[an error occurred while processing this directive]

(full matching text is posted at http://www.fromthewilderness.com/10questions.shtml for comparison and verification of non-tampering with my responses by Victor Thorn at

On October 1, 2004 pseudo-journalist Victor Thorn posted a 36-page character-assassination hit piece about me titled "Mike Ruppert Unmasked." He did so without presenting me with his allegations or offering me an opportunity to correct the record. He has mistakenly misrepresented to his audience that he was being "fair" because he had previously asked me to appear on his web-based TV show. I declined that invitation. Subsequent to that Thorn (whose real name has been reported to be Scott Magufka (I am unsure about the spelling) posted his attack piece without even advising me of its content or offering me an opportunity to comment before he published. He has also refused to disclose whether his real name is Victor Thorn or not.

Therefore, as an attempt to avoid legal action I am responding to ten questions submitted to me in writing 24 hours ago. I have posted them on an unpublished URL at the FTW web site for two reasons. First: to guarantee that whatever Thorn posts on his web site is accurate. Second: because I have no intention of helping to publicize some of the most unprofessional, unethical and unreliable journalism I have ever seen.

Mike Ruppert
Oct. 7, 2004



Before I answer your specific questions let me start by rebutting an assertion you made in your hit piece about my journalism experience and training. In your story you wrote that I was educated in Political Science and trained in law enforcement so therefore you believed that I was dishonest when I said that I was also trained as a journalist. My previous response to that libelous implication may save all of my readers a lot of time and energy and they may conclude that they don't have to read any further.

Can't anyone do any better than this? This is boring. Astute readers will also note that you are obviously aware of this response because you quoted only a part of it. (Another breach of ethics)

"I did not say that I was "educated" as a journalist. I said I was 'trained' as a journalist. That was after my training at LAPD. Are you suggesting that in a long life (53 years) people can only receive one kind of training? Is that it?

"None of this would have happened had Victor Thorn or any of the others done what a professional journalist is required to do: fact check and ask for confirmation before publishing. The fact that I refused to do Thorn's show (because of sloppy journalism and reporting) has nothing to do with the fact that a professional journalist would have called or emailed me with their allegations and asked for my comment first. That is a professional journalist's responsibility.

"[Daniel] Hopsicker was worse! I sent him a detailed on-record response which he quoted selectively and then ignored answers from me which disproved his theory. I gave all of those answers on the record and in writing. (That response is attached below.)

"Journalists who operate like this don't deserve responses.

"The training I received was from editors at The Los Angeles Times (where I was published as a freelancer in 1985); the Los Angeles Daily News (also published in 1985); The LA WEEKLY, (three stories between 1983 and 1984). The US Journal of Drug and Alcohol Dependence (West Coast Correspondent, 1984-7) -- The Editor, Milan Korcok, had 30-plus years of newspaper editing behind him and was a great teacher.); INTRO Magazine (Published in 1986); and Entrepreneur Magazine, where I worked as a staff writer right after leaving LAPD in 1979-80.

"In addition, because of my 'training and experience' I served as the LA County Press Spokesman for the Perot Campaign in 1992 and was on TV, radio and in the papers every day dealing with professional journalists including all the networks and the biggest papers. I learned from watching them work, how they checked facts, how they checked sources and how they offered a chance for response before publishing.

"The training I received was called OJT but it was indeed training and it involved direction and guidance from some really experienced editors who taught me the ropes because I had writing ability plus investigative skills and experience.

"Of course I have clips to prove all this but really, these criticisms are barely worthy of a response. I am hoping that some of you will get this and redirect your energies to more useful pursuits.

"Would anyone like to debate what I had for dinner last night and whether that affects my credibility? Can't you people find something better to do like discuss what's tearing the world apart right now?"


1) POPULATION REDUCTION: "You are quoted as saying that you would like "to stop global population growth and to arrive at the best possible and most ethical program of population reduction."

Question: Do you have a specific program in mind to achieve this goal? Who do you feel should be in charge of it - someone like the Rockefeller family, who has a history of such endeavors via their eugenics programs? In your opinion, how many people should be eliminated? And finally, what "ethical" criteria do you suggest using to determine who is eradicated?"

ANSWER: No I do not. But I am certain that the Neocons and Neolibs do have a plan. That's what frightens me so much.

