited in several of the top 911 truth books that exist. (Crossing the Rubicon, Towers of Deception, and Synthetic Terror, perhaps others that I've yet to read)

So lets not act like Nico is some kook who just magically popped up and began stopping the truth, far from it. Nico did act inappropriately at a recent St. Mark's event, and I voted to not email him about future events there, because he was not welcome there. I would like to say that I now take that vote back. The emails from Nico that we got showed the group that you did indeed have some connection with Urantia, which again, I believe to be harmless.

Since everyone in the group got these emails proving your involvement in Urantia, and since practically anytime anyone stepped outside St. Mark's church on a Sunday evening would hear conversations regarding your involvement with this group, and since you are 'leader' of the email/st marks events, it was INEVITABLE that eventually someone would ask you about your involvement in it.

When the topic did come up, you answered the question and according to your previous email "I told you last spring after answering your questions about Urantia to free to ask again if any new questions pop up." In light of the barrage of Urantia emails from Nico, Tom brought up some more questions about the topic at a recent Wednesday night meeting, as you had previously welcomed.You clearly said to the entire group 1. you never had any position of authority in Urantia and were "only a reader" and 2. you have not been involved with Urantia since '99, when you went to South Africa to to be of just a few Urantia representatives at the 'Parliament of World Religions'. But of course we all knew this because of the emails we got from Nico.

I later spoke with Tom after that meeting, and we began talking about the questions that he had asked, and the answers that you, Les, gave. Very nonchalantly, I said to Tom "you do know he lying right" because, like I said, I researched this issue and found these links that prove that you lied to the group at the Wednesday meeting:

Report from Les at S. Africa 'Parliament of World Religions'

Vice President of Greater NY Urantia group (bottom)--

04 --If you want to be involved with Urantia in the Greater NY
region, CONTACT LES ***type name into search*** (real link
doesnt work for some strange reason)

04 http://www.urantia-nyc.org/membershipinfo.html
05 http://www.lightandlife.com/new/urantia/links.htm
03 leading intensive fellowship

Article by Les

07 website listed as 'ONE OF OUR MEMBERS'

01 On Urantia Outreach Committee

99 Parliament of World Religions

Article written by Les on Urantia website

02 Proposed speaker at Urantia event

03 Writing on Urantia message board ***type name into search***
(real link doesnt work for some strange reason)

00-- helped develop Urantia website

leading urantia session
(spanish)--

Clearly Les was more than 'just a reader' and was definitely involved after 1999. This directly contradicts what he told the group to all of our faces, even his staunchest supporters.

I thought it was no big deal, as long as you facilitate and contribute, but Tom wanted to see these links that I told him I had found through a simple Google search revealing your lies. As mentioned, I thought nothing of it, but Tom did not feel the same way and I do not blame him. You are 'in charge' of the group to a great extent and control the group's bank account, despite not being the one who brought in a vast majority of the funds. Being in charge of something so important should mean that you are not lying about who you say you are, what your background is, and ultimately what your true agenda is. I might be a bit apathetic, but lets not blame Tom for caring and expecting some honesty.

Now you say you want to expel Tom, the only other person who had access to the group's account, the only person aside from you who tried to keep tabs on the groups finances, and who also produced a great deal of DVD's that we distributed at street actions where you and most others who think we should expel Tom were never to be found. The group voted for Luke to have access to the account as well, but it was never given to him. We've already tried writing politicians to no avail. If you want to send out petitions, fine, I've signed them myself, but it is more important and takes a lot more work to go out in the streets and educate people. Tom, Luke, myself and others have been appealing to the only people that will actually hear us out, the average New Yorker. Now our source of DVD's and fliers has been cut off and we are being told to get on a writing campaign. Thats been done, if thats what you want to do then I won't criticize you, but by stopping our outreach actions to educate the public, you are very significantly neutralizing the movement and directly aiding and abetting the people who were responsible for 9/11.

Being in your position it was INEVITABLE that someone would Google you and find this information.

So why lie?

And why try to use your authority to kick out the group's most serious members, Tom, Luke, and Nico for calling you out on your lies?

It was only a matter of time until this came out Les, you are smart, you had to have known this.

Les, I don't know if you are CIA, COINTELPRO, or what, but it is very clear that right now you are doing more to hurt the movement than anyone else.

