The Politics Protecting Merciless Pedophiles
Curley v. NAMBLA was a wrongful death lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in 2000, by Barbara and Robert Curley against the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts (ACLU-M) represented NAMBLA and was successful in getting the suit dismissed based on the specific legal issue that NAMBLA is organized as an association, not a corporation. The Curleys continued the suit as a wrongful death action against individual NAMBLA members and NAMBLA Steering Committee members. The Curleys dropped the lawsuit in 2008 because the plaintiffs had only one witness prepared to testify that NAMBLA somehow incited one of the convicted criminals, but a judge ruled the witness was not competent to testify.
The case highlighted censorship of unpopular speech about sexuality and, according to Wendy Kaminer, a longtime ACLU executive, the “widespread biases about a supposed link between homosexuality and pedophilia” as children are more likely to be preyed upon by heterosexuals in their extended families. The case heightened the gay community’s disassociation from NAMBLA and even from the appearance of supporting pederasty (attraction to adolescents after they enter puberty) and pedophilia (attraction to prepubescent children), a division that was even present in NAMBLA as to their public image and publication(s) content. NAMBLA had been the subject of several sting operations, raids and had been accused of links in several high profile child abduction cases such as the 1979 Etan Patz case. The group denied any connections to crime but the public image was already permanently damaged and the gay community cut all ties of support.
Robert Curley campaigned for Massachusetts to reinstate the death penalty, which had been ruled unconstitutional in 1975, and legislation that would have done so failed on a tie vote in the Massachusetts House of Representatives shortly after his son’s murder. He later changed his position and opposed death penalty legislation in 2007.
In 1997, Barbara and Robert Curley’s 10-year-old son Jeffrey was kidnapped, raped and murdered by two men, Salvatore Sicari, 21, and Charlie Jaynes, 22. Jeffrey was a latchkey child and knew Sicari who lived only a block away. The two men befriended Jeffrey, taking him on car rides to dinners. They offered to replace his recently stolen bicycle with a new one in exchange for sex. When Jeffrey refused, Jaynes killed him in the car’s backseat. Sicari confessed to his part in the murder but insisted that Jaynes committed the murder. NAMBLA literature and a membership card was found in the backseat of the car and in Jaynes’ apartment. Sicari was convicted of first-degree murder and Jaynes was convicted of second-degree murder and kidnapping.
The Curleys’ suit sought $200 million in damages. It charged that NAMBLA’s “adult-child sexual relationship” propaganda, including Jaynes’ viewing of the group’s website, caused his violent predatory behavior and urge to have sex with and rape young male children. Proving the incitement is difficult given the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution standards that govern words in any medium. At the time the Internet was much less popular so the point rested on the courts viewing the Internet as such a different media as to warrant a different legal standard. Despite the lawsuit’s claims, the NAMBLA website displayed no erotica, nor conspiracies to rape or incitements to violence. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the US Supreme Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In September 2001, the court declined the defense’s request for summary judgment, because Brandenburg “does not foreclose liability ‘on any set of facts that might be shown'” as to incitement just by NAMBLA’s publications, meetings and website. The Curleys had only one witness prepared to testify that NAMBLA “somehow spurred” Jaynes to commit crimes, but a judge ruled the witness was not competent to testify. When the Curleys dropped the lawsuit in 2008, Robert Curley explained: “That was the only link we were counting on … When they ruled that out, that was the end of the line.” “And Credo Funds —with millions in donations, to nonprofits like Free Press, the ACLU, “
Note: Credo Funds the ACLU!
” giving over $2,300,000 for change in 2014 and over $78 million since our founding. ” Paedophiles have defenders with BIG POCKETS! The ACLU put its massive political clout behind child rapists and killers! Anyone reading this website should immediately boycott Credo Mobile and the ACLU…there is NO JUSTICE here…the parents have lost their child, Charles Jaynes has already been up for parole (Feb, 2013)
and apparently Father Curley will have to fight Jaynes release for the rest of his life. The Big Question here: why did the ACLU choose to defend two child rapists and a child killer? What about the rights of this child? So far, I see no evidence of the ACLU having any interest whatsoever in the rights of sexually abused children. They are more interested in defending the rights of organized pedophiles (NAMBLA).
People should be outraged! But of course this is all part of the NWO agenda: legal child rape! Paedophilia IS A TERRORIST ATTACK on a child. Children in the United States basically do not have equal protection…this is a violation of the constitution. This child’s constitutional rights were violated and he was tortured to death and I don’t see any organization defending his right to life without torture. To add insult to injury his son was murdered by an illegal immigrant. This is an old story but the issues unfortunately stay relevant.