Arthur Goldberg’s damage-control campaign has begun. His strategy is to portray himself as an innocent man who made a mistake, and is now the victim of a ruthless personal attack by the purveyors of the much-feared gay agenda.
Arthur A Goldberg, Executive Secretary of NARTH and a co-founder and co-director of Jewish ex-gay group JONAH, was exposed earlier this week as convicted felon Arthur Abba Goldberg, the Wall Street investor fined $100,000 and sentenced to 18 months in 1989 on three counts of mail fraud and one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States of America.
Goldberg has yet to respond publicly to the reports. He appears, however, to have written to his fellow board members at NARTH, in a letter obtained by Ex-Gay Watch.
Goldberg: Allegations exaggerated, false, malicious
Goldberg begins by describing the charges made against him by the Truth Wins Out/South Florida Gay News investigation as “exaggerated and in many parts false and malicious.” He then says he will explain what happened “so that all of you may have some idea of what was involved.”
This suggests that he had not disclosed his criminal past to NARTH. This is further supported by XGW’s conversation with David Pruden, NARTH’s Vice President of Operations. While freely identifying Goldberg as Arthur Abba Goldberg, Pruden denied knowing anything of the charges made in Monday’s article.
This is very concerning. Who neglects to disclose criminal convictions – especially a felony of this nature – to organizations for which they work, unless quite deliberately? Most companies, organizations and workplaces require their employees and officers to disclose such matters, not least because it could open an organization like NARTH to liabilities of its own. The protocol applies even more so when an organization is professional, pastoral, financial or charitable in nature. Yet the evidence so far suggests Goldberg said nothing.
In explaining what went on in the 1980s, Goldberg contradicts himself. After minimizing his fraudulent activity to the status of a mistake, rather than a moral failing, he says both that he accepted full responsibility for his actions, and that he fought for years against the charges before running out of resources:
During the 1980’s, my firm and many others attempted to “grandfather” several bond issues of our clients in order to beat the deadline of the 1986 federal tax law changes. These deal structures were challenged and ultimately 2 separate criminal legal actions were filed against me. After fighting for several years and running out of resources, I determined it was in the best interests of my family, myself, and my firm that I plead guilty to the minor counts of the indictment. In both actions, the guilty plea involved a finding that no intentional fraud took place. Rather the conduct for which I fully accepted punishment involved conduct that would be sufficient to constitute fraud under the relevant statutes – even though non-intentional. In fact, one of the pre-sentencing reports specifically found that no one involved in the transactions in question lost any money whatsoever on the transactions and that I did not receive personal enrichment from the transactions. Nevertheless, I accepted full responsibility for my negligent actions.
According to this account, he pleaded guilty as a concession because it was in his own best interests, as well as the best interest of his family and the company. Yet he claims he accepted full responsibility. Which is it, Arthur?
Goldberg wants to have it both ways. He holds his hands up to accept the blame, while suggesting it was only technically fraud, not morally. This is doublespeak. And it is contradicted by the reports we have from the time.
Goldberg versus the Judge
Judge Curtis, on sentencing Goldberg to 18 months imprisonment in the State of Illinois, said:
Arthur Abba Goldberg, you have openly conspired against the United States by knowingly and recklessly engaging indifferently in a series of dishonest acts of considerable magnitude.
Goldberg versus the Prosecuting Attorney
William K O’Connor, prosecuting attorney on behalf of the US in the California trial was blunt in his assessment of Goldberg’s crime. From this week’s report:
[O’Connor] described Goldberg as having engineered “a conspiratorial fraud of spectacular scope,” which purposefully duped “unsophisticated Pacific Islanders.” One witness against Goldberg said he treated the citizens of Guam as if “they were cannibals.”O’Connor said that Goldberg’s deceitfulness crippled Guam’s economy, crushed investors, undermined public confidence in the bond industry, and cost the U.S. Treasury millions in lost taxes.
Goldberg versus the Supreme Court of New Jersey
Goldberg was a practicing lawyer in the State of New Jersey. A unanimous decision to disbar him as an attorney was made in 1995:
Goldberg’s criminal convictions clearly and convincingly demonstrated his participation in activities that reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer.
