Here's Mike's response, which I got in an email from him, for anyone interested in the strife:
February 8, 2012
Dear [so-and-so]:
This report is first and foremost to thank you for your donation and
support. It also affords me the opportunity to respond to the email
sent to you by Ken Jenkins, George Ripley and Ken Freeland, wherein
they make scurrilous and defaming charges against me that they are now
spreading through the Internet, Facebook and Twitter.
Before addressing in detail my public statements and my actions with
respect to the final disposition of the monies donated through the
9-11CC website to ultimately secure a new Citizens 911 Commission, let
me clearly outline the legal status of our volunteer group that
included the above mentioned individuals during the entire course of
2011.
In May 2011, Ken Jenkins and George Ripley (Freeland only came aboard
in August as a paid employee) were pushing me into a leadership role
within the 911 movement that I was reluctant to take on. They went so
far as to fill out the government forms that appointed me the Sole
Principal and Treasurer of a California Recipient Committee. Either
they were not willing to do the tedious work involved or they did not
feel prepared or experienced enough to take the idea I had suggested
for a new Citizens 911 Commission from the concept stage to that of a
legal initiative text that would be acceptable by the appropriate
state government entities.
California Recipient Committee
The forms creating the California Recipient Committee called the
“Citizens 911 Commission” were filed on May 13, 2011 with the
Secretary of State. My name as the “Sole Principal and Treasurer” is
the only name officially associated with the entity in California. I
secured an EIN number from the IRS on that basis and opened an account
at Wells Fargo. No other names or persons were legally associated with
this California entity or its bank account. As the authorized signer
who opened the account at Wells Fargo, I made provisions with the bank
for Jenkins, Belitsos and Ripley to access the account only to view
its activity in real time. Belitsos hired an accountant who I
authorized to sign on the account so that she could pay our bills and
invoices. She submitted each payment to me for authorization prior to
payment. This process of how the donations were handled was never
challenged. All of our financial activities were reported on our
website. Our accountant resigned in December on my advice and that of
her attorney after being repeated threatened with legal action by
Jenkins and Ripley for not freezing the account, which she legally
could not do.
Under California law a Recipient Committee can raise up to $25,000
(only from U.S. sources) without being required to report the identity
of its donors or being required to organize itself into a political
organization or corporation. The temporary Recipient Committee model
seemed ideal for our purposes, since we had no way of knowing if the
911 Truth Movement would fully support or sufficiently fund the
concept of using the direct democracy initiative process to bring
about a new 911 investigation.
As a California Recipient Committee, we had no operable bylaws and
none were required to be filed by the state. I subsequently drafted
Articles and Bylaws in anticipation of creating an IRS C4 corporation,
which would have been the next step in our logical growth, going from
a working group of volunteers to a legal corporate entity. However, in
November, I felt it unwise to incorporate our group and continue our
fundraising practice, in view of the fact that we were not able to
demonstrate the ability to raise sufficient funds to actually fund a
single state initiative. Otherwise we would be raising and using the
funds of dedicated donors––essentially milking the fundraising
process––to perpetuate payments of self serving fees to our office
manager and others and paying the costs of unproductive meetings that
were essentially therapy sessions for its participants.
It is very important to understand the legal limited nature of our
Committee during the entire course of 2011. We were actually no more
than a group of individuals working together on a voluntary basis to
realize our goals expressed on our website and in my speeches and
media interviews. We pledged to bring about a new Citizens 911
Commission by the legislative actions of citizens voting on state
initiatives or on a national initiative if a law making that possible
came into being. I spoke of both direct democracy approaches
repeatedly, publicly and privately. Both approaches were the basis of
the Actionable Plan I wrote for the Citizens 911 Commission.
Initially, our intent was to file an initiative in California. I
visited and worked with the attorneys at the State’s Legislative
Council in Sacramento, drafting my concept into a legally acceptable
initiative proposal. However, it became obvious that a California
initiative campaign was out of the question at this time; it would
take several million dollars to qualify an initiative for the ballot
and more to wage a viable enactment campaign.
Since we planned no political activity in California and were limited
in accepting foreign contributions, it was understood by all those
involved (Jenkins, Freeland, Belitsos and Ripley) that we would
dissolve the Recipient Committee before the end of the year or face
extensive and expensive reporting requirements that were irrelevant to
our national and global activities. California law is very clear; at
the time of dissolution whatever monies are in the Committee’s bank
account must be donated to a government recognized charity or returned
to the donors on a pro rata basis. The purpose of the law is to make
sure that monies collected publicly and not reported to a government
entity, do not covertly end up in organizations supporting or opposing
political candidates or initiatives filed in California.