If there is a man who sees a horrible train wreck about to happen, and attempts with all his energy to warn people that the train wreck is coming and many lives may be lost (more than need be), does that mean that he is responsible for causing the train wreck? Does it mean that he likes or enjoys train wrecks; that he wants the train wreck to happen?

I have no list of people who should be in charge of this. Everyone should have a say. I have suggested that such an endeavor might best include people of more humane vocations than those of the economists, politicians, and financiers who are currently in charge of most domestic and international institutions. I have never said anywhere that there was a specific group of organizations or people who should run this. I have listed philosophies and disciplines that ought to be included in an effort to avoid the sort of draconian disaster that now seems likely.

In my view, people like the Rockefellers (with whose appalling research on eugenics I am quite familiar), should not have a say, nor should the lunatics currently running the country.

To be ethical in the face of an inevitable disaster, the entire human community will have to share useful information as equably as is humanly possible. I believe that is called democracy. Fully feasible or not, it seems to me the only ideal worthy of pursuit, whether in times of relative stability or of unprecedented danger.

I have never had any other position.

Here is just one example of what is happening as Peak Oil makes itself known. It is a good model for many of the other decisions now being made by some members of powerful elite circles, without the knowledge or assent of the non-elite majority (who depend for our survival upon the same scarce resources).

In Nantucket, home to some of the wealthiest families on the planet, including Martha's Vineyard, a taxpayer-funded wind farm is being constructed with funding from the poorer tax bases surrounding this ultra-wealthy enclave. The problem is (and FTW has just begun an in-depth investigation of developments like this around the country), the wind farm itself will supply only enough energy for the rich folks while being paid for with middle and lower-class tax dollars. Roughly translated, the rich folks will be warm and have electricity while the middle and lower classes freeze and go dark after losing financial resources they needed to protect themselves. (Source: Boston.com, 9/27). We have already begun our investigation and come up with very some disturbing answers on these developments. We will be doing a large investigative series on this sometime in the next few months.

My point is, as it is with any proposed solution to the planetary carrying-capacity train wreck, is that everyone should have a fully-informed say in the discussions and, let us hope, in their outcomes. Ultimately, this will involve spiritual questions; hence I think that spiritual leaders chosen by various peoples should have input because that is how you get real ethics inserted into the discussions. Or do you advocate making these tough decisions solely on the basis of money, property and prestige? I advocate no particular religion of any kind (never have). But spiritual leaders, chosen by the people affected should be involved in the discussions and solutions so that broader ethical and moral considerations will be included.

Of course, history is rife with episodes in which clerical leaders - whether in the red robes of a cardinal, the black robes of an Imam, or the white lab coat of a scientist - abused their authority and their charisma, escalating the harm they were called upon to diminish. The present moment is at least as burdened with such characters as previous centuries have been. But the particular possibility we all deplore - a repetition of the professionalized, bureaucratic, technologically efficient horror of the Nazi period - is surely more likely to occur under the advisory leadership of, say, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Ariel Sharon, and Porter Goss than that of, say, Helen Caldecott, Ramsey Clark, the Dalai Lama, and Dick Gregory. These are just names plucked from the air, chosen to illustrate the point.

I do not have an answer or a plan. I want all the people to come up with a plan, the way Thom Paine and Jefferson would have wanted.

I agree with Matt Simmons: "There is no (public) Plan B." It is the "secret" Plan B which scares the bejeesus out of me and should also scare you; especially since the secret plan appears to involve the development and deployment of gene-specific bioweapons, enforced starvation, and possibly nuclear war.

I don't advocate any of these options. I am trying to prevent them.

Any reader of my publication From The Wilderness or my book Crossing the Rubicon will see that clearly. The book is my fullest answer on this point.

2) PINNACLE QUEST INTERNATIONAL: "In Daniel Hopsicker's article, Cointelpro 9-11: Peak Oil & the Level Above Saudi, he writes about a company named Pinnacle Quest International, which was involved in banking scams, money laundering, wire & mail fraud, and tax evasion. Yet you admit to being the recipient of two all-expense paid trips by them, and are even quoted as saying, "I have great respect for Pinnacle Quest International.

"Question: Is your opinion of Pinnacle Quest International still the same today; and in the future do you plan on accepting any payments from them (or any other entity engaged in criminal activities)?"

ANSWER: You are wrong all over the place on this question. Had you done the slightest bit of fact-checking or request for comment before publishing, you would have found this out.

First, I have not taken two all-expense-paid trips to speak for PQI. I have taken four! The money I received was hotel and air fare plus $1,000 for each appearance. That's it. I don't know where anyone got a figure of $40,000. And I plan on going again. PQI is great.

