The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil,
but because of those who look on and do nothing.

~~~ Albert Einstein



Friday, August 31, 2007

Interesting.... (UPDATED)

(Scroll down for updates)
So much hype about Jack McClellan... it's hard to keep up with it all, but thankfully- I have a short cut- I just run by girlchat and see what all the pedophiles are complaining about and whining over. Today, there was a new (okay, ALMOST new) player in the game... although he's been a figure in the last few months of the "Jack Saga".

It's like a bad soap opera that the network just won't cancel.

Via GirlChat:


Index Classic Index Post a New Message Archive FAQ
To: GC - From: Anthony Zinnanti
Posted by BB on Friday, August 31 2007 at 01:04:33pm
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.
Hiya -

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. You’re 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
Telephone: 661.287.6100
Facsimile: 661.554.0197
E-Mail: adz@adzlaw.com


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.



-BB


I can't even start to respond to that.

So, moving on. Yesterday I was sicken to read a article by Judy McGuire of the Seattle Weekly. To be perfectly honest- someone should have found this woman MONTHS ago. She keeps a DateGirl column in the paper... although to be frank, I've only read two of her pieces, one yesterday and then another today.

from yesterday:

But about three years ago, I received a letter from a pedophile. This guy had written me many times before, mostly droning on about his hooker habit (he even had a Web site devoted to his hobby). His letters were super-creepy, and the intense, psychotic loathing he professed for the sex workers he regularly hired was so palpable, I wondered if he was a serial killer. But this particular letter was different. This time he told me he'd given up on banging pros and, instead, found himself increasingly drawn to little girls. Gulp.

He wrote, "I don't watch much adult TV anymore because I'm checking out the girls on Nick, Disney, etc. I don't consider myself a pedophile and believe that forcing my man-size penis into a girl-size vagina is an abusive and violent act. However, I see nothing wrong with loving, nurturing touch, like cuddling, kissing, massages, and stroking hair."


Yuck.

At the time, poor Judy didn't know who it was behind the signature "Uncircumcised"... other than someone who seemed to be annoyed that she failed to print previous letters he'd written her, and that he was clearly- sick. Now, years later- she is keenly aware of the fact that her letter writer was our "Pedophile Blogger" that's been in the news so very much.

Her piece yesterday mentioned that she finally did publish a letter from the anonymous writer... and I just couldn't help but try to find it.

Today, I did- I'll Be Taking a Bleach Shower Now, Thanks!.

Read the entire thing if you can take it, but here's a little preview of what he wrote:

I think I've always had this predilection but believe that my psychedelic drug use over the years has helped to liberate it from my subconscious.

Let's blame the drugs... it's always better to blame the drugs.
I'm afraid it might eventually progress beyond that—into Jacko-style sleepovers, showers, full-nude body contact, cunnilingus, etc.

So, even Jack has the same fears that the rest of us do- or at least at one time he did. Whether those fears have slipped away (I'm sure he'd blame drugs for that too) or they've become less of a fear, and more of a hope- we can't really tell. But, it does give us even more insight into the fact that Jack has long been sliding down a dangerous path... and at the end of it is an innocent child who will become his victim.

UPDATE:

On a "wow what a odd turn of events" update, I thought I would tell ya'll that Anthony Zinnanti has started posting at GirlChat. At this point, it seems his posts (not emails posted on there, but actual log in a post type stuff) is mostly focused on kissing ass. Here' a few of the finer comments he has made:

I completely agree that there is no harm from a pedophile admiring a child in a public venue. But, that's hardly what the case was/is about. The primary requested order of restraint was to restrain Jack from attending venues where the primary activity is children's services or entertainment where the attendance was for the purpose of surreptitiously taking photos of minors and publishing them under the guise of pedophilia. ENTIRE POST



Here's the unseen point - a lot of people were seriously angry with the authorities. This presented a dangerous situation. People here were talking about killing Jack. The issue with the authorities arises from an "us versus them" approach. The people here in Santa Clarita were very frustrated and the place - being the breeding factory that it is - has a jillion kids running around. So, when Jack stated that he would come back here, it created a real mob mentality.
[...]
I didn't harbor any ill feelings toward Jack until the UCLA incident. Even then, it was more of a nuisance than any kind of anger. However, when the possible - and I stress "possible" - connection to Adre'anna Jackson's murder was made, I went through the roof. It didn't look good for Jack because of all the things that were being said - by him. Post Here.


And:

I think this subject is tremendously important. To bury it would be wrong. I know that a lot of people that supported me through the Jack case will now reverse their position. Frankly, I really don't care. I'm not running for office, nor do I ever intend to.

This issue exists on a great spectrum of beliefs and cultural practices. It's unfortunate that even the prospect of dialogue give rise to a witch hunt. Here


His chosen nickname? media-gagged.