Court orders self-described pedophile to avoid California kids

[superconnected]

Source: Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) - A self-described pedophile from Washington state who says he is attracted to young girls but doesn't actually molest them was ordered Friday to stay at least 30 feet away from every person under age 18 in California.

The temporary restraining order was issued against Jack McClellan by Superior Court Judge Melvin Sandvig, who also scheduled an Aug. 24 hearing to discuss the matter further. McClellan, who was not in court, told The Associated Press he didn't learn of Friday's hearing in time to attend.

"That was granted? Oh man, I didn't think it would be," McClellan said, adding he believed such an order would be an unconstitutional restriction of his rights.

The order, which doesn't take effect until it is served, was obtained by attorneys Anthony Zinnanti and Richard Patterson, both parents of young children.


Read more: http://www.komotv.com/news/8901002.html

---

This is just a wierd and hot button issue item.

Do we persecute people for thought crimes? This man is not someone I would want near my nieces. Even if he isn't a ped, he's wierd. He's clearly marginalized. Still, I don't think they should persecute someone who may commit a crime. It's different if they are in the act of comitting a crime.

When we get into 'may commit a crime', it carries over to all crimes and not just pedophilia.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. The guy is repulsive but he hasn't commited any crimes.

Or at least he hasn't been charged with or convicted of any crimes. I suspect that this order will not survive a legal challenge.

[MADem]

2. Well, ya don't yell fire in a crowded theater, either.

His repeated pronouncements might make parents living near this cretin to become fearful.

"Doesn't ACTUALLY molest them?"

I dunno, it's like someone in your neighborhood, aiming a weapon at you, but they don't ACTUALLY intend to shoot it. Don't be NERVOUS, now--he's just THINKING about shooting you--he's not 'ACTUALLY' gonna do it.

Fuck him. I have no sympathy for his 'thought crime' argument. That may be unpopular here, but too bad. We're talking about CHILDREN.

[superconnected]

9. Actually I have lots of sympathy for the thought crime argument but

I agree with you.

It's more than a thought crime if he's building websites and photographing kids.

[MADem]

15. He can think what he wants about adults. So long as he's not thinking and

writing about real people, because then you could come up with a virtual stalking argument. Certainly, you wouldn't like someone observing you, photographing you, and posting your picture with salacious commentary about what some cretin "thought" onlline--particularly if you are a private individual. Jerry Falwell's mother in the outhouse is one thing, Freddie or Susie Schmuckatelli who live quietly down the lane are another.

When it's kids, though--unh, unh. No way never--I draw an absolute line. Public OR private. I'd invoke that vague "community standards" argument if that's all I could use. Or maybe we can sic a couple hundred young softball players, armed with bats, on this guy to smack the loving shit out of him. That might do the trick....

[Fenris]

3. Should we just wait until he rapes and murders a young girl, then?

I think it would probably be little comfort to the parents of pedophilia/pederasty victims to know that this man's right to hang out at soccer fields, take pictures of young girls, and then post them on the internet for other pedophiles to ogle was not infringed by anything as frivolous as the desire to protect children from a potential sex offender.

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

4. I suspect he's a 'self-described' perv

because he also has a masochistic martyr complex--he wants people to know this about him so he can get his jollies when they tell him he's a perv.

[sandnsea]

5. Is he just making money?

Does his web site make money? Is it illegal to talk shit to make money? This really is a difficult case. Are there conspiracy charges that could be made? A temporary restraining order is okay I suppose, in order to get more information and a thorough examination of the laws that may apply.

[slackmaster]

6. 30 feet? I guess he's not going to Disneyland.

[mcscajun]

13. Disneyland? This guy can't go to the Supermarket. Try living in America

and being 30 feet away from everyone under 18 at all times. Maybe if you live in the mountains of Montana, or somewhere in Alaska, but sure as hell not in California.

I think the restraining order will be struck down well before the 24th.

[slackmaster]

14. Too bad there doesn't seem to be any crime he can be charged with

His actions clearly create increased opportunities for practicing pedophiles to victimize children.

[LisaL]

22. The problem is, it seems to be very hard to come up with laws

to make it illegal for this guy to do what he is doing, without making into criminal, for instance, a parent who posts a photo of his/her kid on the internet to share with others what cute kid he/she got.

[demigoddess]

59. I think it would be the fact that he posts the pictures on a website.

That part should be illegal, as in facilitating a crime. or interstate porn or something.