As you will see from the attached email, I provided Daniel Hopsicker with detailed on-record responses which he misquoted, out of context. (See below) You will also see that I disclosed the amount of money I was paid therein. I have never kept this a secret. Compare what I wrote about PQI's legal presenters with what he wrote about me. Please compare all of my responses with what Hopsicker wrote.

This is why professional journalism requires a standard of fairness that includes providing people with an opportunity to respond in writing before going to press.

PQI completely separated from a Global Prosperity before I ever became involved with it. That occurred because Global's practices were both illegal and unethical. The people who left Global and started PQI did so because they were committed to bringing useful and powerful information (that has been officially suppressed) to its clients. What's more, at every successive PQI event I have watched its leadership cull out any exhibitor or presenter that was less than the best. I did a background check on PQI before attending and found nothing to dissuade me that this was a very powerful business and information model, one that was creating wealth and economic freedom for people trapped in a governmental and economic system which is nothing more than an organized crime "ecosystem." Do you like the way the economy works? The way banks and government use, abuse, and limit your financial freedom and the fruits of your labor?

Am I aware that some members of PQI have had criminal charges pressed against them? Absolutely! So have many dedicated patriots and whistleblowers throughout our country's history, whose ordeals were intended to silence them. What's surprising about this? I even offered some consultation in the case of the ex wife of Dave Struckman, who was maliciously prosecuted by the IRS on charges of "structuring." The record of the criminal investigation was so flawed and offensive that it made a former FBI agent and several detectives I know choke. That case is also under appeal. I am also aware that the New York Times once reported that Dave Struckman was a fugitive from justice when, in fact, there was not a single charge against him and he was not wanted anywhere. That served to damage his business, even though a subsequent retraction/correction/apology from the Times was buried following their initial story. Both PQI and I are going after Wall Street and Wall Street fights dirty. They use the government wherever possible.

As Catherine Austin Fitts writes:

"It's simple. Those who help the average person achieve financial independence through knowledge and hard work will be perceived as competitors by those who take advantage of the average person. Economic warfare."

These are risks that all truth-tellers must face and accept before they commit to their work. At PQI I have found a large and growing number of educated and very aware souls who are taking action to build economic, medical, legal and other kinds of life rafts before the Titanic sinks. They are taking informed and educated steps to disengage themselves from an economic system which breeds this destruction. By doing so, they have begun to stop feeding it. Unfortunately, you can't get that information easily inside the US as a result of oppression.

PQI has presented some remarkable information that is totally suppressed in the US. That includes successful treatments for cancer and for many other serious diseases, treatments the pharmaceutical companies don't want out; rock-solid legal evidence that the 16th amendment was never ratified, thus making the Federal income tax illegal; presentations from former IRS agents who, as whistleblowers, expose the corruption within the US treasury (just as Fitts and I have); legal means to obtain cheap credit, eliminate debt, finance real estate at almost zero interest; and many other things.

One of their key presenters, Bill Benson, was actually imprisoned, tortured and drugged before being acquitted, exonerated and released. He has won every court case where he appears with his documentation and the IRS is scared to death of him. One medical doctor has been forced to live out of the country because he has been beaten and attacked several times after large hospitals, universities and corporations suppressed his work and its medical successes.

I am proud to associate with such people and I hope that when my time comes I will show as much courage as they have.

3) AMR IBRAHIM "TONY" ELGINDY: "I am in the [sic] possession of e-mails between yourself and Tony Elgindy, a "short seller" who was arrested for running a racketeering ring using information obtained from corrupt FBI agents. He has also served time for, or been charged with, insurance fraud, bribery, illegal stock market manipulation, and extortion.

" Question: Please explain your relationship with Mr. Elgindy (who now faces conspiracy and racketeering charges in a Brooklyn federal court), and also the circumstances revolving around your public apology to him in November, 2002."

ANSWER: I have no relationship with Mr. Elgindy. We communicated two years ago about an entry in my "Oh Lucy" 9/11 timeline, based upon press reports which I had quoted accurately and he acknowledged this. Those press reports suggested that he had engaged in pre-9/11 insider trading. After he contacted me and I looked at records he provided, I was convinced that, based upon the legal record then in existence (including court documents he provided me), there was no evidence to support any knowledge on his part of the 9/11 attacks.

