Jack McClellan - Legal Pedophile

[EGarrett]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIt3x5Fb7-0

I'm shocked that I never saw this video before. Somehow this man is not in prison.

[Katana]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIt3x5Fb7-0

I'm shocked that I never saw this video before. Somehow this man is not in prison.


It is no doubt disturbing, but of what crime is he guilty? Even the judge on Faux News admits that he has not done anything illegal.

[casebro]

Hey, if what NAMBLA does is legal, what's wrong with a NAMGLA? I'd bet it would have a bigger, more robust, member-ship.

[Miss Anthrope]

Ahh, yes this has been a very hot local story around my parts. There are parents stalking him now, showing his picture at events and such. What I find frightening about this individual is that he is lacking the part of his brain that says "don't go public about your desires, and don't act on them".

[EGarrett]

It is no doubt disturbing, but of what crime is he guilty? Even the judge on Faux News admits that he has not done anything illegal.It seems like he's abetting (encouraging and assisting) felons.

[EGarrett]

Hey, if what NAMBLA does is legal, what's wrong with a NAMGLA? I'd bet it would have a bigger, more robust, member-ship.That's a good point. What exactly does NAMBLA do, anyway? Do they simply advocate changing the pedophilia law? There's nothing wrong with advocating that...though the whole concept is creepy.

[petra10]

No no no this is so wrong I dont care if its legal or not it is sick.We should be protecting our children not letting evil people prey on them.The though of my daughter's picture being on this web-site with perverts oggling her fills me with disgust.

[Miss Anthrope]

That's a good point. What exactly does NAMBLA do, anyway? Do they simply advocate changing the pedophilia law? There's nothing wrong with advocating that...though the whole concept is creepy.


They advocate abolishing age of consent laws completely. They also promote the "acceptance of intergenerational sexual relationships", meaning, they want to normalize having sex with very young boys.

[Miss Anthrope]

No no no this is so wrong I dont care if its legal or not it is sick.We should be protecting our children not letting evil people prey on them.The though of my daughter's picture being on this web-site with perverts oggling her fills me with disgust.

Yeah, it's been real fun having a beautiful young girl around these parts lately, let me tell you. This guy is lacking in all sense. He has no problem keeping up this website, even when his identity has been revealed. This makes me think the leap to offending outright is not very far for him. What really makes me sick is people are out there reading his "tips". How dangerous are these people?

[ChristineR]

NAMBLA is pretty wimpy. The sex-with-girls people have a much bigger web presence.

petra10, if you allow your daughter to go out in a public place, you have to acknowledge the possibility of perverts ogling her. And as for Jack, his site appears to be down, and people are following him around with cameras and then posting the pictures to their websites.

Myself, I'm a big advocate of only prosecuting people for actual crimes. The guy is clearly messed up in many ways. There are many people out there doing a much better job of preying on children. This guy will be lucky if he even gets within 10 feet of a child again.

[ConkerTheSquirrel]

The sites you had linked to are discussing illegal behaviour so should not be linked to from this site - it is a breach of Rule 1.

[ChristineR]

Well, I actually found the website on wayback. It's extremely lame. It would be a lame website about cooking if the guy were into cooking. There's almost no pictures, and those that are there have the faces obscured. There are lots of links to pictures of girls from newspapers, movies, etc., but mostly it's incoherent rants about such important topics as drugs and what the night sky looks like in rural areas.

I didn't find anything I'd call how-to information. Links to local roller rinks, yes. Oh, and a lot of links to laws. Links to Barney.

He's a creep and some sort of deranged narcissist, but I haven't seen evidence that he's been caught doing anything illegal.

Conker's sites, especially the first one, are far more disturbing.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Um, aren't all pedophiles legal? It's the molesters that are illegal.

[geni]

Yeah, it's been real fun having a beautiful young girl around these parts lately, let me tell you. This guy is lacking in all sense. He has no problem keeping up this website, even when his identity has been revealed. This makes me think the leap to offending outright is not very far for him. What really makes me sick is people are out there reading his "tips". How dangerous are these people?

Probably less dangerous than some of those who are rather less open.

[MelBrooksfan]

Yeah, it's been real fun having a beautiful young girl around these parts lately, let me tell you. This guy is lacking in all sense. He has no problem keeping up this website, even when his identity has been revealed. This makes me think the leap to offending outright is not very far for him. What really makes me sick is people are out there reading his "tips". How dangerous are these people?

Who's hosting his site? Shoot them an e-mail. They may not take too kindly to the content of his site if they get enough e-mails about it.

[ChristineR]

His site has been down for months, and he's been run out of town.