[LIVESIPOG]

40. Your subject line Just reminded me of this.

Did you catch the program a year or two ago about people who traffic children for sex slaves ? They were delivering them to customers right inside Disney World and Disney Land. If I remember correctly, the ones they tracked on the tv program had the kids wearing yellow shirts to identify them to the customers. I have never heard yet if this practice has stopped either. Then again, it doesnt seem like Americans are to worried about human trafficking as it happens on a daily basis and to thousands of young children everywhere. Typical though, out of sight, out of mind, no one cares about it. And, the fact there is a shit load of money made in the business. So just like Drugs, the congress is only vocal on stopping it.

[bluestateguy]

7. I think a restraining order is warranted

He has admitted to being a pedophile and that creates a reasonable concern with allowing him around places where large numbers of kids would congregate

[AngryAmish]

49. It is not a crime to be a pedophile

Many years ago it was a crime to be a narcotics addict. This was found to be unconstitutional because while it may be a crime to possess or purchase narcotics, just really liking them is not a crime.

Constitutional jurisprudence has changed somewhat since the 1962 (Robinson v. California). I think our current Supreme Court will find this sort of thing ok.

[glowing]

8. So, I suppose we should have put this into effect for every man

who was counting down the days until Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan were of age?

How does this man do anythng? He can't even go grocery shopping. I'm not defending pedophilic tendencies... personally, I'd be afraid for my own children...this is such a weird subject. Its obviously something psychological. I don't even know how we begin to address these types of issues... You want to protect the innocent, but you don't want to violate a person's individual liberties.

[superconnected]

11. Still this it the waving a gun argument.

This guy is waving the gun.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. ...

[superconnected]

12. you win the car.

That's why I posted it.

Btw, I supect this guy loves attention and we are going to hear more from him. But. I don't think I'd put it passed him to go all the way for attention, if nothing else.

[DetlefK]

16. If we start here on thought crimes, where will it end?

He sees a underage girl and thinks about having sex with her. -> thought crime
An angry teenager thinks about killing somebody. -> Ohmygod, he's gonna run amok! Arrest him!
A guy thinks about killing his neighbors dog, because it barks all night. -> How brutal!
A guy goes to a club. He sees a hot woman. She is obviously not interested in him. Nevertheless he thinks about having sex with her. -> Ohmygod! He's gonna rape her.

YOU think about overthrowing the government of the magnificent president George W. Bush (by force if necessary, if you are honest). -> That thought crime would get you to Guantanamo or worse.

McClellan is a pervert. Period. So what? Everybody has thoughts that would make him a pervert for someone else. ("You eat meat? How cruel!" "You use handcuffs during sex?" "You prefer asian women in leather?")

He hasn't committed any crime yet. It's unknown whether he will ever commit a crime. It's also unknown whether YOU will ever commit a crime, that would seriously harm somebody innocent and get you to jail.

[superconnected]

18. That's the one I'm always worried about

"YOU think about overthrowing the government of the magnificent president George W. Bush (by force if necessary, if you are honest). -> That thought crime would get you to Guantanamo or worse."

I don't plan to do it, althought I think about it so it's exactly why I feel strongly against trying thoughts as crimes.

I'd get the dp for what I'd love to happen to Bush, Chainey, Rogue and Sleeza

[LisaL]

20. Well, he isn't just thinking.

Doesn't he have that website?
I mean, you can think of killing someone all you want but if you start telling people you want to kill someone that could actually get you arrested.
So, once you start talking about your thoughts that could get you into trouble.

[sandnsea]

23. No, you have to have means and opportunity

Just saying you'd like to 'kill that guy" is not enough to get you arrested, not even if you said it about Bush. Has to be a true threat and intent to carry it out.

[LisaL]

24. I don't think so.

[sandnsea]

25. And?

:shrug:

[Maddy McCall]

30. You're wrong.

I ask you to recall Neal Horsley and the "Nuremberg Files" anti-abortion website. Horsley didn't kill anyone, but his website was shut down, and he was ordered to pay plaintiffs over $100 million, because his website INCITED people to kill (even though there was no order to murder on the website).

The nuremberg website provided doctors' names and addresses...just as McClellan's website provides photos and adresses of places to "watch" little girls.

[sandnsea]

31. That was a civil suit

Were criminal charges brought against him? I don't remember that he was ever arrested for a crime. I thought a clinic sued him for invasion of privacy. I imagine if he were taking pictures outside a day care, then the day care could do the same. Still, Horsley's web site was targeting specific individuals, I don't think that is true of this pedophile guy. If they can find something to charge him on, that would be great. Endangering a child or something maybe. It's creepy what he's doing.