A pro rata return to donors would have been expensive accounting-wise
and of deminimous impact to all but one donor. I chose to donate all
the funds in the account to the Democracy Foundation, a 501 c 3
charity recognized under federal law. The Democracy Foundation, which
I founded and chaired, is the educational sponsor of the National
Initiative (
www.NI4D.US), now being reconstituted into the National
Citizens Initiative. The NCI, when enacted into law, will empower
citizens to make laws in every government jurisdiction of the United
States. Obviously, if we were able to enact the National Citizens
Initiative, it would provide an excellent process for proposing a
federal law creating a new Citizens 911 Commission with federal powers
far superior to anything we would expect to secure with a state
initiative. Donor funds now being used to advance the enactment NCI
are entirely within the scope of the pledges I publicly made to
donors.
Oregon and Massachusetts
After foregoing a campaign in California, we looked to more affordable
initiative states with politically progressive constituencies. Oregon,
Colorado, Ohio, Massachusetts, Alaska, Maine, North and South Dakota
were considered. After visiting officials in Ohio, it proved not to be
a viable choice. I traveled to Salem, Oregon and worked with their
Legislative Council attorneys to improve the text we had developed in
California. In Portland I met with a group of 911 Truthers. They were
attentive and interested but it was apparent that the group lacked any
leaders or any burning desire to undertake a campaign.
I traveled to Alaska and met with a large group of Truthers and
discussed the concept with government officials. The group had
interest but no viable leadership prepared to secure funding for an
initiative. I met with three persons in Colorado, however, nothing
matured beyond that contact. In Maine and the Dakotas we could not
identify a viable group of Truthers to even approach. The concept of
using the initiative to create a new Citizens 911 Commission is a
concept somewhat “out of the box” and many people, even in initiative
states, are not all that familiar with the initiative law-making
process. This direct democracy legislative innovation was also
difficult to get across to the various leaders in the 911 Truth
Movement.
Massachusetts was a different story. A group stepped forward led by
Richard Aucoin and Richard McCampbell, both experienced initiative
campaigners. They filed the initiative text with the Commonwealth’s
Attorney General. She certified the initiative for the ballot on
September 7th.. We had until late November to raise the $300,000 to
pay for a professional signature gathering contractor. The task was
impossible. The campaign had to be halted even in the face of great
enthusiasm. The state’s 911 activists had no choice but to refocus
their efforts on the 2014 election cycle.
Our Finances
The following overview of the Committee’s financial situation is
important to understand to appreciate the nature of the dispute. My
personal 911 fundraising experience commenced September 2010 when I
started traveling and working fulltime on the 911 direct democracy
concept. 911 groups at which I spoke would canvas the audiences for
donations to pay for my travel expenses. Even at that I had to fund
some of my expenses personally.
Once our website was up with my speeches and media interviews
explaining the details of my initiative concept, donations began to
flow starting in July 2011 and remained encouraging into mid September
2011. The highpoint of our fundraising effort was my trip to Toronto
in September 2011.
Donations slowed to a trickle by the end of September and surged again
as a result of Manfred Petrick’s blog in Zurich Switzerland, which was
influential with the 911 Movement in Europe. Since half of our
donations came from foreign sources, it made sense to plan a European
tour to meet with and seek more financial support from 911 leaders.
We had the good fortune to have the support of Annie Machon, a
globally known outspoken voice for peace and justice issues and a 911
activist personally acquainted with 911 leaders throughout Europe. She
organized speaking and media appearances for me in the eight cities we
visited. The trip was not a financial success. Nevertheless, I view
the trip as worthwhile for the contacts we established through Annie
and the fact that it informed me of the 911 situation in Europe. The
911 Truth Movement is as marginalized in Europe by the media and
governments as it is in the U.S. The Truthers are there in significant
numbers but somewhat discouraged or burnt out.
Surprisingly, there was greater interest on the tour in the National
Citizens Initiative process of direct democracy to bring about a new
Citizens 911 Commission than the use of state initiatives. I addressed
both subjects in all my presentations. 911 leaders arranged for my
appearances at Occupy Wall Street encampments in Zurich, Paris and
Amsterdam. This experience reinforced my view that this global
revolution of the grassroots could well make the National Citizens
Initiative an idea whose time has come.
A Realistic Assessment that Led to the Dispute
Putting aside the “he said, she said” arguments that prevail in all
disputes or rosy interpretations of non-existent successes, it is
important to realistically understand the different opinions that
caused the split within the Recipient Committee.