[billydkid]

I remember the first time I ever heard of NAMBLA. I thought it was a joke. I thought these people could not really be serious. How could there possibly really be such an organization. With the advent of the internet you become exposed to tons of things you could not possibly have imagined. There are a number of things, when I first encountered them, I couldn't possibly believe they were real or true. The world is stranger even than we can imagine.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Judge Slaps Publicity-Seeking Pedophile With Restraining Order (http://www.technewsworld.com/story/c6zrFiazgWTwHz/Judge-Slaps-Publicity-Seeking-Pedophile-With-Restraining-Order.xhtml)

Jack McClellan, the self-professed pedophile who has attracted international attention for his Web site with pictures of kids and tips for other pedophiles, is now barred from coming closer than 30 feet of any minor in California.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Melvin Sandvig on Friday placed a temporary restraining order against McClellan, who admits he is attracted to young girls but has never been arrested for any related crime.

Under the order, McClellan is also forbidden to contact any child under the age of 18 in any way, including e-mail and messaging; he may not loiter in areas where children congregate, such as parks and playgrounds; and he may not photograph or videotape any child without written parental consent, according to the Los Angeles courts public information office.

An Aug. 24 hearing is scheduled to examine the matter further.

Very cool aritcle, featuring a kick[Rule8] judge.

[GodMark2]

Very cool aritcle, featuring a kick[Rule8] judge.

Cool article, yes. Cool judge?
However, many legal experts predict the order won't stand up in court.

<snip>

Whereas restraining orders generally bar someone from having contact with a particular person, this one "is tantamount to house arrest," Volokh said. "There is no way anyone can organize their life to make sure they stay 10 yards away from all minors at all times, and they certainly can't even go to court to challenge it."

The temporary restraining order was also given without McClellan's even being notified that there was a hearing, Volokh added.

Slapped with a restraining order without being able to present his case? Indeed, without any law itself being broken?

I shudder to think of the world that could be created when a judge can sentence you, without requiring any crime, without hearing your case.

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIt3x5Fb7-0

I'm shocked that I never saw this video before. Somehow this man is not in prison.

This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.

Interesting note from youtube on the link you posted.

Ever take a class in ethics?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Cool article, yes. Cool judge?
Slapped with a restraining order without being able to present his case? Indeed, without any law itself being broken?

I shudder to think of the world that could be created when a judge can sentence you, without requiring any crime, without hearing your case.
Minority Report for fifty, Alex. :mad:

DR

[chulbert]

Ahh, yes this has been a very hot local story around my parts. There are parents stalking him now, showing his picture at events and such. What I find frightening about this individual is that he is lacking the part of his brain that says "don't go public about your desires, and don't act on them".

Are you implying that he has acted upon them?

[Darat]

Are you implying that he has acted upon them?

He apparently did - he'd created a website to advocate his desires.

[JJR]

He was dressed like a witch on the news. Cross dressing all in black with a wide brimmed day-hater witch hat.

That's just creepy.

[GodMark2]

He was dressed like a witch on the news. Cross dressing all in black with a wide brimmed day-hater witch hat.

That's just creepy.

True, but luckily for me, "creepy" isn't a crime.

[Checkmite]

Cool article, yes. Cool judge?


Slapped with a restraining order without being able to present his case? Indeed, without any law itself being broken?

I shudder to think of the world that could be created when a judge can sentence you, without requiring any crime, without hearing your case.

How familiar are you with restraining orders? They're meant to be pre-emptive.

Though, I see it as largely unnecessary. So many people are keeping tabs on this idiot, he'd never be able to make a move on a kid.

[Garrette]

How familiar are you with restraining orders? They're meant to be pre-emptive.Pre-emptive based on actions, not speech.

They are also not meant to be a substitute for imprisonment which this TRO virtually is.

They also are not supposed to be issued absent a request from an aggrieved party. The article mentions none. Did this judge simply get wind of McClellan and act on his own? If so, he needs to be slapped down hard, imo.

[LostAngeles]

So I flip to the UCLA homepage because I lost all my bookmarks recently and I want to see if a department had it's schedule for the year posted like my department does and I see this:

"UCLA police arrest pedophile advocate; he's later released on own recognizance...more"

Yeah. It's Jack McClellan.

http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/zippdf/2007/mcClellan.pdf

He was arrested by the Infant Development Program with a camera for violating the above mentioned restraining order. Knowing what this guy is into, I am incredibly creeped out right now...

[Oliver]

I'm sorry but the story doesn't offend me at all as long he doesn't break any rules.

And I even go so far to say that exposing himself is a good step to work on it and keep a sexual orientation under control he probably isn't guilty of in the first place anyway - meaning that he probably didn't chose his sexuality just like gays.

In my point of view the offended crybabies should be prosecuted for any kind of witch-hunting which is still so present in some parts of the world, even in the western one.

[Grammatron]

I'm sorry but the story doesn't offend me at all as long he doesn't break any rules.