[LanternWaste]

55. However, aren't the varying degrees of murder...

However, aren't the varying degrees of murder (manslaughter-1 up to murder-3) all based, part and parcel on intentions? And isn't prosecuting someone based on intent merely another sobriquet for the trendy term, "thought crime"?

[Lint Head]

17. I bet he's a replubican.

:dem:

[evilkumquat]

19. I Have Two Children, and I Still Think This is Wrong

My kids are four and six and while I love them dearly, and while of course I do not like the idea of pedophiles ogling them, issuing such a restrictive restraining order on someone who has never actually committed a crime worries me more than any number of 'potential' child molesters living in my neighborhood (of which there are a few according to the local sexual-offender database).

If our government is allowed the right to persecute its citizens for crimes they "might" commit, that puts the country that much closer to full dictatorship, where people who speak out against Administration crimes are actually arrested (and possibly executed) because anyone who disagrees with our government could one day pull a Timothy McVeigh-inspired act of domestic terrorism.

I am so sick of civil rights being abused because of knee-jerk reactions to "potential" threats against children! How many times has a man had his life ruined because his bitter, jealous wife leveled false charges of "molestation" to get her way? For most people, the CHARGE of child molestation alone is enough to consider the accused guilty "just in case"; that it is far better for a man to be ostracized unjustly to make absolute certain that children are kept safe! What about the accused's rights? And why are children's lives so much more valuable than adults' lives? Just because they are under eighteen, violent or sexual attacks against them are just as bad as attacks against equally-helpless adults.

And before anyone attacks me with the classic "but how would you feel if it was YOUR daughter who was raped and murdered" argument (which is also used by those who support capital punishment against those who do not), my answer is this: I hope my convictions are strong enough to withstand the harshest testing.

Evil Kumquat

PS. If you think about it logically, is it not better that someone who has pedophiliacal fantasies be open about it rather than all those hundreds of thousands of perverts out there whom no one suspects? Hell, if this guy is open about it without being punished for his thoughts, maybe that will encourage more of them to come out of the pervo-closet (not the same as the one in which homosexuals hide- for starters, it is not nearly as well decorated) and seek help BEFORE they attack a child in a sexually-frustrated fit of sweaty desperation.

[LisaL]

21. Yep, that is all this country needs- more perverts coming out

of their closets. Right.

[Fenris]

26. These are not the accusations of a bitter wife.

This man has admitted on camera that he is a pedophile, and that he doesn't think there's anything wrong with going to public places, taking pictures of underaged girls for the purpose of sexual gratification, and then posting said photographs on the internet for other sick individuals to ogle and use for their sexual gratification. This is not an accusation - this is what he himself has admitted to a television crew.

And no, I do not think you can dismiss attacks on children as being of the same magnitude as attacks on adults. With that logic, you could argue that child labor isn't any worse than adult labor, and that laws against child labor create some imaginary differentiation between adults and children that doesn't exist. The truth of the matter is that our society views child labor as an abhorrent practice, and our laws tend to reflect that. Children are innocent and have not been exposed to many of the brutalities of the world. Therefore, we tend to view attacks on children - especially sexual attacks - as being worse than attacks on adults.

[evilkumquat]

27. I Know :)

I was just using the "bitter wife" as an example.

You make a very valid point by comparing the gravity of sexual abuses against children to other crimes (e.g., labor law violations), but what I was shooting for (and admittedly, possibly missing) is that it is getting very old seeing adults treated badly because of supposed dangers to children.

The pervo in question is obviously an extreme example, but nevertheless, adults in this country are expected (at best) to make changes in their behavior or (at worst) suffer extreme penalties in a zealous effort to shield children from the "evils" of the world.

It is like people who go out of their way to "childproof" their house: they put plastic plugs in all the outlets, locks on all the cabinets, padding on every sharp corner, etc. They also take extreme measures to block all profanity from their child's delicate ears: putting parental locks on certain television channels, nanny-software for online browsing, and a "swear jar" on the fireplace mantle. Suddenly, the parents are living in their own baby-safe prison and even the most mundane chore is made extremely inconvenient. Just to do dishes now the parent has to perform a complex series of finger movements to unlock the cabinet under the sink to get the dish soap, while entering in a complex code on their television remote to unlock a channel (and disabling the V-chip just in case something violent or sexual starts playing), then having to stop what they are doing, wiping their hands dry and putting a quarter in the swear jar for telling that electric skillet to go fuck itself because the caked-on grease is too hard to chip off after sitting out for two days on the counter by the stove. Would it not be simpler to leave the house the way it was before the child arrived and simply swat the kid on the ass when it tries to touch an outlet or sample the gooey poisoned goodies under the sink? Would it not save a lot of hassle to just smack the child across the lips for copying Daddy's way of speech when the goddamned Cubs fucked it up for yet another year rather than channel all that rage inward and make that ulcer bleed just a little more just to make sure that certain words never enter the child's lexicon (even though once they hit kindergarten other kids are going to cram every one of Carlin's Seven Words into their skulls like Oxycotin up Limbaugh's ass)?

