Victor Gutierrez, NAMBLA and the same gang of professors who recommended Carl Toms’ book

I’ve been told that the fact of Victor Gutierrez attending a NAMBLA conference isn’t reason enough for thinking that he is a pedophile himself. I disagreed but decided to have a closer look at NAMBLA and its meetings.

Wikipedia says about this organization and its members:

”NAMBLA holds an annual gathering in New York City and monthly meetings around the country. In the early 1980s, NAMBLA was reported to have had over 300 members, and was supported by such noted figures as Allen Ginsberg.

Since then, the organization has kept membership data private, but an undercover FBI investigation in 1995 discovered that there were 1,100 people on the rolls. It is the largest organization in the umbrella group IPCE (formerly “International Pedophile and Child Emancipation”).

So in the early 1980s NAMBLA had no more than 300 members. Victor Gutierrez revealed that he attended the NAMBLA congress in 1986.

This fact was reported by two different media sources and in two totally different ways.  The German newspaper Die Tageszeitungdated April 2005 http://www.taz.de/1/archiv/?id=archivseite&dig=2005/04/05/a0170  quoted Victor Gutierrez saying that he attended the congress as a crime reporter representing a Spanish L.A. newspaper.

But a year later in May 2006 Victor Gutierrez was much more cautious when he spoke to the British GQ magazine. Over there he said he had worked undercover as an agent for the Los Angeles Police Department within a certain secret organization which hailed Michael Jackson as their “idol” and which – considering the context – could be nothing but NAMBLA (for details please go to this post).

The version of working undercover for the LAPD was refuted by Gutierrez himself and in the very same GQ article – only a few paragraphs further. He says that when he presented the results of his research in the form of a manuscript the police didn’t pay attention to it because he was “nobody to the LAPD, just a Latino reporter”. This absolutely rules out the possibility of him being sent by them on an mission to a NAMBLA congress because if police infiltrate their agent they definitely don’t ignore his findings later.

This leaves us with the only version of Victor Gutierrez attending the NAMBLA conference as a criminal reporter working for a newspaper.

To verify this theory I decided to check up whether the congress called NAMBLA’s General Membership Conference held in 1986 in Los Angeles was reported by any newspaper at all. This required a conscientious study of every web source which could be in any way connected with the subject,  however the many hours of search brought a zero result – there are no journalistic reports from NAMBLA conferences on the web!  Surprisingly, the major part of information about this organization is coming directly from NAMBLA and its official site where I even found a couple of pictures of the events described.

Here is the banner of the 10^th NAMBLA’s International Membership Conference (1986) and below is the picture of another of their conferences arranged in 1984 in San Francisco.

NAMBLA conference in San Francisco 1984

No information is naturally provided by NAMBLA about those who attended the conference except a few names who evidently chose to disclose their identity themselves.

One of the examples is a certain Harry Hay who is said to have made his comments“at a panel on censorship and pornography at the NAMBLA conference in Los Angeles on November 8, 1986.  Other panelists were Bob Rhodes and Dan Tsang.” http://www.nambla.org/losangeles1986.html

The absence of media reports direct from the NAMBLA conferences confirmed my suspicion that newspaper journalists, especially those who reported criminal affairs, were not too much welcome at NAMBLA events – so if any of you do find a report made by Gutierrez for some LA newspaper  in 1986 it will be a big surprise and a complete sensation, I would even say.

Though my study didn’t produce any articles covering NAMBLA forums at least one precious find has been made.

It came from totally unexpected quarters as usual and is a Massachusetts court document called Memorandum In Support of Defendant’s Motion filed by some defense attorneys to prove that their defendant Charles Jaynes was no member of NAMBLA (yes, I went as far as looking into such documents too).

The defendant Charles Jaynes was a one-time member of NAMBLA and was accused of murdering a 10 year old boy and raping his dead body (…). The man and his associate were found guilty and the C.Jaynes case delivered an almost lethal blow to the organization – the parents of the boy accused NAMBLA of providing the murderer with information assistance and training and revealing all those details to the public caused such an outrage that it almost put an end to NAMBLA’s activities.

The Memorandum prepared by Jaynes’ defense attorneys turned out to be a very valuable source of information because in order to try and prove that their defendant had lost all contact with NAMBLA  the lawyers provided a detailed description of the stages of the security process every attendee of a NAMBLA congress should go through before finally making it to the destination point.