And I even go so far to say that exposing himself is a good step to work on it and keep a sexual orientation under control he probably isn't guilty of in the first place anyway - meaning that he probably didn't chose his sexuality just like gays.

Are you saying gay, straight, and pedophiles are all on the same normality scale?

[Oliver]

Are you saying gay, straight, and pedophiles are all on the same normality scale?


1. From biological point of view?: Of course
2. From psychological point of view? Yes
3. From moral point of view? OMG!!11OMG11ELEVENTY!!11!

Your question pointed at Number 3. Why? :confused:

[Grammatron]

1. From biological point of view?: Of course
2. From psychological point of view? Yes
3. From moral point of view? OMG!!11OMG11ELEVENTY!!11!

Your question pointed at Number 3. Why? :confused:


My questions pointed to nothing, it was just a question.

But since you claim that Psychologists view pedophilia as normal, please present some evidence.

[Oliver]

My questions pointed to nothing, it was just a question.

But since you claim that Psychologists view pedophilia as normal, please present some evidence.


Why should I unless you provide some respect and address why your replies are about point 3 of my last post. (The moral Woo)

And to reply concerning "Evidence". Would you really like me to post 3 links to psychological Articles ala "Gays are abnormal!" and 3 links to psychological Articles ala "Gays are normal people." ?

This particular issue is a matter of tolerance and logic - not about the moral/religious fallacy "I'm normal and you are not, you sick [fill in the blank]".

And you are free to start a new topic about the moral card if you're unconsciously trying to derail this thread.

[jsiv]

The inappropriateness of pedophilia is not "moral woo." It may be for homosexuality, but choose your words wisely.

[Oliver]

The inappropriateness of pedophilia is not "moral woo." It may be for homosexuality, but choose your words wisely.


I did chose them wisely.

Gays are abnormal. (A broad Opinion in recent histories America)
Gays are normal. (Today in most parts of America)


Same goes to pedophilia. It's a problem, I agree.
But like Gays, it's (again) a moral problem as long no criminal Issues are involved.

But feel free to explain why pedophiles aren't "normal".

[jsiv]

I did chose them wisely.

Gays are abnormal. (A broad Opinion in recent histories America world)
Gays are normal. (Today in most parts of America)

Same goes to pedophilia. It's a problem, I agree.
But like Gays, it's (again) a moral problem as long no criminal Issues are involved.

But feel free to explain why pedophiles aren't "normal".


Only heterosexuality is really "normal," but I never disputed that other orientations are involuntary and that people are just born that way.

I'm indifferent towards homosexuals, and I really don't see any reason to care what they do. But unlike homosexuals, pedophiles can never ever get a legal outlet for their feelings, desires, and needs. Something that is likely to affect them in very profound ways, and makes them more likely to cross the line of what is acceptable.

[Oliver]

Only heterosexuality is really "normal," but I never disputed that other orientations are involuntary and that people are just born that way.

I'm indifferent towards homosexuals, and I really don't see any reason to care what they do. But unlike homosexuals, pedophiles can never ever get a legal outlet for their feelings, desires, and needs. Something that is likely to affect them in very profound ways, and makes them more likely to cross the line of what is acceptable.


I think they can indeed live with their orientation without having to cross the legal line.

The biggest progress would be public acceptance concerning the nature of their orientation and that it isn't a question of choice.

So a website or Self-help-groups shouldn't be demonized per se - unless there are legal violations.

So why should I choose my words wisely? What did you mean by "inappropriateness"?

[jsiv]

I think they can indeed live with their orientation without having to cross the legal line.


I'm sure they can, but it will be infinitely harder than for a person with another orientation.


The biggest progress would be public acceptance concerning the nature of their orientation and that it isn't a question of choice.

So a website or Self-help-groups shouldn't be demonized per se - unless there are legal violations.


I have no problem with that, as long as the "self help groups" don't simply involve exchanging picturse and tips on how to get close to kids with the least chance of getting caught. I don't base this on any facts, but I feel that the more you make people fantasize and dream about something, the more likely they are to try and carry it out.


So why should I choose my words wisely? What did you mean by "inappropriateness"?


Your use of the term "woo."

[Oliver]

I'm sure they can, but it will be infinitely harder than for a person with another orientation.

I have no problem with that, as long as the "self help groups" don't simply involve exchanging picturse and tips on how to get close to kids with the least chance of getting caught. I don't base this on any facts, but I feel that the more you make people fantasize and dream about something, the more likely they are to try and carry it out.

Your use of the term "woo."


Well, moral misconceptions are "Woo". Because they depend on your own moral concepts and it's a fallacy to claim that other moral standard are Woo just because they aren't conform to your personal ones.