- Ryan Rodrigues


Quoting Tom Foti <t***@hotmail.com>:

> (text is attached in case format is illegible)
>
> Hi Les,
> I see you have a lot of gripes. Why don't you air them at our
> meeting on Wednesday? I'm confident the group will listen
> respectfully. Again, if you would like to have a vote on
> something, I believe that is what a group meeting is for.
> I plan to attend, and will discuss with the group the benefits of
> having a group bank account that is not "100% owned" by a single
> member. I believe the group's interests would be served better
> with a joint account that has group involvement and oversight.
> Until then,
> Tom
>
>
>
>
> From: Les Jamieson
> CC:
>
> Subject: Re: the bank account
> Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:05:30 -0500
>
> Tom,
>
> You seem to think everything is status quo and you couldn't be
> more wrong.
>
> You violated the group's 9-5 vote to remove Nico and Geo from
> your distribution list.
>
> Your plan to take over the group has been exposed.
>
> Your deceptive behavior with a document by Angie which includes a
> section on the Urantia Book has been exposed.
>
> Your attending meetings with Angie and Nico and strangely being
> secretive them has been exposed.
>
> Your working in collusion with Nico, despite his stated intention
> of disrupting and confusing the movement, and despite his
> position as a "no-planer" has been exposed. You were asked to
> remove him from your distribution list over a
> month ago by me, then Frank's insisting you disassociate from
> Nico after his huge disruption at the church, have both been
> ignored by you.
>
> Many people have emailed you opposing your fixation on my
> personal spiritual beliefs, calling for an end to the emails from
> you and Nico to no avail.
>
> Plus, very soon I will be exposing the nature of the flimsy
> accusations of the Urantia Book being an OSS/CIA/NSA front which
> will show that zero fact checking was done to make these
> outrageous claims.
>
> So, I am including my statement of 2/9 below to reiterate the
> situation.
>
> For all others receiving this, please read this through because
> these details affect the whole group and your general
> understanding of the situation will be served. Then please see
> below for my last comments.
>
> -----------------------------
> Tom,
>
> First of all, it was truly bizarre that we even
> had to have a debate to remove Nico and Geo from your
> distribution list after their barrage of vile emails over the
> past several weeks. I asked you over three weeks ago to remove
> Nico because it was clear he was on a slanderous spamming spree.
> I told you he would only continue his agitation. You refused. Now
> he has agitated us all seemingless countless times causing many
> members to protest. Furthermore, Frank Morales specifically told
> you 2 weeks ago at St. Marks church that Nico was banned after
> his assault on our Sunday event and desecration of the church
> space. Yet you have continued to include Nico in your emails,
> such as your duplication of Luke's announcement about our
> strategy session on Wed. and memorial service this Sunday.
>
> Your argument at the meeting that we could just filter him out of
> our emails obviously doesn't address the fact that he would be
> continually informed
> of what we're doing as a group, when everyone else knows the
> liability and negative influence he is and want nothing to do
> with him and feel he has no need to know of our activities. How
> much more plain could it be?
>
> Then as a last ditch effort at the meeting to persuade the group
> to continue including Nico and Geo on our correspondence, your
> concern was that there would be repercussions because they would
> complain on the internet and make a big deal of this. First, why
> would you even care? Why would you expect us to care? Nico is
> widely known as an agitator and slanderer attacking everybody of
> any substance. But you were clearly more concerned with his
> response than the group's concerns and wishes. Furthermore,
> simply removing Nico and Geo (Craig Stetson) from your cc list
> wouldn't signal anything because they would just stop receiving
> the announcements. The only way they would
> know is if someone announced it. Right? Well Tom, this is exactly
> what you've just done. As Natasha has accurately stated, "So much
> for simply QUIETLY not sending him any more mails."
>
> I hope everyone is seeing through the smokescreen here. I told
> you last spring after answering your questions about Urantia to
> feel free to ask again if any new questions pop up. Instead you
> kept silent and schemed in the background all these months. You
> showed people a document by Angie Durso as fuel for your agenda
> to discredit me and cause suspicion. When Elaine told you to
> discuss this with me and Frank, you refused saying it would be
> dangerous. You even stated to Elaine you had to find some way to
> take over the group. This is bizarre because people know me as a
> facilitator and not a power-hungry, turf-grabbing, ego-driven
> leader. As I've stated before, I've facilitated and contributed
> to
> everything you've wanted to do since you first presented the
> Money Masters 2 weeks in a row last May! I've dropped off
> materials to your apartment many, many times.
>
> Tom, I used to think that your concern about me and my past as a
> reader of the Urantia Book and participant in that community was
> sincere. It has become clear over the last several weeks that
> this is false. People have been telling you for weeks that my
> religion is my business and no concern to them. But you ambushed
> me twice on this in our public meetings. On Wed. the group told