There are two questions of paramount importance that must be addressed
in assessing our progress.
1) Are there 911 volunteers in initiative states prepared to file a
Citizens 911 Commission initiative and take on the liability of filing
government reports? Are there 911 activists in sufficient numbers to
wage a viable campaign to bring about the initiative’s enactment after
sufficient petition signatures have been gathered to qualify the
initiative for the ballot?
2) Is there a likelihood of raising sufficient funds to contract with
a professional signature gathering company to qualify the initiative?
Experience has shown that signature gathering cannot be done by
volunteers alone. The minimum cost for such a contract is $300,000 in
a politically viable state. This does not address the costs of an
enactment campaign within the state once the initiative is qualified.
Nor does it consider the overhead costs of a national
organization––9-11CC––to oversee and sponsor various state efforts.
All told we raised around $85,000 in 2011; and more than half of that
has been spent on travel, communications and overhead of the
Committee.
By November, it was obvious the Recipient Committee’s efforts did not
come close to satisfactorily answering either question with respect to
state activists or sufficient funding. An honest appraisal of what
took place in 2011 does not come near the fanciful upbeat report sent
to you by the “board” (Jenkins, Freeland and Ripley). We failed to
raise sufficient funds to launch an adequate campaign in any
politically acceptable state. Except for Massachusetts we were unable
to identify a viable group of 911 activists prepared to undertake an
in-state initiative campaign. Additionally and of extreme importance,
major leaders and important 911 organizations chose not to endorse the
Citizens 911 Commission campaign or help by sharing their membership
lists.
Our initial fund raising plans posited securing major angel
contributors to kick off our multi-state initiative effort. I relied
on the views of Ken Jenkins and Byron Belitsos, both longtime 911
activists, who expected to raise substantial sums from angel donors
who they knew personally and who had contributed substantial sums to
911 causes in the past. Their overtures to these contacts were turned
down, either due to burnout or a lack of conviction that the
Actionable plan would work.
George Ripley indicated in May 2011 that he could and would raise
substantial sums. This was not realized. He did travel with me in
Massachusetts and was personally very helpful. These early-on cues
should have alerted us to the burnout within the 911 community or the
lack of confidence in direct democracy. The movement is far from dead
but its capacity to embrace and fund innovative strategies is limited
and prone to fractious behavior.
This realistic assessment in no way negates the importance of the
donations we did receive and used to communicate with the 911 Truth
Movement. I would not have been able to travel throughout the U.S. and
abroad had it not been for your donations. I did not have the personal
financial capacity to do it without your help. I am extremely grateful
for your donations and your personal support. I do not feel that we
failed you. We raise the visibility of the 911 issue worldwide and as
leaders we now have a more realistic assessment of our capabilities
and a clearer vision of what we need to do to bring about a new
Citizens 911 Commission, which we are pursuing with a new NCI campaign
this spring. Your donations made this possible. Thank you.
The Dispute and the Parting of the Ways
Upon my return from Europe on November 11th I reported to the
committee that for health reasons and a desire to use my energies more
effectively, I had decided to focus on refurbishing the National
Initiative into the National Citizens Initiative and thereby
capitalize upon the opportunity the Occupy Wall Street revolution
offers us. Nevertheless, I was prepared to continue working with the
group and to consider funding any reasonable project that kept faith
with our pledges to donors.
However, suggestions by Ken Jenkins, George Ripley, Ken Freeland (the
only paid employee of the group) and Byron Belitsos, who has since
resigned from the group, did not seem to go anywhere. One idea was to
fund national and local conferences to bring 911 leaders together in
hopes of charting a new direction for our Committee; I felt such a
conference would amount to violation of our pledges to donors. Only
these four and a few others they could influence with bias information
took issue with my position. Many more volunteers supported my
position, particularly so when all the facts were made known.
My approach to our organizational problem was straightforward and
simple (I thought). If we were unable to raise sufficient financial
support or muster activists to do state initiatives then maybe we
should focus our energies on the other approach that direct democracy
offers us, about which I addressed in all of my speeches, interviews
and on our website––a national initiative process. Now with the OWS on
the global scene, a National Citizens Initiative seemed viable. What
followed was a month of interminable discussions leading nowhere
except my exhaustion.
Despite my age (almost 82) and various health issues, I have worked
full-time on this 911 effort since September 2010 without
remuneration. I have spent about three of the last fourteen months
away from my wife Whitney (almost a month on the initial California
trip, two trips to Sacramento, Portland, Anchorage, Cincinnati and
Denver, more than two weeks in Massachusetts and more than two weeks
in Europe). During the last two trips, I became ill and had to see
local doctors.