I think it's important that people who are pedophiles have the chance to talk about it - so they can actively work on that and understand plus analyze it - especially in exchanges with people who have similar problems.

I wonder how Flo would argue about that.

[Grammatron]

Why should I unless you provide some respect and address why your replies are about point 3 of my last post. (The moral Woo)

And to reply concerning "Evidence". Would you really like me to post 3 links to psychological Articles ala "Gays are abnormal!" and 3 links to psychological Articles ala "Gays are normal people." ?

Just one psychology article on how pedophilia is healthy will do.

[Charlie Monoxide]

I for one, am not concerned.

I caught the first 10 minutes of Bill O'Riely (Aug 13th) last night. The main news item was a couple (husband/wife) "accused" of molesting a 10 year-old girl had committed suicide. Bill went on to say, that it was probably because of his show.

Bill also went on to proclaim (paraphrasing) his "main job" was to "protect children everywhere" ....

Charlie (Bill is watching out for children everywhere) Monoxide

[Tailgater]

I think they can indeed live with their orientation without having to cross the legal line.

How?

The biggest progress would be public acceptance concerning the nature of their orientation and that it isn't a question of choice.

It doesn't matter. If they can't control themselves, why should the public care if they don't have a choice?

So a website or Self-help-groups shouldn't be demonized per se - unless there are legal violations.


How is giving tips on getting away with pedophilia and posting pictures of children "self-help"?

[Tailgater]

Cool article, yes. Cool judge?

Slapped with a restraining order without being able to present his case? Indeed, without any law itself being broken?

I shudder to think of the world that could be created when a judge can sentence you, without requiring any crime, without hearing your case.

No, this makes perfect sense in line with restraining orders. If someone represents a threat to commit a crime, it is perfectly reasonable to bar that person from coming in to contact with possible victims of the crime if evidence supports it.


Common reasons for restraining orders:

stalking
domestic violence
harassment
bullying (in some cases)
Physical/Sexual abuse of some type
prevent the wrongful transfer of real property, also called fraudulent conveyance
as a civil remedy regarding the disclosure of sensitive information in line with the Official Secrets Act 1989 (UK only)
trademark infringement
copyright infringement
patent infringement
to protect trade secrets
tortious interference of contract
criminal contempt
civil contempt


His restraining order easily falls under stalking

Statutes vary between jurisdiction but may include such acts as:

repeated physical following;
unwanted contact (by letter or other means of communication);
observing a person's actions closely for an extended period of time; or
contacting family members, friends, or associates of a target inappropriately;
cyberstalking

Publicly admitting he is pedophile, taking pictures of kids in public and telling other pedophiles where "good hangouts" are, makes him a shoe-in for a restraining order.


LOS ANGELES - A man who blogs about his attraction to young girls but says he doesn’t touch them was arrested Monday near a university child care facility with a camera, police said.

For years, McClellan maintained a Web site in Washington where he posted photos of children he had 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.

Inform yourself. The judge heard the case and did not sentence him to a crime. Unless you consider him not being allowed to hang out in front of day care centers with a camera after admitting he used the pictures for a pedophile website a sentence. I shudder to think more of a world where we let the civil rights of a nutjob override (common sense) the civil rights and safety of the kids who don't have a say in what he is doing. Or would you rather our bus stops become the "girls gone wild: the junior edition" site letting our kids be photographed by anybody who wants because it is their "right"?

[GodMark2]

No, this makes perfect sense in line with restraining orders. If someone represents a threat to commit a crime, it is perfectly reasonable to bar that person from coming in to contact with possible victims of the crime if evidence supports it.
So, no crime needs to be committed. The judge just has to have a 'bad feeling' about the guy in question. I believe someone wrote a book on that once.

His restraining order easily falls under stalking

In California, Stalking only applies to repeated instances involving specified individuals, not to entire classes of people.

Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family is guilty of the crime of stalking (emphasis added) (link (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/639-653.1.html))

Publicly admitting he is pedophile, taking pictures of kids in public and telling other pedophiles where "good hangouts" are, makes him a shoe-in for a restraining order.

Inform yourself. The judge heard the case and did not sentence him to a crime. Unless you consider him not being allowed to hang out in front of day care centers with a camera after admitting he used the pictures for a pedophile website a sentence. I shudder to think more of a world where we let the civil rights of a nutjob override (common sense) the civil rights and safety of the kids who don't have a say in what he is doing. Or would you rather our bus stops become the "girls gone wild: the junior edition" site letting our kids be photographed by anybody who wants because it is their "right"?

The judge did not 'Hear the case' (according to the California state law definition), he 'reviewed evidence presented in a hearing'. To 'Hear' a case, the accused would have to be allowed to reply to the accusations. In this instance, there was no attempt made to inform the accused of the accusations, nor the hearing, nor of the possibility of the restraining order.