> you to keep this out of our meetings. Yet at the end you brought
> it up again. You're simply on a mission and this is your wedge.
> Also, Frank Morales, who is in reality our gracious benefactor as
> provider of cherished meeting space for the last 18 months, told
> you weeks ago to drop this or else. Your response was that you
> question your leaders,
> including our group leaders. What is obvious to everyone is that
> you certainly haven't scrutinized Nico's actions, or Geo's
> actions, or Angie. For some strange reason, they've all gotten a
> free pass. They're to be trusted, while I'm to be prosecuted
> despite my total dedication to the cause of 9/11 truth and
> ongoing support of you. Pretty clear. Also, you're belligerent
> tone to Frank was inexcusable. To me, that alone was grounds for
> getting barred. As for Angie, I wonder if anyone in our group
> knows that you were attending meetings with her group last summer
> in which Nico participated. Yes, while we were working hard
> planning for the 5th anniversary you had attended these meetings
> and for some strange reason you never let on. I know you brought
> up the Urantia issue there. But you never asked any one of us
> with NY 911 Truth our opinion or experience of that group. I
> guess you didn't care
> to know.
>
> Furthermore, your highly charged opposition to my desire to
> mobilize people on legislative actions and impeachment is
> telling. There's a huge movement for impeachment including within
> the 9/11 truth movement. Webster Tarpley spoke in favor of
> impeachment at the recent events in Washington, DC. But you
> really don't want our movement in alliance with millions of
> others. Instead, you said to me recently that you'd trust me if I
> went after the NWO and forget the "puppets". Your attempt at
> manipulation by invalidating any approach other than embarking on
> a decades long, multi-million dollar project to go after a
> nebulous, deeply entrenched global power structure is telling. I
> see from a recent response to Natasha that your ideal goal is to
> do civil disobedience and have the police stand down which would
> then signal to the world that the ruling class has no power.
> While some
> may simply call this delusional, I'm saying it's calculated. This
> follows your comments I remember from a few months ago that you
> were looking at civil disobedience actions as the answer. It
> seems you have Luke thinking along the same lines because he's
> spoken to me of it. I just have to say that this looks like a
> classic provocateur move which has been going on since the
> sixties. An operative blends in with a group, get's their trust,
> get's several of them to become more radical than the others,
> instigates an illegal action of some type, then the force of law
> comes in and crashes the scene and the group gets entangled
> legally with some even doing jail time.
>
> It's clear that you have been working in tandem with Nico. The
> film from that crazy Sunday a few weeks ago is evidence. He's the
> overt operator, while you're the covert operator. Viewing this
> totally objectively, the signs
> are all there, Tom. Frank Morales, who has seen this pattern for
> decades has been watching this for months. Whether this is your
> true goal or not, I'm advising everyone that we're going to treat
> it as such because we must. You will not be allowed to undermine
> the hard work of this organizing that began long before you came
> along. You will not be allowed to undermine our sacred cause. You
> will not be allowed to divert our energy any longer, leading us
> down a futile, even dangerous path. You're out of here, plain and
> simple. No more presentations. Yesterday Frank laid down that
> law. I'm sure he will be communicating with the rest of the
> group. Next week Harvey Newman will be doing his presentation
> instead.
>
> I expect you to return our duplicator, placards, DVD blanks, and
> anything else you have belonging to the group. Either drop it off
> at the church or with your doorman and I will
> pick them up Sunday afternoon.
>
> If anyone feels that I've acted in an autocratic fashion, you
> will soon learn that this is not the case. It's not my style.
> There is widespread support which I have through many private
> conversations. Most importantly, we would not have gotten this
> far in NYC without the generosity of Frank Morales and it's a
> given that we have an obligation to respect his position, which I
> and most others happen to trust explicitly. We also have the
> support of Ralph Schoenman who is in the loop. The bottom line is
> - we have a historic opportunity before us and nothing can be
> allowed to derail that. We must achieve justice for 9/11 and what
> we do in the coming months will determine our success or failure.
> Future generations are counting on us. Therefore, Tom, your
> participation in our work is no longer welcome and you can take
> any other saboteurs with
> you.
> -----------------------
>
> Next is a message from Elaine from 1/21 with further evidence of
> your scheming.
>
> Ok, Tom,
>
> Your email below does not alleviate my concerns. I tried to tell
> you this on the phone.
>
> I will try to clarify my concerns about how this whole thing is
> being handled. I am not convinced that Les lied. He was taken by
> surprise and it could be true that he could not have recollected
> his involvement clearly, simply because it may not be a priority
> to him at this time.
>
> I think the first time I heard about Urantia was the night we did
> outreach at the
> public Library on 42nd St. I may have heard about it before then,
> but not much before. You had in your hands a folder containing