As recently as 2007, Goldberg was trading on his history of practicing law in New Jersey to bolster his credentials as an authority on gay issues.
Goldberg: They’re all wrong
Essentially, Goldberg asks his fellow NARTH board members to take his word over the word of the attorney who successfully prosecuted him for fraud, the judge who found him guilty, and the court that disbarred him from practicing law in New Jersey.
It’s the gays’ fault
Goldberg pays lip service to accepting responsibility for his felonies, but at the same time he does everything he can to convince NARTH that he only pleaded guilty as a last resort to protect himself and his family. In Goldberg’s account, he was technically guilty of breaking a few statutes, but it was a misjudgment, not a moral failure.
He does go to great lengths to pin responsibility on homosexuals, however. His proven past crimes, which so far we have every reason to believe have been deliberately kept out of the public eye, are not to blame for the spotlight on him now, according to Goldberg. To demonstrate this, he resurrects the familiar myth that his gay critics are simply following the gay agenda set out by Kirk and Madsen in 1989:
Of course, the strategy employed by those who wish to dig around for dirt in someone’s past, in this case for incidents that occurred in 1986, or about 25 years ago, is totally consistent with the Kirk and Madsen thesis which is set forth in “After the Ball.” Remember point 8 in their game plan–“make opponents look bad: portray them as evil and victimizing.” They stated in the book that those perceived as opponents of the gay movement were to be attacked and vilified. This was to be the final step in the media campaign Kirk and Madsen so carefully laid out to establish “gay rights.” So, if you are able to do a character assassination of the proponents, so goes the theory, then you can kill the message they represent. However, I would hope that rational people would not succumb to such demagoguery. I also believe that bitter personal attacks are often the last refuge of those who fear the truth and are not able to discuss the merits of an issue. In truth, I believe that our message is gaining traction and will eventually prevail.
Finally, having absolved himself of responsibility, Goldberg portrays himself as a martyr to the cause of anti-gay activism and reparative therapy:
[I] understand that there are individuals out there with myopic bigotry on the SSA issue and I need to be prepared to take my lumps for anything I have done in the past or the present, and indeed in the future. … I am humbled by the outpouring of support I have received from so many. It confirms my decision that I made the right choice in determining to work within this field of endeavor. Many thanks to you all for standing with me, for being there, and for maintaining the fight for accurate science, truth and justice.
Frankly, where the revelations should have propelled Goldberg towards self-examination and honesty, they have led to a blatantly manipulative effort to wash his hands of his crimes. He says he takes full responsibility, but in reality, this missive’s clear purpose is to convince his colleagues that he is the real victim, and that he is in fact bearing battle scars on behalf of a noble cause.
There is no conspiracy to destroy Goldberg. If he is destroyed by this, it will be of his own doing.
Ex-Gay Watch’s purpose is to get to the truth of the matter and ask, as the Supreme Court of New Jersey asked of his legal career in 1995, what Arthur Abba Goldberg’s criminal convictions – and the subsequent attempt to hide them from the public eye – say about his “honesty, trustworthiness and fitness” for moral and religious leadership and authority in the ex-gay movement.
____________________________
Image of Arthur Abba Goldberg in 1989 courtesy Truth Wins Out. The full headline next to the picture was “Wall Street bond whiz pleads guilty in $2B fraud.”
This is a great article, Dave. Thorough, well-written, and informative. I’ve written more articles about JONAH than any other writer here, but this one tops them all put together.
Goldberg wrote:
“Minor counts” don’t result in felony convictions where you spend more than one year in prison. More truthfully (although I doubt he is capable of saying anything truthful), he pled guilty to lesser counts (involving far fewer years in prison) rather than going to trial and risking a very much longer prison sentence where he would really pay for the full extent of his criminal wrong-doing.
A convicted con-artist who made millions on his enormous illegal fraud defends himself by accusing everyone else of lying. This has got to be the worst possible defense. The fact that he is taking this tact makes me think that even at NARTH
his support is weak after these revelations.
