Giving lawyers a worse name...

By late afternoon, Zinnanti said the court had granted him and his partner immediate permission to file their injunction on behalf of the children of Santa Clarita.

Another case of "don't ask the children".

I wonder though, if some parent will seek their children to be excluded...

*****"Jack is going to get legally bombed into the Stone Age," Zinnanti told The Signal Tuesday.*****

/me opens the book of anti lawyer jokes...

"I'm halfway expecting Jack to come out and say 'April Fools, I was actually just testing to see if you would actually protect your children.' I mean, this guy has been so blatant, it's like a test.

What makes you think it's not???

You're failing miserably so far, by the way...

[a]"We're not looking to be malicious and beat someone up who is easy to beat up," he said. [b]"We're looking at putting order in place, keep the peace, protect these kids and, furthermore, draw this guy out and find out what the hell is really going on in his head."

Excellent example of the lawyer "mind": both cannot be simultaneously true.

The lawyers listed in their injunction aliases used by McClellan, including: Peter John Hyland, Jack Hyland and John Hyland. They also name as "collective respondents" his Web sites, Stegl.org and Stegl.info, that feature photographs of children and information on where to find them.

I can produce any number of sites with photographs of children and information on where to find them...

In their injunction, Zinnanti and Patterson describe McClellan and his Web sites as: "Collecting and disseminating information on the whereabouts of minor children for the purpose of advocating pedophilia."

As far as I know, he wasn't informing where the children were going to be so that any of us could pass them pro-paed flyers, so that's false. And if it were true, it'd still be legal, and, as political speech, one would be inclined to believe untouchably legal.

About McClellan personally, they claim in their petition: "The activities of McClellan are undertaken for the purpose of promoting, advocating and undertaking lewd and lascivious conduct with non-consenting minor children, ranging from arousal by virtue of so-called legal 'cuddling' and 'touching' to inter-generational sexual contact for the purpose of McClellan's sexual gratification and the sexual gratification of those engaging in similar practices."

Interesting that they added the word "non-consenting"... Jack has never argued that. And I suppose they haven't as much as asked the children, either.

"With impunity, this guy lets you take his picture, put it on the front page and tells people 'I'm coming to take a picture of your little girl and I'm going to put that picture on a Web site and I'm going to let other sick people look at it.'

Right... so what are you doing about candid, hidden cam et al sites featuring adults???

"My primary concern here is that we have: A. a person who is psychotic and, B. he's a drug user and, C. he's acting out his prurient fantasies," Patterson said. "It doesn't take much of a psychology degree to know what happens next - that what he assumes is harmless action usually, quickly, escalates to physical action."

I am very sure all those adult women in the candid upskirts sites are in just as much danger - why aren't you doing anything??? Let every rape of an adult woman be on your conscience, then!!!!!