> many pages, opened to a picture of a group of people, one of whom
> was Les. You urged me to Google Urantia, which I did. I
> truthfully did not find as much objectionable material as I
> expected. I am not religious.
>
> You also told me that night you were going to take over the group
> somehow, but were not quite sure how.
>
> At some point I asked you if you could forward the article to me
> that I saw in your hands that night, and you did with the
> admonition, "Don't tell Les." I found that disturbing when you
> said that.
>
> I found it more disturbing when I finally got to read it, and
> realized how much of it was about Les. I could not understand why
> you did not take it directly to him, telling him that there were
> a lot of things in here that were disturbing, please address
> this. I said this to you. I also said it is disturbing that you
> are talking to other people and not to Les. I asked if you had
> talked to Frank, you said you had and Frank was sensitive (I
> think) and not to talk to him either. You also did not want to
> reveal the source, "to protect her privacy". I contacted her
> myself and she gave me her website.
>
> The night you told 2 other people you would give them this
> document I asked you how long you had had this and you told me
> about ten months. I was dismayed. I told you it was not healthy
> to hold on to something like this. I have said to you many times
> sunlight is the best disinfectant. You seem to
> want to control on whom the sun shines and when.
>
> If I understood you correctly, you wanted to ask Les about this
> in front of the group "and get an honest answer". I said it
> wasn't right to do that without showing this to him in person
> first, but I held off giving it to him because you didn't want me
> to. You said it would be dangerous to do that. Dangerous to whom,
> I wonder?
>
> The night you raised this issue, you asked if he was in any way
> involved with Urantia, yes or no. I was disappointed with that
> approach, because it seemed like a set up, like a prosecutor
> asking a witness.
>
> I think it would have served things better to ask "Would you mind
> telling us in what way you have been involved with Urantia?" It
> might
> have joggled his memory that way. In any case, I have sent the
> document to Les and to Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone. I have
> spoken to Les about it and when he has a chance to read it, I've
> asked if I could go over it with him. I wanted you to be there,
> too, but you told me I was trying to arbitrate something I
> couldn't.
>
> I hope you have the best interests of 911 truth at heart. Control
> and secrecy don't engender trust. Why did you hold on to this
> document all this time? Why did you tell me not to tell Les? Why
> did you tell me not to talk to Frank? Why did you not share this
> with Les right off the bat?
>
> Am I entitled to ask questions, too? And I'd like to know who the
> coward was who called me a lying cunt on Bigstring. What lie am I
> guilty of?
>
> Elaine
>
> ---------------------
> Furthermore, NY911Truth has languished over the last several
> months while other areas of the country are leading in the
> movement doing things which we've been distracted from doing or
> have been blocked here. We're about to get back on track with a
> direct focus on 9/11 activism. A separate email will make this
> clear. While I surely regret that all of you have had to witness
> this whole episode, please understand I surely never asked for
> this either. For those who will want to be part of some exciting
> work, visit www.911initiative.org and www.vt911.org for more
> background on this project. Onward...
>
> Les
>
>
>
> At 05:34 PM 3/1/2007, Tom Foti wrote:
>
> (In case the text formatting is illegible, I am also sending this
> as an attachment.)
>
> I would like to discuss the bank account belonging to our group.
> From my understanding, the account was supposed to be set up as a
> joint account in the names of the people voted by the group to
> the banking committee (at the time, Les Jamieson and myself).
> And when Les called me to meet him at the bank to sign the
> papers, I believed we were opening a joint account that could be
> managed by mutual oversight, as well as that of the group as a
> whole.
>
> But this is not what transpired. Les Jamieson had an earlier
> appointment at the bank, and set up our group account as being
> “100% owned” by Les Jamieson. This arrangement allows Les to do
> as he pleases with the account. Although I was voted on by the
> group to be on the account, Les took me
> off of it, with no vote or discussion by the group. At a recent
> meeting, Luke Rudkowski was also voted to be a signer on the
> account, and with no justification aside from his own whim, Les
> Jamieson is refusing to add Luke to the account.
>
> Most of the money in our account was raised from the success of
> the 5th anniversary weekend, which we all worked very hard on.
> Much of the turnout is directly due to the efforts of Luke, who
> was solely responsible for bringing Alex Jones and the Loose
> Change crew to New York.
>
> I suggest that we close the current account, and use the funds to
> begin another one that could be more responsibly and equitably
> managed by group members. I believe that Luke Rudkowski and
> myself should be justifiably among the signers, as we organize
> the street actions and need access to purchase materials such as
> flyers and blank
> DVD’s.
>
> Hopefully we can address this issue effectively and completely at
> the next meeting, which should be scheduled for midweek next
> week.
>
> Thanks to all,
>
> Tom
>