This guy acts like the classic sociopath.
I guess he thinks his gay son lives by “after the ball.” I wonder if they are even on speaking terms.
Also, I had no idea “after the ball” had “8 points,” let alone what “the 8th and final point” was.
Ah, the 1980’s and fraudulent bond transactions and dirt-bags. Takes me back.
Just quickly, based only on those selected parts of the letter to NARTH:
Strike 1: [Goldberg’s] argument that his conduct was neither knowing nor willful is specious. The Illinois criminal-conspiracy conviction clearly demonstrates his purposeful illegal conduct. Moreover, the pre-sentence report in the California action amply illustrates respondent’s knowingly dishonest acts.
Goldberg has peddled this “non-intentional” line for at least 15 years. Unconvincingly. His way of pretending to be innocenct of his crimes?
Strike 2: I’d suggest there is also a far more reasonable way of looking at his guilty plea — he was going down, he knew it, and pleading guilty is a commonplace way to try and minimise the eventual sentence. His fellow conspirators also plead guilty.
Strike 3: Much has also been made by Goldberg’s charitable work with resettling immigrants… but… read below… the credit union referred to is the one that was established for the charity. Nice touch Arthur A, very nice: a truly classy act.
New American Federal Credit Union (NAFCU), a federal credit union formed by respondent and others for the ostensible purpose of making loans to emigres from Soviet Russia. Respondent was former president and chairman of the board of NAFCU. The pre-sentence report contends that respondent controlled the credit union through the NAFCU manager
Strike 4: Grandfathered? Pfft. The reason they got into trouble was because they didn’t have anything to grandfather in the first place. That’s what made the scheme illegal.
The man appears to be as big a shonk in 2010 as he was 25 years ago. That’s the real news for today.
——————————————————–
Just so we all know what we’re talking about, from the SEC Complaint (and sorry if it makes some of you cross-eyed, but it’s relatively straight-forward):
John, I’m reminded at such times that Al Capone was taken down for simple income-tax evasion. The long arm of law works in mysterious ways at times.
Al Capone was never convicted of murder, racketeering, smuggling, etc etc etc.
Doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.
Of course, this also suggests that NARTH does not perform criminal background checks on people working or volunteering for them, even in (presumably) highly influential positions. Am I the only one that sees that as problematic?
I recently read After the Ball, just to find out what it is that we are all supposed to be following so closely.
Wow, what a culture shock. I’d forgotten the defeatist, self-loathing attitudes of the late 1980s that had grown out of a community under siege. And as for this being a manifesto, that’s patently ridiculous.
The one thing which this book called for was a centralized media campaign. And that is something we have never had. The community has far too many folk who jealously guard their turf for us to have ever spoke in concert on any issue, much less organize a cohesive message.
It really is funny (and pathetic) how the anti-gays have latched onto this one book and think it is evidence of a grand conspiracy.
I should say “recently re-read” the book. I’m one of the few who did read this book decades ago.
It’s been out of print for many years (I guess that’s part of the conspiracy) but I was able to get an unread pristine copy from a used book store for $5
I’ve only read bits and only after some anti-gay screed quoted it. I guess I should read it, too. Even so, I’ve read other things which really whip me back to that era, and I make the same realization you just described. One really had to be there to fully appreciate the components that led to that. History unfolds the way it unfolds, assigning a grand scheme to it is for the conspiracy nuts.
I only heard of this book when posts on gay blogs reported that anti-gays claim it’s a book detailing the “gay agenda.” I’ve been out 10 years and haven’t heard of it. Then again, I didn’t go fleeing to an encompassing gay community. Then maybe there would have been those here and there who would have read it. but other than that, even with all the activism and pride parades I’ve taken part in, I’ve never even seen a real live copy.
If Goldberg is fully penitent, then I trust that he will now repay the $11 million in fees that his “law firm” collected from investors and cities under false pretenses.
As I remember it the two who wrote After the Ball were ad-executives. It was sort of their spiel to the community, and I figured they wanted the account. Never came to anything though.