The process turned to be so complex that it screamed volumes  about the impossibility of Victor Gutierrez attending the congress unless he was a certified member of the organization.

As that case took place in 1997 the defense lawyers described the NAMBLA attendance procedure which was pertinent to that period only, however the top secrecy which has enveloped the organization from its very start does not give us reason to believe that their earlier security policy was much more open – on the contrary, at the beginning of their functioning there should have been much more secrecy around it.

Here is part of the above court papers which describes the case and the registration procedures valid at least since the year 1995. This is when the lawyers who worked on this paper managed to trace back the registration procedures (click on the link to see the document), but it absolutely does not mean that a similarly secret procedure was not valid in the year 1986 too – it might well be!

The NAMBLA constitution (!) provides that General Membership Meetings, which are the governing body of the organization, are to be held once a year. Attendance at General Membership Conferences is limited to members of NAMBLA and invited guests, and that requirement is carefully enforced.

At least since 1995, pre-registration has been required in order to prevent participation by non-members. Between 1995 and 1997, the membership conferences were announced to members in the NAMBLA Bulletin and in announcements sent by mail, but the location of the conference was not publicly disclosed and pre-registration was required. Completed registration forms were to be sent to the NAMBLA post office box in New York.

NAMBLA’s membership secretary would review the forms to determine that the registrant was a member of NAMBLA. If the person was not a member, he would not be registered for the conference or notified of its location. If the records showed that the registrant was a member, the membership secretary would make a note in NAMBLA’s membership record that the person had registered to attend the conference and would provide the conference organizer with the names of the members who had pre-registered.

The conference organizers would then provide the registrants with general information about the location of the conference and would check at the entrance to the conference to insure that any person seeking to enter the event was pre-registered…”.

“…There were three types of meetings held under the auspices of NAMBLA. These are described in the organization’s constitution. The first is General Membership Meeting (also referred to as the General Membership Conference) which is held annually. The second consists of meetings of the members of the organization’s elected Steering Committee. The last are local meetings of chapters or affinity groups sanctioned by the Steering Committee” .

The NAMBLA site says that their membership records are strictly confidential. Most of the members don’t go there even under their real names…

• “Membership in NAMBLA is entirely legal and our records are kept strictly confidential”, says the site. Life Membership is offered at $1,000 and allows “lifetime mailings of all publications and free admission to all NAMBLA conferences and events”.

Getting back to Victor Gutierrez let me say what I think of him in view of the latest information about the security measures taken by NAMBLA.

Considering the relatively small number of NAMBLA members back in 1986 and the security requirements which the organization ‘carefully enforced’ I simply cannot see in what other capacity Victor Gutierrez could have attended the NAMBLA congress except as a member of it.

Even the banner of the Los Angeles conference says that it is the 10th International and Membership Conference, so that foreign members of it can also attend…

NAMBLA conference in San Francisco, California 1984

Look at the picture of their similar (1984) convention again – it isn’t a thousand strong audience where a newspaper reporter could go unnoticed among a big crowd.  No, it is a relatively small assembly where everyone should know the person sitting next to him and any alien would be immediately spotted by the old-timers.

In what other capacity could Victor Gutierrez attend such a conference if he wasn’t a registered member of it?

Okay, he could be an invited guest as their “constitution” allows it. But even if he had an invitation to attend a NAMBLA congress will it make things easier for him and any difference to us? No, it won’t, because the same questions will still remain as regards what he was doing there and why.

I mean why was he invited there? To describe their criminal activities in sensational materials to be published in a LA newspaper for which he allegedly worked as a crime reporter? Does it make sense to you?

No, my belief that Victor Gutierrez is connected to NAMBLA as a member of is has only been reinforced by this find…

The murder case mentioned above was widely reported in the press and created a lot of problems for NAMBLA members. Later on the police managed to infiltrate law-enforcement officials into their circles (see this article for details) and this started for NAMBLA a “baffling pattern of self-destruction” as they called it in the year 2001:

• The group, somehow unaware, or unconcerned, that police might want to infiltrate its meetings, unwittingly voted undercover law-enforcement officials to its steering committee”.

• This turned them into a “hundred of scared, paranoid members. No more annual conventions, no more public appearances, no more city chapters, no more NAMBLA contingents in gay-pride marches, no more eager new recruits. Times are so bad, in fact, that most NAMBLA members would just as soon not talk about them”.

