Please note...

that the items presented on this Web-Site contain some personal views and information concerning myself that some people may find unpalatable. Okay, so I am not perfect; nor do I try very hard to fit our society's template for being "normal". I ask that the viewer look past my personal imperfections and non-normal ideas, to discover the real crimes that are being committed by our police and "Justice" system in the name of the "War on Crime".

The main information NOT shown on this Web Page falls into two categories:

• The actual content of the sexual fantasies solicited from me by the undercover policewoman. Most of these fantasies I started by saying "This is a fantasy". Her solicitation and prompting of these fantasies as well as the fantasies that she described were all removed in the editing by police of the tape-recorded evidence. The main thrust of prosecution's case was that the "relationship" between myself and the undercover police woman was for purpose of realizing those fantasies; therefore supposed all of the fantasies I expressed I had intended to carry out with her help. NOT!
• The details of three incidents where some could claim that I had been inappropriately affectionate with a child, a minor incident in 1969 (it was inappropriate since the child was not my own and I didn't have the parents okay), and two in 1982 with my own daughter. All incidents were intended by me as affection, and most importantly were received as affection by the child. All three of these incidents were discovered shortly thereafter; in the 1969 incident the parents forbid me from seeing the child again. The 1982 incidents were investigated by San Jose Police at the insistence of my ex-wife after she had interrogated our children when she learned that I had taken them to a nude beach during a visitation. That police investigation determined that there was insufficient evidence to charge me with any crime (I didn't find out about this investigation until my 1990 arrest). A significant point is that that investigation in 1982 had started the Statute of Limitations "clock" running so that it was expired before my arrest in 1990.

Why I am a Politically Incorrect Parent : I had my first pleasant sexual experience at the age of five -- a kind of group orgy/sexual-discovery/fondle get together of about four or five kids of various ages and both sexes. I had long since decided that if at all possible that I would like to arrange a similar pleasant sexual experience for my own children. Because of the 1969 incident mentioned above, I learned that you don't do that with someone else's children and I have religiously obeyed that concept to this day. In 1983 my ex-wife invoked her private version of supervised visitation on me, so I then was powerless to raise my children, as I believed best.

To understand my views please read an interesting article about the book of Judith Levine, "Harmful for Minors -- The perils of protecting children from sex"

In January of 1990, I answered the ad in Swinger Digest, believing that I had a long last found someone who shared my beliefs on how to best raise one's children. That ad was of course the lead-in to the Scam.

Within the letters written to the "confidential informant" and the phone calls made to the undercover policewoman I had discussed the three incidents mentioned above (without mentioning that my actions had been "discovered"), and as a result the police believed that more incidents had probably occurred. They then felt safe in altering the evidence to arrest me "knowing" that they would find evidence of real crimes against children committed by me (so that they could then drop the charges of the fabricated "crimes" and only proceed on the real crimes). Guess what folks, there were no other "incidents" and the ones I had mentioned were safely past the statute of limitations. The police had stuck their collective necks out and now had the real possibility of having their heads chopped off. Their only hope was to persuade my Public Defender to sabotage my case and get me to accept a plea bargain so that they could cover up their crimes.

Please note, I am being totally up-front about myself here, in the hope that the viewer will recognize that what I am saying about the police and Fed.'s is also totally true.

Response to a false accusation : Up to this point in time I had not felt that I needed to respond to a false accusation made by my ex-wife (and echoed by my daughter) back in 1990 about an incident that supposedly occurred in 1982. That accusation was made in written letters to Judge Creed after I had accepted the plea bargain but before sentencing. The intent of my ex-wife was to make me look as evil as possible so that her request that I not be allowed any contact with my children would be granted. I of course was not given any chance to respond in court and so the request was granted. Apparently once a person accepts a plea bargain (even Nolo Contendre) the courts accept all accusations made by the supposed "victims" against the now "guilty" party without question.

It has lately become obvious that this accusation has been used by The San Jose Police Department to justify their altering of evidence; by Internal Affairs and State Representatives to ignore my complaints; and by religious and social groups to justify my ouster. And of course they blindly believe the ex-wife and child's version of what happened and totally ignore the man's responses (knowing he is guilty).

That accusation was that I allegedly ejaculated off in front of my daughter back in 1982. The implication was that I was committing a lewd act in front of her to heighten my own sexual pleasure. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I had often given my children short tutorials about science/astronomy/etc. This time I gave my children a ten-minute tutorial about human sexuality and the male anatomy, I ended that tutorial (which was given in the living room of my cottage) by going into the bathroom by myself to produce a specimen of semen. I then brought out that specimen and placed it under a microscope for my children to look at. As it turned out the microscope did not have enough magnification to see the sperm or their movements, so the tutorial had a disappointing ending.

Apparently in 1990 their mother interrogated them in order to find the worst incidences that they could recount to the judge. In the letters to Judge Creed they mentioned that I had forced them to see the R rated movie "Changing Places" (where a particular prostitute is shown to be a good person); and that I had talked my son into going skinny-dipping in our back yard pool. My kids also must have recounted that incident to their mom where they saw me nude and where they saw some of my semen. Their mom must have stated that "You must have seen him ejaculate" and the kids, not knowing what that word really meant accepted it as being what they saw.

My daughter Lisa wrote a second letter to a judge in Washington in 1999 requesting a 100 year restraining order against me ever contacting her (which was granted). In that letter she reiterates that I did indeed "ejaculate" in front of her, then mentions in passing that "he was giving a lecture at the time".

Describing my actions as me "ejaculating in front of my children" is a total mischaracterization that implies that I was doing it for my own sexual pleasure, while in fact a lecture, even on human sexuality, is done for the benefit of the audience. And no, that lecture did NOT include me ejaculating in front of my children (there is a small possibility Lisa peeked into the bathroom while I produced the semen). So, while one might argue with my methods of parenting and of educating my children, this was not a lewd act.

Lisa's statement to my sentencing judge in 1990 was clearly scripted by her mother (and perhaps by Mormon elders) to achieve the desired result of creating a phony justification for legally severing all contact between my children and myself. The irony is that the main reason I accepted that Nolo Contendre Plea Bargain in the first place was so that I could get out of jail in order to be with my children, yet it resulted in me never seeing my children again.

This is a good example of how a child can be coaxed/pressured into altering her view of an incident into something the mother wants. By that time the police had confirmed that I was indeed evil, confirming that her mother's view of me was apparently correct, and besides it wasn't really lying.

Back to "The Scam" introduction.  Or from other pages [Use your Browser's Back button] or [Site Map].