There is an ongoing trial about charges of insider trading but I also found out that even the FBI had reluctantly admitted in court that none of Elgindy's alleged trades had anything to do with 9/11. There was also a detailed record of Mr. Elgindy publicly attacking Mr. Adnan Khashoggi and charging him with "pump and dump" operations. Khashoggi is, in my opinion, one of the baddest people on the planet and a known crook.

I had been pushed to publish my timeline entry on Elgindy by a researcher who, as it turned out, had a personal and possibly financial agenda regarding Elgindy. Though my timeline entry was indeed accurate - and he acknowledged this - it contained a "spin" which I came to believe was unfair and so I withdrew the entry.

The matter was settled amicably between us and I have had no contact with him since.

As a journalist, I have always, whenever I found that I was in error, corrected the mistake and apologized. FTW has a clear record of that. Every journalist makes mistakes from time to time. The New York Times, CNN, the Washington Post, all of them publish hundreds of corrections every year. It's the journalist who does not acknowledge and correct errors who cannot be trusted.

4) MIKE VREELAND: "Over the past few years, Delmar[t] "Mike" Vreeland's credibility as a witness and/or information source has been severely eroded by 9-11 researchers, law enforcement officials, judges, lawyers, radio personalities, and virtually every other individual who has ever come in contact with him.

Question: Since you devoted two entire chapters of Crossing the Rubicon to Mr. Vreeland, do you still place credence in him as a reliable source, and if so, please explain why?"

ANSWER: The question has never been whether I considered Vreeland a reliable source or not. A homicide detective gathers evidence and statements from good people, from bad people, from stupid people, from smart people. Under the law all that matters is whether the evidence is true or not.

The only place where I have ever hung my hat with regard to Vreeland is in three specific areas of evidence:

1. He was definitely connected to and working in some capacity for the United States Navy (ONI) for many years.

2. It has been proven that he wrote a warning note approximately one month before the attacks of 9/11 and that this note was sealed into his property in a Canadian jail.

3. Based upon a detailed written record and on-the-record statements by his attorneys, court documents and more, there is no doubt - especially in the minds of his attorneys - that he was referring to the attacks of 9/11.

Whether one likes Vreeland or not; whether he is a good guy, a bad guy, or a combination, does not matter. I have devoted two chapters in "Rubicon" to the events surrounding Mike Vreeland precisely because this point is so important. You might have noted that I also described him as a royal pain in the ass or that I also said that I knew that in some respects he was deliberately feeding me disinformation to improve his negotiating position with the US intelligence community.

But an ethical homicide detective, or journalist, cannot afford to throw out facts that have been independently verified just because he doesn't like the source. A tree is still a tree regardless of who says so or whether one likes him or not. To take any other approach is foolhardy.

Everyone should read the two chapters in Rubicon and decide for themselves. That is my best answer.

5) ALAN GREENSPAN: "On June 1, 2002 you relayed an incredible report to a Yahoo public forum where you stated that Mike Vreeland had been poisoned by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Question: At the time of that message, did you find it even remotely possible that Alan Greenspan would try to poison a career criminal and con-man with two bottles of delivered wine? If your answer is "no," do you find the above post an example of "shoddy, error-prone" journalism?"

ANSWER: You are lying yet again. First, it was not a public forum but a members-only CIA-Drugs discussion list. I have records of the emails. But they aren't necessary to answer this question. I also added the caveat at the bottom of my e-mail message that I had received the "poisoning" phone call from Vreeland while I was in a hotel room preparing for a lecture in Northern California and could not independently verify any of the allegations Vreeland was making. What I said in that email was that I needed help from anyone on the list who could help verify or investigate the claims before I or anyone else decided to print a news story.

Even David Corn of The Nation, one of my worst and most unethical critics, acknowledged in one of his many hit pieces on me that I had written this caveat about what Vreeland had said. How did that happen? Well even Corn did something you haven't done. He emailed me and asked me what I had actually written. I forwarded him the email message myself. That's the way journalists are required to behave, and at least in one case, that's what Corn did.

6) LAWSUITS: "After reading about your propensity to threaten detractors with lawsuits, a well-known 9-11 researcher/chronicler e-mailed the following to me: "I can assure you that at least 5-7 people came forward in the last two years telling me that Ruppert tried to take legal steps against them too. The last bizarre, almost public threat was against the writer of the play J'accuse Cheney two weeks ago."