The above quotes come from an article originally published in Boston magazine in May 2001 and republished there again in May 2006 (Update: none of the links are working now) the tone of which looked to me fairly sympathetic towards the cause of pedophilia and the deplorable fate of NAMBLA innocent guys.

And surprise-surprise, while reading that heart-wrenching story of their terrible misfortunes who do you think I met there? No, not Victor Gutierrez because that would be too much of a luck.

The guys I met there were the same professors who eight years later, in 2009, would make favorable reviews of the book “Michael Jackson’s dangerous liaisons” written by Carl Tom (or convicted pedophile Tom O’Carroll) and advise the book to the general public as “recommended reading”. The same good old familiar faces…

Professor James Kincaid

Professor James Kincaid of the University of Southern California sounds slightly sarcastic when he says that NAMBLA was turned into a national monster because the country just needed an enemy, and if it weren’t for the Man-boy love association someone else would have been used to fit the role:

“That panic, argues James Kincaid, the author of “Erotic Innocence: The Culture of Child Molesting”, is a result of America’s love-hate relationship with stories about gothic sexual demons.  “If we didn’t have NAMBLA, we would undoubtedly find a new national monster,” says Kincaid, an English professor at the University of Southern California.

“We need an enemy, because the endless talk of child sex abuse allows us the vicarious, titillating thrill of talking about children and sex, while at the same time allowing us to shake our heads at someone else’s depravity. And while we find a threat to loathe and deplore, we will continue to promote child sexuality [in entertainment], and we will continue to position at the center of our national desirability women — and sometimes men — who look 14 years old.”

Professor William A. Percy

The second of the professors, the unforgettable William A. Persy, is giving advice to NAMBLA people on how they should be going about their business if they want to be a success:

“Arguably most damaging to NAMBLA, was its refusal to change its position calling for the repeal of all age-of-consent laws, despite the argument made by a vocal minority of members that such a stance — with its implication, sometimes stated and sometimes not, that a prepubescent child can consent to sex — was political suicide.

“I have been trying to convince the NAMBLA people for years that they should argue for an age of 14 or 15, something that people could see as a little more reasonable,” says William A. Percy, a professor of history at UMass/Boston and the author of Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece. “But they’re a small group of inbred and fanatical ideologues. They only talk to each other. They won’t listen to ideas of compromise.”

For more about these outstanding university professors whose names surface each time we mention the pedophilia subject please go to this post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/meet-the-guys-who-recommend-carl-toms-book/

However despite truly crocodile tears the NAMBLA members are shedding in the Boston article cited above all is not lost for the poor guys. They may not have their conventions now, but they are cultivating the vast territory of Facebook with its half a billion audience for social networking as several recent articles dated September 2010 were aghast to tell us:

“Oh, Facebook. You know how you were trying to clean up your image, especially regarding online safety for children? Especially protecting kids from sexual predators? Well, I’m no PR whiz, but I feel like you may want to reconsider letting the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) use Facebook to organize local chapters and share tips on their nefarious pursuit of underage love.

Yes, as incredible as it seems, NAMBLA is strutting its creepy, creepy stuff of Facebook, according to a report from FoxNews.com, which says the pro-pedophilia organization uses the social network to “connect with its members throughout the world, find and exchange photos of children, hone its members’ predatory behavior, and to identify, target and reel in child victims” — far exceeding NAMBLA’s supposedly limited goal of advocating legal changes to laws forbidding sexual contact between adults and children.

These are serious accusations, but FoxNews.com supports them with plenty of disturbing details. First of all, it found “dozens of pages” devoted to NAMBLA –– not as jokes or protests — complete with (non-revealing) pictures of young boys, and “hundreds of links” to NAMBLA’s Web site on Facebook.

Meanwhile posts on blogs and chatrooms frequented by pedophiles commonly suggest they are using Facebook to target kids. According to the report, NAMBLA members are using the site to “seek out like-minded individuals to help victimize children, exchange crime scene photos and give one another advice on how to be better criminals,” including “tips on using the site to assist others in having real-life conversations with children” and “tips for evading the eye of law enforcement while trolling Facebook for victims.”

In case anyone still thinks this is just some typical Fox News rabble-rousing, consider this quote from Hemanshu Nigam, co-chairman of President Obama’s Online Safety Technology Working Group and a member of the board of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children: “This is just the downright filthiest of society setting up on Facebook in a public way, and the question is, ‘Why is Facebook allowing this?'”

