The Last Undercover (30 page)

Attorney Bob brought before the conference that the law should be amended so sex between an adult and a child “could be validated” by proving it was consensual. Under the current law, sex with a twelve-year-old “is criminal because consent is not an issue. . . . The law presumes rape.” Bob argued it should be a “rebuttable presumption”: that the charged party could prove sex was consensual on the part of the juvenile. In other words, infants who enjoy the “good touch” as defined by John’s letter in the
Bulletin
would be free, under Bob’s notion of the law, to engage in sex with him without the law presuming they were raped.

One member mentioned he knew of gay men who claim to have engaged in sexual experimentation at the ages of four, five, and six. It was something they sought, they said, and had no regrets. Yet, he knows of some who now claim to feel remorse for having the experience at such a young age. Others at the conference immediately challenged that position because it was believed those holding it were unduly influenced by a “moralistic society.”

Some brought up anecdotal evidence they supposedly located, such as aboriginal peoples who engaged in oral sex on infants for purposes such as pacifying and soothing the boys. This, of course, was readily accepted by the attendees as valid and proper behavior in an “enlightened” society. In this manner, the discussion wandered to and fro, with no discernable action being taken and no particular resolution being passed. Everyone got a chance to have his sexual preference affirmed and validated, and NAMBLA’s age-of-consent position remained unchanged.

What interested me about this agenda item was the fact that there was no discussion of efforts the organization might be planning to abolish or even modify the age-of-consent laws. The organization may “advocate repeal” of laws that “criminalize sexual relationships that are loving and fully consensual,” but there was no dialogue about plans to lobby any legislator at any level of government for relief from the supposed criminalizing and repugnant statutes.

Next, the discussion returned to the previous day’s hotly debated topic of regional meetings. Fear remained the central theme of this spirited exchange—fear of infiltration and fear that rogue individuals within the group might bring unwarranted law enforcement attention.

As with most issues broached at the conference, the debate was disjointed. Confusion reigned as various attendees contributed to the discourse.

Attorney Bob viewed the problem from a legal perspective: “History is full of situations where somebody commits a crime and sells out the entire chain or even people who are entirely innocent.”

James added, “There are people who will set up anybody . . . if they think they can sell it to the prosecution and get a lighter sentence.”

Peter came up with an idea. “Okay, how about this? NAMBLA doesn’t facilitate the contact between people; however, when we’re at the conference there is contact. People are free agents and they can exchange addresses and get together. [But] isn’t that also difficult to defend if they do something stupid?”

Peter understood exactly our argument for infiltrating the organization. It was not the FBI’s intent to silence NAMBLA, as repugnant as their conversation was. Our intent was to determine those members who were doing “something stupid.” The difference was the Bureau had a very specific and functional definition of “stupid,” found in the federal criminal code.

James interrupted Peter with what struck me as a significant indicator of the real purpose of NAMBLA’s “advocacy” position. James countered Peter’s question likening “stupid” actions at the national conference versus those that might occur among regional chapters. “It’s a possibility, but at least [national meetings are] a further step removed from having a structure that is a social contact. That’s why the whole thing has to be structured around the work project. We can’t say that we’re a social club. This opens up the door that the advocacy is just pretext.”

Bingo.

The question that should be posed, is whether it is realistic to advocate the complete abolition of age-of-consent laws. In truth, isn’t NAMBLA’s untenable position merely a ploy to drape their sexual proclivities under the banner of the First Amendment? Isn’t NAMBLA’s real purpose to allow the networking of men who desire sex with underage boys? The conference is a way to meet others with like interests but cloak the networking process under constitutional protections. Every attendee knew the real purpose for these conventions. Each stated his purpose for attending during the previous day’s introductions; nobody said “advocacy.”

The opinions of Floyd and Peter almost always received deference from the members. Floyd’s position on regional meetings was clear:

The risks are enormous. We had a regional meeting in Dallas, Texas. . . . Against my recommendation, the steering committee authorized . . . a regional meeting and they had met not once but several times. But during the course of their meetings they got into a petty disagreement among the people there. The person who organized this group then went to the police department and provided them with a list of names and addresses. . . . You can’t do this kind of thing without adequate safeguards.

So, it would seem, networking is what everybody wants—as long as nobody gets caught.

Later in the discussion, Floyd indicated a lack of sufficient quality leadership to handle regional chapters. He cited the Los Angeles situation: L.A. had a chapter that drew people from Arizona and throughout Southern California. There were no problems for ten years. Then, when the facilitator tired and handed off the responsibilities to another person, “within a very short time big trouble happened.” Floyd opined that the Dallas problems occurred early in the formation of the chapter, because the facilitator “did not have the skill or the will to guard the interests of the members.”

Peter defended his earlier position. “That’s what I was proposing and I was proposing to do it very incrementally. Not . . . a call for regional meetings. That wasn’t the model I proposed.” But Peter understood the importance of seeking new avenues to reenergize the membership: “I like people to realize that unless we develop a mechanism for increasing participation, I don’t see any hope for this organization continuing much longer.”

Others argued convincingly that unless there was some vehicle for getting together, nothing would ever be accomplished. NAMBLA could never move forward without greater participation, and that would not occur as long as the organization only convened once a year, they said. Regional meetings seemed to hold the answer, but no one could devise a protocol to eliminate risk. Some suggested Peter could screen those invited to attend the regional gatherings just as he screened those invited to the national conferences. Others suggested regional meetings only be hosted by steering committee members. Chris even suggested new invitees be interviewed at a neutral site, so as not to identify the city from which the screener came.

As a way of “incrementally” moving toward regional meetings, Sam Lindblad proposed I have a working group assigned to help me plan the San Diego conference. My resulting hopes of identifying San Diego–area members were dashed when David R. Busby interrupted, stating I could accomplish the task by myself. I tried to avoid involvement in policy decisions and did not speak up in my defense. Sam’s idea received little subsequent support and was dropped.

