by Bob Hamer
Pete Milano ran the L.A. Mafia family and was the target of one of my earlier undercovers. At the time of my meeting with Anthony, Pete was in federal prison, along with fourteen of his mob associates, all as the result of our investigation. But Pete’s name still carried weight in Los Angeles. It remained his town, at least from a mafioso’s point of view.
Anthony made a big mistake: he looked down, showing weakness. Now, I admit Hard Body gave me some much-needed credibility. He was a heavyweight; I was a middleweight at best. At the time I was about 155 pounds, ran five miles every day, and boxed several times a week, but I was a little guy compared to Anthony and Hard Body. One-on-one, the mobster from New Jersey would have given me a tough fight. But he looked down—and I pounced.
“Who gave you permission to walk my streets? I want a name and I want it now. You never go into another man’s town without permission. Where are you from?”
I kept pummeling him with questions. I was seriously getting into my role. Even Hard Body was smiling, enjoying the performance.
Anthony answered each question. Then I demanded he get his boss on the phone. We walked over to a pay phone near the restrooms, and Anthony dialed a number, spoke briefly, and handed me the phone. I repeated my questions and demands, giving the guy on the other end of the phone little time to respond. When he said he was from Fort Lee, New Jersey, I said, “Fort Lee? What’s that? What am I supposed to call you —‘General’? I want your man to apologize to our guy. You guys better straighten this out now. Anthony isn’t going anywhere until this is straightened out. Do you understand me?” I handed the phone back to Anthony.
We returned to the table and I demanded that Anthony apologize.
“I’m sorry I threatened to break your legs,” he said to the producer.
“And . . . ?” I said.
“I’m sorry I threatened to break your arms.”
“And . . . ?”
“I’m sorry I threatened to run you over with a car.”
With the apology accepted, I instructed the producer to leave the table and he quickly obliged, practically running out of the restaurant.
I turned my attention to Anthony and apologized for being so hard on him, but explained that I had to show the producer I meant business, because I knew he would tell Pete. “He’s an earner for us and we have to protect him. Nothing personal.”
Anthony smiled with relief. He said he thought everything had been cleared through his New Jersey people and admitted he had no right to come into L.A. without permission of the boss. Then he said, “I should have known better. I just got out of the joint. I did a dime for the same thing.”
Apparently, this extortion job was one of Anthony’s first paying gigs since spending ten years in prison. The penal system’s rehabilitation efforts obviously failed, but we were going to see he got another shot. We all started to walk out of the restaurant and Anthony invited us to join him for drinks. When I told him we still had a problem, he said, “What? We can work anything out.”
I pulled out my FBI credentials and identified myself as an agent. He looked at me, closed his eyes, looked toward heaven, and said, “I am so stupid.”
What could I say?
I would have loved to have been able to stage a reprise of my role as a wise guy for a few of my BL friends. I thought about how great it would be to get up in Peter Herman’s face, with Hard Body looming over my shoulder, and rip him a new one. But this was a different role, and called for a different approach. If things went well, though, I could hope for a similar result.
30
AGE OF CONSENT: ZERO
NAMBLA policy was the next item on the agenda and age of consent dominated that discussion. As an organization, NAMBLA has consistently refused to advocate a particular age of consent even though some members have called for a lowering of the age rather than its outright abolition. The position would not be modified in this conference. In fact, Peter stated that designating a specific age of consent would be “disastrous” and not result in any greater support among the general population.
Peter drew an analogy between baseball and sex. “When someone says, ‘Baseball for kids,’ everyone says, ‘Oh yes.’ But what kind of baseball is given to a four- or five-year-old? What is given must be age appropriate, or it can be very dangerous in both situations.” I’m not quite sure what point Peter was trying to make, but the T-ball example was apparently an attempt to present certain sexual acts—oral sex, presumably—as more “age appropriate” than, say, anal penetration. One was okay for young boys, apparently, and the other should be reserved for later ages.
I knew from reading past issues of the Bulletin that age of consent was a topic being debated continually among the membership. In the May 2004 issue, “John” urged the membership not to modify its position on this issue, claiming that any modification would amount to a “dilution of our principle. Please, let us not compromise our ideals in a quest to appear more ‘reasonable’ or ‘mainstream’ to the world at large.”
In an accompanying article, John quoted art historian and social activist Camille Paglia.
I fail to see what is wrong with erotic fondling with any age. I would really want to push the issue of what is wrong with anything which gives pleasure. What is wrong with it, even if it does involve fondling the genitals?
John then argued,
Even a newborn baby fresh out of his or her mother’s womb instinctively and neurologically can discern the difference between a “good touch” (such as a gentle stroking) and a “bad touch” (such as a slap from the attending doctor). As the child begins to grow, parents and teachers instill in the youngster THEIR concepts of “good touch” and “bad touch” (with anything involving the genitals inevitably constituting a “bad touch”). Yet, if such contact is (as the anti-sex crowd claims) intrinsically harmful to an undeveloped or developing person, why the need to teach them these feelings? Maturity is NOT a prerequisite to physical enjoyment; in fact, judging by the uptight attitudes held by many adults in this world, it would seem the reverse is true! Perhaps this world would be a much better place if adults would perceive sexual activity in a more juvenile way!
John further stated,
The argument that older people should not pursue younger partners because the older person has an unfair psychological advantage is blatantly ridiculous. Does a man with a handsome face and muscular body cover himself up when he’s around the fairer sex so as to not take advantage of his good looks? Does a woman with long blonde hair and large breasts hide under a hat and baggy clothing so as to not upstage women not so blessed with these attributes desired by most men? The idea that “all is fair in love and war” applies to intergenerational courting as well!
Finally, John concluded, “I firmly believe that there can be only one ‘age of consent’: zero.”
I found this to be typical of NAMBLA reasoning. They would frequently start with principles of human development anyone could agree with, then at some point in the discussion, they would make an illogical leap to get on the track to their destination: justification of making sex objects of underage children. John’s argument, for example, started with what is demonstrably true: babies react differently to gentle touch versus harsh touch. However, he seems to suggest eroticized touch is in the same category as a parent’s caress and shouldn’t be differentiated from it in any way. Does that prove eroticized touching of children isn’t detrimental to their development of healthy self-concepts as adults? I can find truckloads of child development experts who would instantly refute such a notion. And yet, in the black-is-white world of NAMBLA, John’s line of reasoning is seen as valid.
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 par
ty 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 v
ery 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.