Technically, the judge did not sentence him for a crime (to do that, he would have to properly 'Hear the case'). But the wording of the order is "barred from coming closer than 30 feet of any minor in California". Try leaving your house and going to work without coming within 30 feet of any minor. You can't use the freeway: someone may be riding in a minivan in the next lane. You can't take the bus, you can't walk down most streets. The judge is using the loophole of 'I didn't sentence him, so I don't need to hear his side of the story. I'm just issuing a restraining order', but wording the order such that it is impossible to live any sort of normal life without violating that order.

Such a constraining order is equivalent to incarceration. Incarceration without proper trial is not allowed under California Law.

[Tailgater]

So, no crime needs to be committed. The judge just has to have a 'bad feeling' about the guy in question. I believe someone wrote a book on that once.

Bad feeling? Where did you read that?



In California, Stalking only applies to repeated instances involving specified individuals, not to entire classes of people.

(emphasis added) (link (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/639-653.1.html))

Restraining orders can be applied if someone has a history of a problem with a group of people. I'm not sure about California specifically, but there are instances of general orders in other states. I'd go surfing for it, but I'm on my laptop at the moment. SLOW.

The judge did not 'Hear the case' (according to the California state law definition), he 'reviewed evidence presented in a hearing'. To 'Hear' a case, the accused would have to be allowed to reply to the accusations. In this instance, there was no attempt made to inform the accused of the accusations, nor the hearing, nor of the possibility of the restraining order.

Most people are not present to defend against a restraining order. The evidence reviewed by the judge is considered "heard".

Technically, the judge did not sentence him for a crime (to do that, he would have to properly 'Hear the case'). But the wording of the order is "barred from coming closer than 30 feet of any minor in California". Try leaving your house and going to work without coming within 30 feet of any minor. You can't use the freeway: someone may be riding in a minivan in the next lane. You can't take the bus, you can't walk down most streets. The judge is using the loophole of 'I didn't sentence him, so I don't need to hear his side of the story. I'm just issuing a restraining order', but wording the order such that it is impossible to live any sort of normal life without violating that order.

Such a constraining order is equivalent to incarceration. Incarceration without proper trial is not allowed under California Law.

You are mistaken. The restraining order was to not loiter or congregate. The intent being to stop him camping out in the areas he stated he liked to take pictures of little girls. He could drive or walk by, but not sit and watch.

[GodMark2]

You are mistaken. The restraining order was to not loiter or congregate. The intent being to stop him camping out in the areas he stated he liked to take pictures of little girls. He could drive or walk by, but not sit and watch.

Self-proclaimed pedophile Jack McClellan was arrested at UCLA twice Monday, first in the afternoon outside a child development building on suspicion of violating a statewide restraining order prohibiting him from coming within 10 yards of any child in California.link (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-arrest14aug14,0,580585.story?coll=la-home-center)


A high-profile admitted pedophile was barred Friday from being within 30 feet of any minor in the Golden State - making it nearly impossible for him to continue living in California.link (http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_6542752)

A self-proclaimed pedophile was barred Friday from being within 30 feet of any minor in California, making it nearly impossible for him to continue living in Los Angeles — or anywhere else in the Golden State.link (http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/ci_6550043)

Of course, the lawyers responsible for this are quoted as saying "He is not to loiter, follow, stalk, threaten, harass, shadow, photograph, anything. Jack stay away from the kids, or you're going to jail." So it's easy to understand why you were mistaken.

[quixotecoyote]

I know in Missouri the offended party has to petition for a restraining order. I don't think it's possible to do it as a class.

[Tailgater]

link (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-arrest14aug14,0,580585.story?coll=la-home-center)

link (http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_6542752)

link (http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/ci_6550043)

Of course, the lawyers responsible for this are quoted as saying "He is not to loiter, follow, stalk, threaten, harass, shadow, photograph, anything. Jack stay away from the kids, or you're going to jail." So it's easy to understand why you were mistaken.

The new charge grew out of a restraining order issued Aug. 3, enjoining him to “stay at least 10 yards away from children" in California and barring him from loitering around places kids congregate or photographing them. Shortly after 1 p.m. Monday, a UCLA staffer allegedly spotted him in the lobby of a campus building housing the day-care center. Campus police officers arrested him for violating the restraining order, and found he had a camera with him, says UCLA Police spokeswoman Nancy Greenstein, who adds that's it's not known whether he shot pictures of the kids. Police released him at 8:30 and gave him a seven-day “stay-away order,” barring him from coming on campus for a week—the strongest measure available.
McClellan would have been fine if he’d just stayed away. But he was arrested a second time, at 10:20 last night, after stunned campus police dispatchers watching the evening news on television saw McClellan in a striped polo shirt being interviewed live—on campus. They sent a squad car to arrest McClellan for trespass. This time, they turned him over to L.A. Sheriff’s deputies who booked him, housed him in jail overnight and brought him to court this afternoon for the arraignment.

