Edmond Leja/Lea Nudism's Ambassador Convicted
Nikkicraft
by nikki craft
EDMOND LEJA WAS A NUDIST PUBLISHER AND PHOTOGRAPHER WHO WORKED CLOSELY
WITH ED LANGE AND LEIF HEILBERG. HE HAS BEEN ARRESTED FOUR TIMES AND
CONVICTED ONCE. HE IS NOT ON THE ASA CAUTION LIST.
In the springtime of childhood, sex doesn't seem very important - to an
adult, but to a child, it is the very mystery of life. There is a faint
stirring of the libido heard in the deep uncomplicated recesses of a
child's mind. There is the tingling of flesh, the sensuous thrill of
touch, when all the senses seem to be electrified by nature.
Excerpted from The Nudist Moppets
Edmond Leja
During governmental and police investigations on exploitation of children,
Nudist Moppets and Edmond Leja's name are an inevitable mainstay in
conversation.
Even though he was not mentioned by name during the 1977 Senate
Subcommittee Hearings on Juvenile Delinquency, "Protection of Children
Against Child Exploitation," it is obvious Michael Sneed spoke of him.
Sneed, a Chicago Tribune investigative reporter, was asked by Senator
Mathias if she could think of anything [regarding pedophiles] that would
be helpful in their investigation. She gave this reply:
"You will find that these people who are involved in this business will
have one probation after another as far as child molestation is concerned.
What do they get? Probation, three months psychiatric treatment, on and
on. They know that the penalties are not stiff. They know they will be out
in a short while."
She continued: "In Los Angeles there is a case that involved a 3-year old
little girl whose mother took her to be filmed by a photographer, a
pornographer. The mother was a porno star herself, was a prostitute, and
had had some difficulties with drugs. The pictures that were taken were
nude shots. They were not sex action. The child was dressed in stockings
and was placed in certain positions that would attract the child molester.
It was after the filming that the mother permitted the child to engage in
oral sex with the man that had provided the house. The man was
subsequently arrested. The mother turned State's witness, but the man
received 3 months psychiatric care, and that was it."
Just who is this Edmond Leja (a.k.a. Ed Lea or Lee) whose message about
nudism has traveled the globe? He is a man defended by his neighbors and
by many nudists as a fine upstanding citizen and one of nudism's finest
ambassadors. He is mostly a well-known nudist photographer who, according
to Los Angeles police, was arrested at least four times with only one
conviction. Once he was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a
minor and with a sex violation regarding several children who appeared in
Nudist Moppets, but the charges against him were dropped.
Each time Leja has been arrested he has argued what I have come to call
the child pornographer's "nudist/naturist defense;" that is that he is
simply a nudist practicing his nudist lifestyle and the images he created,
published or possessed were simply nude photos of children, and nothing
more.
During my five years of employment at The Naturist Society, there were
many such men who called or wrote, or whom we obtained news articles
about. They all claimed they were just nudists or naturists who had been
arrested or accused unjustly. Then, after closer inquiry, we would find
out they had a prior convictions for child molestation. When found out
they would claim trumped up charges, of course; or there was some other
circumstance that dirtied them or their case. As with those men, there is
much more to the Edmond Leja story.
(To be continued.)
Reprinted from the ICONoclast, p.o. box 2085, Rancho Cordova, Ca
95741-2085. Copyright 1995 by Nikki Craft. Commercial Use Prohibited.
Comments, feedback and information about individual pedophiles are
welcomed. Nikki...@aol.com
Michael Williams
and think about them. Refreshing change of pace.
Seems to me, though, that Nikki's addressed each of your questions directly
in previous posts.
They're good questions though. Maybe she'll respond again.
Nikkicraft
<From: njs...@utarlg.uta.edu (Nathan Schwartz)
<Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 23:50:00 GMT
<Message-ID: <17JAN199...@utarlg.uta.edu>
<I've been lurking here for several weeks now and, frankly, I'm a <little
conflicted about your agenda.
1. No. That's a lie and Baxandall knows it and Chris Faubert knows I told
him the same thing about the computer on the phone. It was a birthday and
xmas present from Baxandall to me. There's no question about it. He lies
when he says differently.
But, let me tell you what I do brag about shamelessly and did to Faubert,
too. Besides the files and letter that I took out of there with which will
in the end expose all the duplicity, I also am happy about getting into
the Baxandall's printer's (the company that printed CwS) vault only
several days before I moved from Oshkosh. I took all the stats of myself
and lots of other women after they requested me to do so off the layout
pages for years back.
One of the women whose photo I took was Michelle Handler. She wanted
me to get her photos from Baxandall. She didn't want him to have them
because after she had announced in a public letter to Baxandall (which I
will publish here later) that she was not going to affiliate with his
magazine anymore because she disagreed with some photos he published she
had requested that Baxandall not publish photos of her in CwS anymore. As
a slap in the face Baxandall did published her picture in his magazine.
When I left I took every negative, print and positive that I could
find of any of us. I did this knowing full well he can replace most of
them when he wants and he will publish them when he gets ready. I did it
to retaliate for his pompousness to print someone's photo against their
will and on principle because he lost the right to have our photos and
what the courts would say about that is of no matter to me. They are
photos of us and we should have the right to own our image. That's that.
Additionally I do intend to go into some of those other accusations at
a later time, but for now I am busy downloading files.
2. I intend to educate nudists/naturists and now primarily outside
textilers, law enforcement etc. about the BIG problem that exists here.
And I intend to confront the movement until something *substantial* - and
I do mean substantial - is done about it.
3. What *I* would like to see is irrelevant at this point because there is
no indication that *anything* is going to be done. Until I see a sincere
effort in that direction then I wont waste my time. I hope you can
understand.