Multiple choice question: During the past five years, approximately how many people have you threatened to sue: (a) 1-50 (b) 50-100, or (c) over 100?"

ANSWER: (a). There are lots of people who are sloppy and not-credible at best, or government operatives at worst. The law is a means by which unethical and illegal practices can be curtailed for the benefit of journalism and the public's ability to trust it.

How many times have I been sued after about 250 hard-hitting articles taking on the government, political figures and financial institutions? None.

How many times have I been threatened with a suit? Once. In that case I encouraged the other party to go right ahead and take their best shot. We never heard from them again.

Does that tell you something?

7) POISON PEN: "Your attacks on detractors (and even colleagues) are legendary. Since "Mike Ruppert Unmasked" blazed across the Internet on October 1, 2004, I've received scores of reports from others who were also subjected to this type of onslaught. One such illustration originates from a woman who is well-known to 9-11 researchers. She wrote: "I have an example of Mike at his finest, exhibiting just those traits you describe so perfectly. He attempted to intimidate me on the 9-11 Truth Alliance list when I alerted people to his new stance on the Air Force stand-down and criticized his war games line back in June 2004. In response to this, he posted the following flames: per Ruppert, I am a "crazy woman," I'm "stupid," I'm a "fool," I'm a "nuisance and distraction," "I have an IQ under 50," "I filter every piece of information through [my] psychological needs," and I have put erroneous words and interpretations into his mouth - all this while I was quoting directly from his written work, and linking to a recording of him at a public gathering."

Question: Why do you find it so necessary to continually lash out at fellow researchers; and in your opinion, is this pattern of behavior one that generally harbors positive or negative consequences? Secondly, do you make a habit of treating women this way all the time? If so, do you feel anybody should have any respect for you whatsoever after reacting in such a fashion?"

ANSWER: I do not lash out at all 9/11 researchers. In "Crossing the Rubicon" I have given intense praise and credit to the really good ones, more than twenty-five of them.

I also do not "suffer fools gladly." And there are some people doing 9/11 research who have neither the training nor the discipline to investigate and report according to high standards. I have spent 26 years training, studying and learning to fight the fight I am fighting with Crossing the Rubicon. I am trained (see above) as both a detective and as a journalist.

Sometimes I am too harsh and I hurt people's feelings. We all have unfinished work to do on ourselves, don't we? I'm working on it. In the meantime, do try and carry on without the benefit of my eventual tact. I am busy trying to fight fascism.

8) PATRIOT FOR HIRE: "In a response to "Mike Ruppert Unmasked" (October 4, 2004), you carefully avoided and/or ignored 99% of the content (36 pages worth), and instead boasted about how many books you were selling on Amazon (i.e. money money money).

Question: What is more important to you - the truth about what actually happened on the morning of September 11, 2001, or the revenue which can be generated from it. Also, how do you plan to dispel rumors that you're a Patriot for Hire when revenue from your various activities seems to be of such prime importance?"

ANSWER: And this is where, in your 36-page attack piece, you left yourself so wide open for a lawsuit that I'm amazed at your foolishness.

I support four fulltime employees who are dedicated activists and thrilled to be feeding their families as a result of doing work they love. I pay three editors (Hecht, Goff and Pfeiffer) and four freelance writers. In addition I buy many products from credible authors and activists and resell them, giving a large share of the revenue back to people who are thrilled to receive energy and financial support which makes them more effective and keeps them in the game.

Personally, I live in a studio apartment, drive a 9-year-old Ford and have lived for many years in poverty an animal might not recognize. I have no medical insurance, no retirement plan and every one of my employees will tell you that they have always gotten paid before I do and that I have many times forsaken my own paycheck to make sure that they got paid and were taken care of.
I even sold Hopsicker's books and tapes from our website until he suddenly turned on and attacked the entire 9/11 movement last April. Since he attacked me personally and without warning I dropped his products. I still have a great photo of him hugging me in San Francisco just before that.

So Hopsicker has a personal motive for attacking me because I cut off a chunk of his income. As a journalist, he was required to disclose that in his attack piece on me, and you were required to investigate it before you did the same thing.

The bottom line is that I do not work with people who are not professional and trustworthy. Is there something wrong with that?

9) MEDIA: "You stated in an e-mail to me on September 1, 2004, "I will not now or ever be on your television show. There will be no discussion."

Question: What criteria do you use to determine which media venues you will appear on, and have you ever compiled a J. Edgar Hoover-like "black list" such as the one your publicist mentioned to me over the telephone?"