To digress slightly: why should a video game I like be banned for its violent or sexual imagery because some adults feel that such material could damage a few children if exposed to it? What about my rights to be able to purchase this game from my local department store instead of being forced to order it online because said department store was blackmailed to drop the product due to a boycott frenzy started by a certain parental organization?

I do not mean to cheapen child sexual abuse by comparing it to playing games like the Grand Theft Auto series- far from it; but I want to illustrate what I see as a huge problem in this country whereby the civil liberties of many adults are being unfairly infringed by those who are more concerned with hiding bad things from the eyes of children than whether our First Amendment rights are protected and enjoyed by citizens across the board.

Again, the guy we are talking about is sick, and it is obvious (and almost forgivable) for the authorities to act in the manner in which they did. Unfortunately, he did not commit any crime, though he has been punished almost as if he had been convicted of one.

That is just too slippery of a slope for this country to ski down for my comfort. I would rather stick to the bunny trail and keep a better eye on my kids.

Evil Kumquat

[Maddy McCall]

29. Astonished that DUers are defending him.

The guy has a "How to" website, on how to be a molestor. It's disgusting.

I remember when websites were shut down because anti-abortionists put up a photo of an abortion provider, with a "wanted" type caption. The doctor ended up dead, shot by someone who was spurred on by that "wanted" photo, and the website was shut down and the website owner sued (a suit he lost). How is this guy, who advocates pedophilia and molestation (but claims not to be a molestor), any different from the anti-abortionist who advocated murder (though he didn't commit it himself)?

[Warren Stupidity]

33. I am not defending him, I am against punishing people for

non-criminal behavior. If he has broken a law, arrest him, try him, punish him. If he hasn't then leave him alone. If you think he is going to break a law, keep an eye on him.

[Maddy McCall]

28. Have you defenders seen his website??

http://web.archive.org/web/20060527140702/http://stegl.org/index.html

Above is the link to the Seattle "Girl Love" website that's since been shut down, since he recently moved to the Los Angeles area. He has a new website, but I don't know where it is, and I'm not going to search for it.

The link above was provided on the www.jackmcclellan.com website, which was started by a father as a McClellan watchdog website.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. No law broken.

It seems he does not act on his published ideas. There is no crime there. Were there one I am rather sure he would be arrested for it. If we can punish people for thoughts we don't like 'because of the children' where exactly does that end?

Arrest the creep when he breaks the law.

[Fenris]

34. How to you keep tabs on a guy who lives in his car?

[Warren Stupidity]

38. You follow him.

This is what we pay the police for, to keep tabs on dubious people and catch them if they commit a crime.

[Fenris]

45. I'm willing to wager that the LAPD lacks the resources to follow this guy contantly.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. Why?

If he represents a clear and present danger to the community that merits this most unusual restraining order then certainly the LAPD can spare the 2-3 detectives needed to monitor his activities for a couple of weeks. They certainly do this for other suspected bad guys they think are up to something. Perhaps pedophilia just isn't as high a priority as the war on drugs we don't like?

[GeniusLib]

36. Are you also against restraining orders for individuals who threaten their wife/girlfriend?

It's the same thing. They haven't committed a crime yet but the courts are trying to do everything in their power to protect the potential victims and prevent a crime, the same as here.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. It is a bizarre restraining order.

Generally a restraining order is issued based on the request of an individual for protection by the court from another individual, based on substantiated allegations of a threat of physical or emotional abuse. This is a peculiar sort of 'class action restraining order' where no specific person has been identified as threatened, nor has a specific person petioned the court for protection. Because of that it seems to me to amount to punishment absent an actual crime. The creep is being punished as a sex offender without having committed any sex offenses. I continue to have a problem with the legal issue here. It is punishment before the crime. I rather doubt it will survive a legal challenge.