The site said it is removing at least some of the offending pages, but you have to wonder how they came to be operating openly, even brazenly, in the first place.

http://www.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=136625

Now guys, why does it always happen?

I mean, why does this ‘coincidence’ always happen  – each time we mention the worst Michael Jackson’s detractors they turn out to be closely associated with one and the same suspicious gang of people?

First it was Tom O’Carroll who wrote 600 plus pages of dirt about Michael, then came university professors who supported the book and recommended it for family reading and then came the turn of Victor Gutierrez who looks too much of a pedophile to me and who is a self-admitted attendee of at least one highly secretive congress of NAMBLA?

And now the same university professors surface again– this time as advisors on the policy NAMBLA should pursue in order to be a success (?)

And why do all of them turn out to be the worst Michael’s detractors too –  especially Victor Gutierrez who was probably the one who triggered off Michael’s vilification campaign long before any allegations started? Remember that he began interviewing the alleged “victims” all over the country at least five years before the 1993 case.

I half-expect Michael’s haters to shrug off the problem saying that if Michael was one of them it would be no surprise to see this kind of people revolving round him, but this makes me exclaim in more surprise than ever – if they thought he was one of them, then why did they so ruthlessly harass him?

Wasn’t Victor Gutierrez’s life-long harassment of Michael Jackson – starting in 1986 and not finished until now – the major reason that brought about his untimely death? And weren’t Guiterrez’s lies immediately translated into TV reports by Diane Dimond who considered Gutierrez her “best source”?

Why are some of them so keen on “exposing” innocent Michael while with people who really belong to their circle they are so considerate that none of them ever report on each other as the secret and successful functioning of NAMBLA and their meetings shows it?

Shall I rephrase the well-known proverb “Tell me who your friend is and I’ll tell you who you are” into a new one, “Tell me who your enemy is and we’ll know who you are”?

Now that we know for sure that at least several people who consistently worked against Michael and were absolutely no friends to him were pedophilia oriented, does this mean they knew that Michael Jackson had nothing to do with them and considered him an enemy to their cause?

Because Michael was the one who prayed to children’s innocence  while these guys think that children are ripe for adult love…

*  *  *

UPDATED March 8, 2011

Even more interesting details on how terribly difficult it is to infiltrate NAMBLA even for a professional detective come from other court papers I’ve found.

This is an appeal of  a NAMBLA member who was arrested as a result of an undercover operation and who is now complaining about violation of his rights. In the process of explaining why this NAMBLA member’s petition for rehearing the case was denied the Senior Circuit Judge provides a wealth of information on how the detective managed to infiltrate their organization (click on these Nambla Сourt doc):

Formed in 1978, NAMBLA considers itself “a political, civil right and educational organization,”, which is, according to its  Web site, opposed to age-of-consent laws and “all other restrictions which deny men and boys the full enjoyment of their bodies and control over their own lives”. NAMBLA also functions as a support network for its estimated 200-300 members. To this end, its hosts annual conventions across the United States, publishes a newsletter called “The Bulletin,” and facilitates correspondence with incarcerated sex offenders. Despite its opposition to certain laws, the organization states that it “condemns sexual abuse and all forms of coercion,” and that it “does not engage in any activities that violate the law, not advocate that anyone else should do so.”

On July 31, 2001, FBI Agent Robert Hamer joined NAMBLA by sending a letter and a money order to an address listed on the organization’s Web site. Hamer joined NAMBLA using an alias and maintained his alias throughout his association with the group. He subsequently received a letter welcoming him to the organization and congratulating him on taking the “courageous step” of becoming a member.

So far it was fairly easy…

In the course of his research, Agent Hamer read a report about Peter Melzer, a NAMBLA leader who has been terminated from his teaching position in New York City in 2000. Agent Hamer would later learn from another member that Melzer sometimes went by “Peter Herman,” the name signed to his welcome letter.

So none of them go by their real names…

Agent Hamer remained an active member of the organization and would continue to renew his NAMBLA membership for the following three years. In 2001 and 2002, at the request of the organization, he sent holiday cards to incarcerated sex offenders. In 2002, wrote two articles for the Bulletin in an attempt to impress Melzer, though these articles were never published. He requested an invitation to NAMBLA’s 2002 conference but was denied because he had not been a member for a long enough period of time.