ANSWER: There are people I choose to work with and people I don't. Are you fascistically arguing that I am obligated to work with every Joe Blow who knocks on my door? Are you saying that I have no right to Freedom of Choice as outlined in the First Amendment?

10) FLIP-FLOPPING: "When my review of your Truth and Lies of 9-11 video first appeared in The New World Order Exposed, the people operating your From the Wilderness website were so pleased with it that they gave me a free one-year subscription to your newsletter. But then, just last month, you completely flip-flopped and denounced my research as sub-standard.

Question: How frequently do you undergo such dramatic, almost schizophrenic turnarounds, and do you foresee any other flip-flops in the near future when they become "convenient" for you (i.e. peak oil)?"

ANSWER: Boy, you're really not going to like this one. FTW has had a firm and consistent policy that it will sell no product or affiliate with any entity that I have not first approved. The employees you refer to were both terminated several months ago for multiple violations of company policy. One Cynthia (last name withheld to protect privacy) was a retired FBI agent who did a number of things in an apparent attempt to sabotage my business.

She showed me your book. After two minutes of looking at the cover I realized that under no circumstances would I ever be affiliated with you or sell your products. I told her this.

She ignored my direct instructions and continued a relationship with you behind my back and in secret. This was possibly as part of an FBI-engineered COINTELPRO type operation to discredit me by attacking me for affiliating with your absolutely horrendous journalism and well-documented errors.

I fired her (and another employee, Tim) for this and other violations of my company rules. I have never once, inside or outside my office said that I wanted to be connected to illuminati jerks, UFO advocates or David Icke's Lizard people. Anyone who knows me at all knows that this is ironclad policy with me.

So now, let me ask you a couple of questions, publicly and for the record.

What is your real name? Is it Scott? Have you ever been arrested? Have you ever received any money from any agency of the United States government for any services rendered?

If you answer is no then I guess the only thing left to explain your conduct is gross incompetence, jealousy, lack of professional ethics and stupidity.


Michael C. Ruppert

My response to Daniel Hopsicker (sent before he published his story).

From: Mike Ruppert [mruppert@copvcia.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 2:18 AM
To: 'daniel hopsicker'
Subject: RE: A John Gray Dossier
All of these answers are on the record. You may publish them or quote them at will as long as you quote them accurately and completely.

First, if you put it in writing that I am working with Adnan Khashoggi you can bet your bippy I'm going to sue you.

As to the card:

I do not recognize it or remember it.

I have no business affiliation with this group and I have no knowledge of what they do. The business card may have some direct or indirect connection to the following, however:

I have traveled - not only to Cabo San Lucas, but to Cancun (2x), and the Dominican Republic - all expenses paid plus a $1,000 speaking fee for a group called Pinnacle Quest International. I have great respect for PQI. It has evolved and become something incredibly useful in terms of information and knowledge sharing, marketing, medicine and health, financial survival, and they present some incredibly powerful and useful legal information and lectures.

Catherine Austin Fitts has spoken with me at PQI twice.

None of this has ever been a secret. Would you like to contact the PQI executives? I'll be happy to give you their information. They can confirm all this for you and I would encourage them to do so. They may also be able to shed some light on this business card for you.

As a journalist with an IQ above 30 you are now obligated to do just that. If you don't I will happily see that your failure to follow professional ethics is reported accurately along with whatever else you chose to write.

You should contact first Claudia Hirmer at claudia@pqi.cc.
You might also try Mr. Mark Seaton at freequest@rogers.com.

BTW, PQI has some incredible attorneys! One of them did a presentation where he talked about Barry Seal and quoted you several times. I thought it was pretty good.

You really have gone round the bend, haven't you?

Mike Ruppert

-----Original Message-----
From: daniel hopsicker [mailto:commandantemadcow@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:08 PM
To: Mike Ruppert
Subject: RE: A John Gray Dossier


when my next story goes up you may want to sue me too.
maybe your lawyer will give you a two-for-one discount.

daniel hopsicker

p.s. BTW... what do you know about a company called CLF International Consulting?
i've attached their biz card. their website was www.clfic.com. they took the site down the day after i started looking into the, but its still on wayback, and i've got it cached in case it shows up missing there.

have you spoken to this group? did you travel to cabo san lucas to speak to them?
if so, how much were you paid? what kind of contract did you have with them, one time only or continuing?


[an error occurred while processing this directive]