The man who obtained the restraining order against McClellan felt vindicated. “I believe Jack McClellan is a dangerous individual,” says Anthony Zinnanti. “He has shown a blatant disregard for the court order, and an inability to control his impulses.” Zinnanti, a Santa Clarita, Calif., father and attorney, obtained the temporary restraining order on Aug. 3—and served it on McClellan in a Los Angeles airport as he was boarding a plane for Chicago. McClellan returned to California, and the judge in the restraining order case had scheduled a court date for McClellan to argue against making the order permanent.

If he was arrested getting food at Mcdonalds or walking downtown to get to work you might have a point, but you don't. Let's see, he could wait and argue the retraining order or......go to a day care center and loiter with a camera and then come back on campus after only being given a 7 day stay-away order. He had his chance to argue the order and chose to find some LGs in the meantime. Random contact is unavoidable in open public. Duh. That's not what he's doing. I've dealt some with restraining orders through a family abuse situation and they are many times very open to interpretation (in small towns, abused wives usually live close to and cross paths with the abuser). It is up to the person served to show up in court and argue the details of the order. Until then, watch your ass. Don't go and deliberately give the system the finger while you're waiting.

[Tailgater]

Civil Harrassment-
Under California law (CCP 527.6), a person who has suffered harassment may seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction prohibiting harassment. Harassment may include, but is not limited to, unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or willful conduct that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses an individual. The protective order can be enforced by law enforcement agencies after the defendant has been served.

Essentially, a restraining order prohibits an individual from an action that is likely to cause harm; usually, a restraining order prevents any contact or communication between two or more people.
A restraining order differs from an injunction in that it can be granted immediately, without a hearing and without any notice to the opposing party. Restraining orders are temporary; they are intended to last only until a hearing can take place. If a restraining order is violated, call 9-1-1 and report the situation. The violating party can be arrested immediately and taken into custody.

Godmark2 quote on stalking:
repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person (or persons)

Bold mine.

[Tailgater]

In this instance, there was no attempt made to inform the accused of the accusations, nor the hearing, nor of the possibility of the restraining order.


In case you missed it, he was served in person at the airport on his way to Chicago for more tv time supporting his habit.

[GodMark2]

Godmark2 quote on stalking:repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person (or persons)

Bold mine.

Not only did you bold some words, you added the words that you then bolded. A simple search for "(or persons)" on the page I quoted reveals that it occurs nowhere on the page, and a simple look at my earlier post (which is not marked as having been edited) also shows that you are in direct conflict with observable fact.

Are you lying intentionally, or are you simply that deluded?

In case you missed it, he was served in person at the airport on his way to Chicago for more tv time supporting his habit.

He was served the restraining order at the airport. He was not served notice of the hearing, which is what I was referring to. Had the restraining order been reasonable, I would not have any problem with this. But the restraining order was written in such a manner that it was nearly impossible for him to even go to court to contest it without technically violating it.

[GodMark2]

(a) A person who has suffered harassment as defined in subdivision (b) may seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction prohibiting harassment as provided in this section.

(b) For the purposes of this section, "harassment" is unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the plaintiff.link (http://law.onecle.com/california/civil-procedure/527.6.html)

Bolding mine (and the words can also be found in the original)

[Tailgater]

Not only did you bold some words, you added the words that you then bolded. A simple search for "(or persons)" on the page I quoted reveals that it occurs nowhere on the page, and a simple look at my earlier post (which is not marked as having been edited) also shows that you are in direct conflict with observable fact.

Are you lying intentionally, or are you simply that deluded?


Thus the (). Other police websites include "or more than one in the definition". I pointed that out. You are just splitting hairs.

He was served the restraining order at the airport. He was not served notice of the hearing, which is what I was referring to. Had the restraining order been reasonable, I would not have any problem with this. But the restraining order was written in such a manner that it was nearly impossible for him to even go to court to contest it without technically violating it.

Ok, you completely ignored the rest of my posts to split hairs over an added bold, which can be found (i showed one from FL). Pedophiles are regularly banned from areas any children, not just individuals. It's nothing new or shocking. Not getting to court? Who is deluded? You should be supplied information to contact the courts about the hearing. All you have to do is make a phone call. Part of that phone call might be asking what he might be permitted to do and how to get to court. This is not some difficult task.

Answer me one question. What if the order was just not to hang out in front of child care centers with a camera? Would that be OK?

[Loss Leader]

Here's my (professional) opinion.