As the debate raged—or should I say meandered?—on, I wondered if any other organization claiming to be founded under First Amendment principles refused to allow its members to meet in a less formal setting for fear those members would commit a criminal act. This entire argument demonstrated to me the real intent of the membership of this organization was not that which was articulated inside the cover of every issue of its official publication. Those in leadership clearly understood the real motive of the majority of its members in joining this august body—a motive that was not pure.

The vote was not unanimous, but a motion passed to begin working on a protocol for “regional work groups.” David R. Busby, James, and Sam from Florida, all Miami-area residents, were selected to draft the guidelines and report to the annual conference next year.

Then we had a dust-up over when to break for lunch. The chaos that accompanied almost every suggestion and discussion would make a sane boy lover question why he would even attend any NAMBLA function—except to network with other BLs.

Prior to breaking for lunch, James made a very astute observation, questioning any organization that would place a first-time attendee in the position of chairing the annual meeting: an excellent point, I thought.

Peter was taken aback by James’s comment. After all, he had judged James by his appearance and pronounced him fit for service. But since James raised the issue, Peter said, “Well, let me ask you, are you a charming sociopath?” Without skipping a beat, James replied, with only a slight smile, “I’m not charming.” Peter’s response may have been more telling; he was not concerned about James being a sociopath as long as he “put together an acceptable protocol” for regional working groups. Even though I was a trained investigator, James fooled me. I saw little in his actions or mannerisms that would have alerted me to the fact that he was a boy lover. His public persona did not reflect his private deeds. Maybe he
was
a sociopath.

Peter’s frustration was beginning to show, and he raised his voice. “I personally am not willing to continue if we have an organization that does not have the . . . internal resources to regenerate itself.” Peter came to the conference seeking new blood to assume organizational responsibility, but so far, few stepped forward, and the one who had been “anointed” by the conference to chair the proceedings was indicting himself as unfit.

I almost felt sorry for Peter. The reason few stepped forward was clear to me: the majority of the attendees came for networking, not protocols; fellowship, not politics. As David Mayer said, “Bring on the boys.”

In an effort to understand who the leadership was and what the leadership did, Peter talked to the attendees about the steering committee. Via conference call, the committee met every month. Peter complained that the calls were usually on Sunday evening, interfering with his viewing of
Malcolm in the Middle.

Before leaving the meeting to fly home, I said my good-byes to David and Todd, confident we would continue to communicate. Sam Lindblad and I exchanged e-mail addresses, and I wished the others well.

Peter walked with me as I exited the conference room. We spoke briefly about next year’s conference that I would be hosting. When I suggested opening the conference to all the members, Peter balked, and replied, “We’re as open as we can be without being foolish.”

I
would soon discover that the seeds planted about a sex trip were taking root. David Mayer gave the opening signal on Friday afternoon in Miami before the NAMBLA conference even began, when he initiated the discussion about traveling overseas to have sex with boys. Soon after the conference, he fired the next salvo.

On November 15, the day after the conference ended, he e-mailed Todd and me:

Dear Robert & Todd,

Hope you both had safe uneventful trips home. I got to the airport early enough that I was able to get an earlier flight home. The good thing about that is that I did not have to sit next to Chris!

I am sending both of you some web sites that you might find interesting & helpful.

Best wishes,

David

The Web sites were for Big Ruby’s/La Plantacion in Costa Rica and Acapulco’s gay guesthouse resort accommodations.

To borrow a line from Sherlock Holmes, the game was still afoot.

31

TROLLING FOR A THREE-TIME OFFENDER

B
ig Ruby’s described itself as one of the world’s foremost gay hotels. The photos featured on the Web site were beautiful. As part of a “tropical paradise” overlooking the ocean adjacent to the rain forest of Costa Rica’s Manuel Antonio National Park, the twenty-four luxury rooms appeared most intriguing. The Acapulco gay guesthouse guide was equally inviting, offering accommodations near the “magnificent Condesa Beach and Beto’s Beach Club where the beach boys are waiting to get to know you.” David’s selections certainly catered to a gay clientele, but my interest centered on determining his intention, if any, to travel in order seek sex with underage boys.

I waited a day to reply to David and Todd. In keeping with the style and content of our conversations in Miami, I wanted to keep my responses light but with a sense of concern.

Hi guys,

This past weekend was great! I really appreciate your friendship and look forward to a trip to a real safe paradise. I know it will be fabulous. I’ll check all the websites David (if that’s his real name) is recommending and I’ll check with my friend from last year. I know he said he found a safe haven. Safety should be our concern, right Todd (if that’s your real name)? . . . I think we should invite Chief and Cleveland Mike as well as Chris to go with us. Of course don’t forget to copy Peter with everything.

Please take care and be safe. Just so you know, I only use the PC at KINKOS, just to be safe, so it will usually be a day or two before I respond.

Again, thanks for a great time.

Robert (if that’s my real name)

At the conference, Peter cautioned us about even joking about any kind of criminal activity. I wanted to capitalize on the incipient disdain my targets expressed toward Peter’s “overly cautious” attitude, so, tongue-in-cheek, I suggested we copy him with every communication. What I didn’t know at the time of my e-mail was that Peter had, in fact, heard that several of us were planning a trip and tried to intervene.

Todd e-mailed David that on November 16 Peter called and said he heard “through the grapevine” about the trip. Peter warned Todd, “Don’t do it.” As to the trip, Todd told David, “I still very much want to, though cautiously, of course.” I also learned Peter contacted David, as well. Yet Peter never called me. Did he know I was an undercover agent and saw no need to warn me?