My supposed friends on the Committee wanted me to continue to be their
spokesperson making speeches and traveling the world explaining the
direct democracy concept. They wanted to use my reputation to raise
money; then they wanted to control those monies by a process which
sounds “democratic” but, in effect, holds my reputation and
responsibilities to donors and supporters hostage to their decisions
and judgments and most dangerously: even when they are wrong.
From mid November to December 18, we met in conference once or twice a
week, going on for many hours, discussing and arguing over our
different interpretation of the facts. I spent more than 10 hours in
discussion with Jenkins alone. During these debates, I was subjected
to insults––being charged with a lack of integrity is the most modest
of the charges. The effect of this was pushing me further and further
away from any possible accommodation of ever working together.
By December 18, I concluded that the only intelligent solution was to
go our separate ways. They could form their own organization, do their
own fundraising and pursue their vision. I was free to do the same.
However, they wanted to take control of the remaining funds of the
Recipient Committee (around $30,000). This was not possible under
California law nor was it possible morally because of the pledges I
had made to donors. It was my statements that had raised these funds
and it was my responsible to see to their proper use.
An Objective Judgment of the Dispute
The best way for an objective observer to judge the right or wrong of
a dispute like this is to judge the conduct of the disputants. If the
“board” (Jenkins, Freeland and Ripley) are truly committed to the
cause of using direct democracy to bring about a new Citizens 911
Commission, then one would have expected them to do their best to
limit knowledge of the split and minimize the disruptive effects of
the conflict on the 911 Truth Movement by letting everyone to quietly
go their separate ways.
Their conduct has been just the opposite. They are publicizing the
dispute far and wide and spreading falsehoods with no purpose other
than to damage my reputation, all because I chose to deny them the
opportunity to hold my reputation hostage.
For my case, I have chosen not to address or discuss the dispute with
anyone except in response to statements and charges that are addressed
directly to me or brought to my attention by persons who want to know
my side of the story.
The sentences in the email they sent you––“informing the proper legal
authorities regarding this unauthorized removal of funds from our
Campaign. An official investigation should soon be underway…” is the
same threat they made to me back in December. Now, they are making it
more subtlety, inferring some illegality on my part and spreading this
to the Internet through uninformed, irresponsible blogs. This charge
is ludicrous and borders on libel. Their ugly campaign to damage my
character has the real effect of damaging the entire 911 Truth
Movement and themselves personally.
It is emotionally disturbing to experience their viciousness toward me
since I once considered them friends. I think Rudyard Kipling
describes the situation best in his poem “If”: "If you can keep your
head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on
you;....you'll be a man my son!"
National Citizens Initiative
In my judgment, the initiative process of direct democracy is the only
way we will ever be able to enact a new Citizens 911 Commission, at
this point in our history. It goes without saying that if we can
improve on this initiative process, as I am attempting to do by
launching a new campaign this spring to enact the National Citizens
Initiative, then it obviously improves the likelihood of citizens
creating a new Citizens 911 Commission, since the 911 issue will be
one of the political issues featured in the campaign.
This last year, one event has changes the dynamics of all socially
progressive cause-groups: the global protests of the Occupy Wall
Street (OWS) movement. An important part of their agenda is the
creation of a new commission to investigate the events surrounding
911. It is my hope to persuade OWS with our campaign that direct
democracy is the only way to bring about the agenda they are
protesting about. Existing funds in the Democracy Foundation and the
new funds from the dissolved Citizens 911 Commission Recipient
Committee are being used to prepare for a spring campaign to educate
OWS about direct democracy and to persuade them to vote and help
others vote to enact the National Citizens Initiative into law.
I am also in contact with C100, the organization of student body
presidents in colleges and universities in the U.S. and abroad who
indicate an interest in participating in our campaign this spring.
The process to enact the National Citizens Initiative can be
undertaken in any country where citizens are allowed to vote. As a
result of my recent tour of Europe, there is substantial interest to
pursue a National Citizens Initiative in Switzerland and in Denmark.
These countries with the proper support could see the enactment of a
National Citizens Initiative within a year. Such a success would have
a very favorable impact on the American enactment campaign.
Please feel free to share with me your views about my actions. The 911
CC.org website is indisposed by the confusions of the dispute. However
we will have a new site up later this month, which I will communicate
to you, permitting you to evaluate the new campaign, to address
political issues like 911 in different languages, to register, to
vote, and of course to contribute if you share our vision.
Thank you. Sincerely Mike