1. The restraining order is unconstitutional as written because it is overbroad.

2. McClellan had (and has) an avenue to contest it.

3. Rather than do that, he just flat-out violated it.

4. Even if a TRO is improvident or illegal, one is not free to violate it. Also, the part of the restraining order he violated wasn't the overbroad part.

5. The guy's got problems. Even if he could have worked his way out of it before, he's wrestled the tar baby into a far worse position all on his own.

6. The next appearance is next week. We'll see what happens then.

[GodMark2]

Thus the (). Other police websites include "or more than one in the definition". I pointed that out. You are just splitting hairs. If it wasn't something I said, it shouldn't have been labeled a quote. I get rather touchy when people put words into my mouth.

Ok, you completely ignored the rest of my posts to split hairs over an added bold, which can be found (i showed one from FL).

What can I say, I like to look up the original information. It took me a while to find where your information came from, as you provided no link. The quote you labeled as coming from the SD Police Dept actually came from the San Diego Superior Court (http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=53,130005&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL) of San Diego County. Note where it stated quite clearly "an individual", the quote is a reference to CCP 527.6, which I quoted in full above, which clearly states "directed at a specific person". So that quote really doesn't help your case.

The other is from Florida, so it has no bearing on a case in California.

Answer me one question. What if the order was just not to hang out in front of child care centers with a camera? Would that be OK?
Had the order been less overbroad, it is possible I would have not thought it unreasonable. It would have depended on the evidence of "unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose." (CCP 572.6, already referenced above). The evidence presented thus far outside the court, in my opinion, shows no such. But there could be evidence not available to the public, upon which the judge could have rendered his opinion.


Here's my (professional) opinion.

1. The restraining order is unconstitutional as written because it is overbroad.

2. McClellan had (and has) an avenue to contest it.

3. Rather than do that, he just flat-out violated it.

4. Even if a TRO is improvident or illegal, one is not free to violate it. Also, the part of the restraining order he violated wasn't the overbroad part.

5. The guy's got problems. Even if he could have worked his way out of it before, he's wrestled the tar baby into a far worse position all on his own.

6. The next appearance is next week. We'll see what happens then.

Loss Leader, I agree with nearly everything said here, with some reservations.
#1 I believe to be correct.

I consider #2 to be debatable as to whether he could have been able to go to court without coming within 30 feet of a minor. But that is a result of the over broadness of the order (#1). I have looked into California procedures with regards to contesting restraining orders, and it appears he would have to appear in court in person to contest the order, but my knowledge in that matter is still incomplete.

#3 is a matter of factual record.

#4 is questionable. Often, the only way to remedy an unconstitutional order is to bring it before another court, which often requires violation. Contesting it before the same judge is much less effective. However, as you pointed out, the section he violated wasn't the over broad section.

#5 I believe to be resoundingly true. He has done nothing to remedy or reduce the situation. In addition, This man is sick, and in desperate need of psychiatric (and possibly medical) help.

#6 is, again, a matter of recorded fact.

"Improvident", I like that word. I must remember that one.

[Tailgater]

If it wasn't something I said, it shouldn't have been labeled a quote. I get rather touchy when people put words into my mouth.


The quote wasn't your quote. It was from the California code. Relax. No one put words in your mouth. Next time I'll add a fixed it for you. I apologize if you felt I did that on purpose. After looking over the post, I see how it might look that way. The FL site had a general definition of ROs that showed two or more persons (every state is similar, it's just not written plural). I added to the FL definition to make a point. Restraining orders can be given to groups of people and given from groups of people if the situation applies. Don't be so literal.

[What can I say, I like to look up the original information. It took me a while to find where your information came from, as you provided no link. The quote you labeled as coming from the SD Police Dept actually came from the San Diego Superior Court (http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=53,130005&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL) of San Diego County. Note where it stated quite clearly "an individual", the quote is a reference to CCP 527.6, which I quoted in full above, which clearly states "directed at a specific person". So that quote really doesn't help your case.

The other is from Florida, so it has no bearing on a case in California.

Nevermind. Talking about person/persons is a waste of time. If law was concrete written in blood we wouldn't have attorneys.

I have problems linking when I'm on my laptop during the day. I just stare at the green bar.


Had the order been less overbroad, it is possible I would have not thought it unreasonable. It would have depended on the evidence of "unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose." (CCP 572.6, already referenced above).

It is not even a permanent order and he has the information to contact the courts as to how to appear or have his attorney address unreasonable requests. This is not the first time a judge has issued an overgeneralized order. The guy can create a website but can't make a phone call?

The evidence presented thus far outside the court, in my opinion, shows no such. But there could be evidence not available to the public, upon which the judge could have rendered his opinion.

I'll remember that if you have a young girl and some guy hangs outside her school to take pictures of her and her friends to post on the internet and discuss how he likes her with other pedophiles while giving them advice on how they can do the same. His rights do not override hers.