[TheMadMonk]

44. Has he threatened to commit an actual crime?

Does he encourage others to commit crimes?

Paedophilic and ephebophilic desires are far more common than most of us would like to admit. Particularly the latter. Virtually all males can be "turned on" by girls (or boys) in their teens, particularly if they allow themselves to "zone out", say watching high school cheerleaders on TV. Does this mean that virtually all males are a risk to your teenaged kids?

You only have to look at the evolution of the pornography industry on the Internet to get an idea of how ubiquitous these "perversions" are. In the beginning everything was right out in the open, if you wanted it, you could find it. Then people realised the hand over fist commercial possibilities of "on demand" pornography and started selling it online and the law started to take proper notice. And even then the industry ran (and runs) ahead of the law, only grudgingly giving way to settle on the generally accepted norm of the age of simple majority, eighteen, for anything overtly sexual and whatever they can get away with in the way of underwear, swimsuit and costume "modeling" for younger subjects.

Men and women fantasise and every one of them has a fantasy which will make someone else's toenail's curl. So what if they keep it in their minds or share only words and innocuous pictures with other like minded consenting adults? The actions and the hurt they cause, is the only metric by which we should "punish" someone who's thoughts stray too far outside the accepted norms, no matter what direction that straying takes.

Does this bloke give instructions on how to entice or compel a child to act inappropriately? If so throw the book at him. My cursory examination of the archived Seattle site suggests his "crime" is telling people who do look, how to be seen to be keeping their hands to themselves.

Here's one "out there" thought. One of the reasons our children are no longer safe in parks is the lack of dirty old men on the benches trying to see up their skirts. Laws and fear of punishment will always affect the most timid and the least harmful first. Who takes their place?

[Fierce]

35. I don't care if it is or not.

I wish people would stop giving him attention, though.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Endangered Specie]

41. I don't really see whats wrong...

I mean, people are issued restraining orders even though they haven't 'committed a crime'.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Endangered Specie]

43. is it even possible for psychological treatment to 'help' pedos?

[ohio2007]

46. the restraining order is only temporary so he can be allowed within 30 ft of little girls again.

Because he really hasn't molested them in the past............. the state will see to his health in the meantime,
right?







he deserves a second chance in California but why are they so skimpy on his Washington state past?

Guess a jury will someday decide that eh?


/sarc

[AngryAmish]

50. How restraining orders work:

This restraining order was obtained via a petition from a person who felt in danger from this person (actually the father of a child who stands in the shoes of their child, but I digress).

Due process means everybody gets a right to defend themselves. Because the court this was a clear and present danger situation the order was granted without this perv being there. However, he must be served with the restraining order in order for it to be in effect. You can't go to jail for violating a restraining order you are not aware of.

After service there must be a hearing on whether or not the order is just and if this guy really is a danger. So far the judge has only heard on side of this.

A jury will never decide if this is a just restraining order. Restraining orders rests with the court's chancery powers so no right to jury trials there.

[jberryhill]

51. okay that's a little weird, too....

actually the father of a child who stands in the shoes of their child

And he does this... why?

[AngryAmish]

52. Because the child is a minor

It could be the mother, father or guardian (not just fathers). Minors have a legal disability of representing themselves in court.

[jberryhill]

53. Ummm... I'm not sure how to say this....

But I was just having a bit of fun with the phrase.

[AngryAmish]

56. I didn't get it

I'm stupid...

[ohio2007]

48. You mean like live in partner or spousal abuse types ?

Restraining orders only seem to show up in murder trials.

well, not all but a few trials. Some restraining orders are denied due to lack of evidence while some victims are not aware of the legal system that is supposed to protect them in he first place.


Like underaged girls in public places for example

[EClark5483]

54. Did you guys actually read the article?

If you read down a bit, you see the following:

For years, McClellan maintained a Web site in Washington where he posted photos of children he'd taken in public places. He also discussed how he liked to stake out parks, public libraries, fast-food restaurants and other areas where little girls, or "LGs," congregate

Took pictures of kids? To me that is showing intent, and in this case, I believe the restraining order should hold up. He is not guilty of a thought crime, true, but he is showing intent.

[meow2u3]

57. Only California kids off limits to the perv?! WTH?!

So does that mean this creep can approach kids from other states? Sure sounds like it. :wtf:

[bamacrat]

58. Until he does something it's just a thought.

Thoughts can be powerful and controlling if not dealt with properly. I hope this guy never acts on his thoughts, and should probably seek some kind of help. That should have been part of the restraining order, that he be required to seek counseling.