So, you've posed your questions to me, and I've answered them the best I
can possibly think to answer them. Now are you willing to pose a question
to them like: What are *you* gonna do about it? That seems fair, doesn't
it?
As to the end of your post, part was cut out, but yes you have missed
something about the ASA Caution list that I have just in the last few days
posted. I do not think it has to be ineffective, but it's ineffective the
way the ASA is doing it. From what I can tell it's not really meant to be
effective, it's just something they throw around to the media and others
to claim nudist parks are safe for children because "we screen our
members" and "see we've got this computer list." A *computer list* for
nine names. Shit, I could keep up with that many on index cards. It's not
effective because it's a smoke screen, and it's not me who's "begging" the
question. Or haven't you noticed?
If you haven't seen what I posted on the ASA Caution List, or can't locate
it, let me know and I'll hunt it down for you.
I hope this sufficiently answers your questions.
nikki
Richard Kenner
>Part of the problem is that anyone can call their magazine a "nudist
>publication", just as anyone can call themselves a "nudist".
>
>We had quite a discussion about this a couple of months ago under the thread:
>"Quit Using Naturism".
I've started it up again recently in alt.binaries.pictures.nudism.
RobEdmonds
me.
Nathan Schwartz
Did she? Well, I must have missed them. It seemed to me Nikki was defining
a problem without proposing any solutions. The one public message I saw
from her on the subject seemed to say, "I'm telling you what's wrong. It's up
to you people to do something about it." That really didn't help.
She was kind enough to E mail a copy of a public message which I had evidently
missed. In that posting, she explained the apparent discrepency in, on one
hand, criticizing the ASA (or whatever it's being called now) for not including
certain people on their caution list and, on the other hand, admitting such a
list was pointless anyway. Since virtually everything Nikki posts is either
an expressed or implied criticism of resort owners and ASA and TNS(?) leaders
for not keeping up the list, I was confused as to what, exactly she wanted.
In her clarification, Nikki explained that she believed the list could be an
effective means of dealing with the problem if it were maintained. It is the
fact that the organizations don't keep the list current that makes it, in her
view, ineffective. For that clarification, I thank Nikki Craft.
Now I must disagree with her. One of Nikki's primary concerns is the false
sense of security promoters of nudist/naturist lifestyles and facilities
try to engender through their positioning of nudism as a "family"
activity/lifestyle. I believe reliance on such a list goes further in
promoting the false sense of security than the mere puffery contained in
nudist p.r. material.
I start with the belief that any such list will always be incomplete. By itself
that's a serious flaw. And, it's unavoidable. There will always be a lag
between discovery of a pedophile and disemination of the information through
the ASA to all the member facilities. Even if there were not, and assuming
the ASA was absolutely scrupulous in maintaining the list and all the resort
owners were equally scrupulous in consulting it, "beating" the system would
be a simple matter. I won't go into the details of how simple securing
false identification is, but suffice to say any pedophile with the will to do
so can gain entrance to any facility with little effort. The list would
be ineffective, then, in controlling the problem. I won't even go into
the difficulty of determining the standards for earning a place on the list.
The fact is, it just wouldn't provide the security Nikki seems to believe it
would. (I leave open the possibility that I am misinterpreting her position
and invite her to clarify anything she feels I'm misrepresenting.)
Since the list would be ineffective regardless of how hard the ASA works at
maintaining it, the idea that, "since they have the system to protect us, it
must be safe" would create a false and dangerous sense of security. It would
in short, do just the opposite from the desired effect and, moreover, do more
to excaberate the problem than solve it. Parents are, in my opinion, more
likely to let down their guards if they believe a system is in place to
protect them. I've gone on way too long here already, so I won't go into
the problems associated with requiring background checks.
The point is, (and arent' you glad I'm finally getting to it) no system will
provide the kind of security we want. All that's left, is for parents to
understand that their children are always in danger regardless of where they
are and, rather than keep the family in the house all the time (statistically
not a safe move either, BTW), keep vigilant all the time. Be aware of what
your children are doing and with whom. In short, be parents and don't rely
on a nudist resort owner or the ASA to be parents for you.
I will close (I can hear the sighs of relief already) with this suggestion;
perhaps we can focus our considerable intellects on comprising a list of
warning signs; behaviors and activities parents should look out for which
would raise a red flag and alert them to a potentially dangerous
situation. Anyone care to start such a list?
Nathan Schwartz
It's entirely possible that she has, as you say, answered all my questions
previously. I may very well have missed a few posts. She was kind enough
to E mail a re-posting of a message in which she explained the apparent
discrepency in being critical of the organization for failure to maintain
the list she doesn't feel can be effective in the first place. In that
message, Nikki expressed the belief that if the list were properly maintained
it would be effective in controlling the problem.
I am, frankly, skeptical about such a list ever being effective in controlling
pedophiles access to nudist resorts. Assuming the ASA (or whatever it's being
called these days) is able to keep such a list maintained and circulated, and
further assuming a member resort is absolutely scrupulous in checking every
potential member and visitor against that list, it seems to me an easy task
to secure false identification and, therefore, beat the list if one were so
inclined. Moreover, the very fact of a scrupulously maintained list might
go further in creating a false sence of security and safety than the current
puffery employed by owners of resorts and leaders of the organizations.
I mean, if you set up a system (the list) that is inherently flawed, don't you
set up the expectation that the problem is solved and, therefore, lull the
public into a false security? It seems to me any system relying on the ASA
or resort owners to provide the protection is subject to this problem. So
far, the best approach I've seen is one in which parents take responsibility
for protecting their children.
Something that might be a good first step in this direction would be a few
warning signs. What should parents look for, either in CO environments or
in the textile world, that would raise a red flag? Anyone have any
suggestions?