Well, this is interesting… So despite writing letters to incarcerated sex offenders and articles for the Bulletin for approximately a year and a half, in autumn 2002 he was still denied the right to attend an annual conference?

The right to attend the conference was granted to him only two and a half years after joining NAMBLA:

The next year, Agent Hamer was invited to the November 2003 conference in New York. He suspected that both Melzer and Joseph Power, a member of NAMBLA’s Sterring Committee, would be in attendance. Power, according to the FBI’s internal documents, was a registered sex offender and the subject of an active government investigation. Agent Hamer received permission to go undercover at the conference.

The word “suspected” attracted my attention. So he didn’t even know who else would be there as there were no leaflets, no programs and no names announced? Sure, there were none… Okay, here is the most interesting part:

The conference itself was not held in public. Attendees were told to say they were with the “Wallace Hamilton Press” and to be discreet. The meeting was held in a commercial building separate from the hotel where attendees stayed and was not advertised as a NAMBLA event. Agent Hamer wore a recording device and collected information about the members in attendance, and this information was sent to other FBI offices as a lead on potential criminal activity. None of the leads proved fruitful because in most cases Agent Hamer could provide only first names.

The way the judge describes this conference NAMBLA should be nothing but a sort of a mafia unit where secrecy is adhered to in its ultimate form – no one knows other people’s real names, all pretend to be representing a publishing company, the name of the event is fictional, everyone goes by his first name only which may be his alias too and there are no bulletins, leaflets or any other signs showing the agenda of the meeting or names of the speakers.

On the evening of the conference, Agent Hamer met the defendant, David Mayer. During their casual conversation, Mayer said that he had been to Thailand several times and spoke about traveling to have sex with boys. Agent Hamer suggested that they form a travel group. Mayer responded with frustration that NAMBLA kept up pretenses of trying to change society when in fact its member only wanted to travel to meet boys.

Mayer made a reservation for the trip through the FBI’s fake travel agency. Mayer and his co-defendants were promised “special friends” and asked about their “age preferences”. On February 11, 2005 Mayer flew with his two co-defendants to San Diego, where they were arrested.

Did you notice the vocabulary used? For example, “special friends”? It seems that Tom Sneddon and the prosecution studied the respective dictionaries to try and draw Michael into the orbit of these people via several words said by chance by some of Michael’s friends. Joy Robson did once mention the word “a special friend” and had to explain for hours at the 2005 trial that she didn’t mean anything bad by that and all the witnesses naturally had to testify on the word “family” which Michael so recklessly used for the Robson family, the Chandlers, the Cascios and many others. It seems he regarded as his family all people whom he considered good …

The discussion of the rights of this criminal brought us some other details from Agent Hamer. For example, “his reports from the conferences suggest that the conferences principally involved discussion of how to avoid detection by authorities rather than actual First Amendment-protected activity”. … “NAMBLA invited Agent Hamer to join its group, participate in its holiday card program, attend its conferences and participate in the privacy committee. He received access to other people, but no access to files or information“… At the conference in 2003 “members openly discussed past and future criminal conduct, as well as how to avoid detection” – again.…

Judging by all this secrecy of their activities and the main agenda of their conferences being how to escape detection, NAMBLA indeed reminds you of a mafia organization.

This is why I see absolutely no possibility for Victor Gutierrez to attend their conference as a newspaper reporter as he claimed he did.  Since when are newspaper reporters allowed to cover secret mafia assemblies?

And look how much care is taken by them for their names not to be in any way associated with boys! Michael Jackson’s openness in admitting his adoration for children makes such a stark contrast with all of the above that this alone should send a clear signal to his detractors that his case is something totally different from what they think him to be.

Knowing how these people really behave one would have to assume that either Michael was a complete madman to be so outspoken about his love for children, subject himself to a civil case in connection with it, go through a criminal trial for the same reason and still adhere to the same views. However knowing that he was no madman we’ll have to admit that the nature of his adoration for children must have been totally different.

Children were Michael’s support and only source of inspiration. Breathing the air of their purity was necessary for the revival of his spirit and survival in the world of cynicism and dirt. He was capable to live and make his music only due to these small ones.

It was no chance that he said it was his children who saved him and kept him going. Without them he was lost and all alone, and with them he knew he could pull through. They made him strong and still willing to live…