Stu News and Photos

Not too long ago, I started blogging about the case of one Jack McClellan and his self-professed pedophilia. I've written a few follow-up essays here, and I've not been bashful about how I feel about the situation and what should be done. I've also been very careful to acknowledge that I am not a lawyer, and aside from one semester of "Sexual Discrimination And The Law" that I took back in high school, I've received no formal legal education. I'm just a guy with some brains and the ability to read.

Well, a very cool thing happened, something that bloggers love as much as a grilled cheese sandwich on garlic bread: I got an anonymous comment from someone who challenged my views. Is it Hanukkah already?!?

Here's the link to the post and the comment, but to save you time, and because I just feel like reprinting it, here's the comment and my response:

At August 17, 2007 9:34 AM, run Zimmani out of town said...

The restraining order is invalid. It will never withstand legal challenge. Anthony Zinnanti is using his child to promote his law practice. Shame on him.



At August 17, 2007 10:02 AM, Stu said...

An open letter to "run Zimmani out of town",

Ok, this is fun for me, so if I experience too much glee and milk forcibly is ejected from my nostrils, please use a Bounty paper towel to clean me up, as they are the best on the market.

Dear I-don't-have-the-balls-to-use-a-real-name-and-email-address,

First, and believe me it was hard to decide which would be first, the restraining order has already withstood legal challenge, as it exists. When a restraining order is applied for, it isn't like getting life insurance at the airport... A judge reviews it. A prosecutor reviews it. The representatives of the bar take an oath to fulfill their duties to the utmost, to not be swayed by personal feelings. So of course it has already been legally challenged.

I believe you mean to suggest that the restraining order against Jack McClellan will not stand *further* or *more extensive* legal challenge. That is certainly up for debate, as our upper-level judicial system is filled to the brim with folks who were bought and paid for by the lobbies of big oil, big tobacco, big guns, etc.

However, let's examine your hypothesis (in which you failed to supply evidence to support your theory) - We have a human here, an adult male who has been unflinching in his pronouncement of his desire to molest little girls. Assuming that these claims are not an elaborate hoax (jury's still out on that one), allow us a moment to break down the essence of this fact: If I have a weapon, say a gun, and it's legally registered and I am in lawful possession of it, I am allowed to keep it at home or at sanctioned locations. I am not allowed to carry it out in public, yelling "Boy, I sure would love to shoot people, I tell you what!" That is against the law, and that law has stood plenty of legal challenge, and has stood strong.

Now, change "gun" to "penis and hands" and "shoot people" to "molest little girls" and you've got yourself an incredibly similar ballgame. Do you truly believe that any community would allow a self-acknowledged pedophile to get closer than 30 feet to a minor?

Thanks, and good luck to you,

Stu