Tony Zinnanti sent the follow to the moderators address. While we are normally not a messenger service, I feel that he brings up points that deserve to be posted and refuted here.
Also, this will be the last such posting on his behalf. I have suggested that he register a nick and post here directly since he seems to have so much to say to our community. He's responded that he will register later today.
This e-mail is posted with his consent.
How come no one over there ever asked to see the pleadings and orders in the Jack McClellan case? There's a lot of talk and zero questioning as to what really went on. Do you folks believe everything you see in the media? Did you know that I was just fucking with you when I said on CNN that we "thoroughly infiltrated" your blogs and chat rooms. I looked at GC once before saying that.
Let that be a lesson. I was seeing if you would react.
The other irony is that I never even requested that Jack be kept away from kids. It was mentioned in passing, but my proposed order stated that he should be restrained from going to events where the purpose of attendance was surreptitiously taking photos of minors and publishing such photos under the guise of pedophilia. Basically, it was a false light (defamation) and public disclosure of private facts (invasion of privacy) argument.
Also, I have to tell you that I'm disappointed. I corresponded with Lindsay Ashford. Further, I read a thread now and then (just to see if anyone's out to rape the kid - which was stated on another board). She understands the media game. So, she's not bugged by the personal slights, etc. It's the bug on the windshield.
Where the serious dialogue about pedophilia and trans-generational sexual contact? Here, for example, is an interesting and benchmark paper on the issue: http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/nelson.htm . There is a swath of social and cultural practices well outside of the very artifically imposed age of consent laws that are practiced throughout the world. Why does the board devolve into bitchy snipes rather than some serious conversation? And, this is the so called open minded crowd.
All I get are "statistically" this or "statistically" that.
[edit - paragraph removed]
What a fucken hoot. I caught so much shit from the soccer moms when I went to bat for Jack after the Steve Wilkos taping. They lynch a mentally ill guy on stage. What a horrible fucken thing to do with a human being. But, Jack doesn't help himself. He keeps blabbing to the media and finally implicates himself in this murder case. While a lot of his behavior can be explained by virtue of his mental illness, he is an enigma. He has moments of brilliance. He is tenacious. He is engaging and brutally honest and I think he found some form of society in this crowd. On the other hand, it appears that a lot of people here could give a fuck about Jack McClellan as he is the dance boy for the crowd.
Most people - here and in the general public - have no idea of what happened over the last month. It's very ironic that the very crowd that is so critical of mainstream media is so readily accepting of it as the gospel truth.
Start asking questions and stop giving speeches. Those with little more than bitchy snipes are . . . the bug on the windshield. Youre a snotty mess, but you'll never impact the landscape.
The GL crowd had a golden opportunity to present its point of view. People were listening. What happens? You attack a kid. What a cluster fuck.
Many of our laws are ridiculous. For example, in terms of art - what gets put into a photograph is illegal; but if it a rendition in paint, charcoal, pen, etc. it's okay. So, the media of expression protects the child? What kind of crap is that? Further, who is to judge what is art and whose art is worthwhile? No one. Accordingly, the benchmark for legality should be set at the place of harm to the child.
Further, many age of consent laws are a disaster waiting to happen (many of which have unfortunately occurred). While the age of consent is probably low for most to tolerate, the Canadian scheme of age of consent is more realistic than California's draconian age of 18 years. Ironically, in California, in a divorce case, a child can express their preference for which parent to live with if they are "of such age and maturity" to do so. "Such age and maturity" can be four, six, nine or 17. It depends on the kid. Conversely, an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old subjects that 18 year old to potential serious criminal consequences.
By not engaging in the dialogue, you are solidifying the very antiquated, stodgy, unrealistic and cold Victorian ethic you seek to combat. There are tremendous cultural and legal questions that need to be addressed in this arena. Pedophilia has been a theme in civilization since there was civilization. Don't you think it warrants lucid dialogue?
Well, carry on. If there was some serious discussion going on, I would join the party. But, we'll have to see.
The mainstay of my practice is criminal defense. Try and imagine the issues and personalities I deal with on a daily basis. Bianca has been there for much of it. So, a little taste of the real world hardly hurts.
Okay - bitchy snipes or something of substance? Ball is in your court . . .
Anthony D. Zinnanti, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY D. ZINNANTI
A Professional Law Corporation
23822 W. Valencia Blvd, Ste 210
Valencia, California 91355-5349
There you have it. Hopefully he will be on later today to respond to your criticisms (as I'm sure there are many). Note that I have removed only one paragraph from this e-mail and that's because it dove into personal aspects of Jack's life that he has not chosen to share publicly with this community.