#1 I believe to be correct.

While the order as written might be unconstitutional, it is for him or his attorney to argue that once the hearing for permanency takes place. If the order as written then becomes permanent and, after being argued, is somehow supported by the constitution, then I'll agree with you. My guess is, they will narrow down the areas he can't go.

I consider #2 to be debatable as to whether he could have been able to go to court without coming within 30 feet of a minor. But that is a result of the over broadness of the order (#1). I have looked into California procedures with regards to contesting restraining orders, and it appears he would have to appear in court in person to contest the order, but my knowledge in that matter is still incomplete.

I spoke earlier of abusers in small towns. To be more specific, my sister-in-law filed a restraining order against her husband. As it would be hard to not have random contact, his attorney contacted the courts to clarify and address the problem in the meantime. He was told if he accidently showed up at the same public place to not approach or have verbal contact and to keep moving and there would be no problem. Driving by her on the road (an example you gave) would not even be considered unless he was initiating contact in some way by doing it.

#3 is a matter of factual record.

#4 is questionable. Often, the only way to remedy an unconstitutional order is to bring it before another court, which often requires violation. Contesting it before the same judge is much less effective. However, as you pointed out, the section he violated wasn't the over broad section.

#5 I believe to be resoundingly true. He has done nothing to remedy or reduce the situation. In addition, This man is sick, and in desperate need of psychiatric (and possibly medical) help.

#6 is, again, a matter of recorded fact.

Agreed. Expect #4, but I think I have already addressed it. There are many times when a RO conflicts with how someone lives their lives. When this conflict occurs, it can be resolved properly. Legal council would be my first suggestion.

[Loss Leader]

I consider #2 to be debatable as to whether he could have been able to go to court without coming within 30 feet of a minor. But that is a result of the over broadness of the order (#1). I have looked into California procedures with regards to contesting restraining orders, and it appears he would have to appear in court in person to contest the order, but my knowledge in that matter is still incomplete.


He probably would have needed a lawyer to do it for him which is ... good for lawyers, I guess.

[GodMark2]

He probably would have needed a lawyer to do it for him which is ... good for lawyers, I guess.

The problem is, all the information I have found thus far indicates that he is required to present himself in court. He may (and is advised to) have a lawyer present, but it unclear whether the lawyer may be present in his place. It is listed as acceptable for a lawyer to take the place of a defendant in other types of hearings, so the lack of such a provision for this type is an anomaly, and anomalys always get my attention.

I'll remember that if you have a young girl and some guy hangs outside her school to take pictures of her and her friends to post on the internet and discuss how he likes her with other pedophiles while giving them advice on how they can do the same. His rights do not override hers.My daughter's right to be in a public place and not have people take pictures? There are several court cases that show that that right does not generally exist.

It is not even a permanent order and he has the information to contact the courts as to how to appear or have his attorney address unreasonable requests. This is not the first time a judge has issued an overgeneralized order. The guy can create a website but can't make a phone call?As I stated above, all information I have uncovered regarding California Civil Procedure shows that He, himself, must appear. An attorney does not appear to be able to appear in his place, and a phone call is insufficient. But all that information is from assistive digests published by the State of California, and may be incomplete.

To be more specific, my sister-in-law filed a restraining order against her husband.A specific order for conduct with regard to a single person. The idea that "police won't arrest him for casual violations", is based solely on the discretion of the officer in question. As the law stands, even casual, incidental, unintentional contact is forbidden, and actionable.

But now there's more information. From This Blog (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1186164435.shtml), we have a poster claiming to be Anthony D. Zinnanti, one of the lawyers involved in the case (the one that made sure to be present when Mr. McClellan was served) The post in about halfway down the page)
The order was based on a pattern of chronicled conduct (coming into evidence per Ev. Code, section 1220, et seq.) including McClellan's self-described smuggling of narcotics onto an international flight (evading law enforcement in the airport), his use of such hallucinogens and, ... Which was probably used for 'character', as it has nothing to do with the requested relief (the order)....in particular, his chronicle of contemplating luring several children into his vehicle.(emphasis added)

So, he was thinking about doing something, but he never did it? If he had done it, they would have presented evidence of that, but they only had evidence that he had thought about it. Thinking isn't actionable in this country, as far as I know.

They are trying to get around the Free Speech issues (of posting pictures taken in public places) by claiming that Mr. McClellan was being defamatory to the girls in question. However, it is our position that there is a false light argument with respect to the defamation aspect, in addition to concerns of invasion of privacy by virtue of appropriating a non-consenting minor's image and placing within the paradigm of "pedophilia."

It's an interesting tactic. I'm not sure of it's legal standing.

If Mr. McClellan had taken the pictures and labeled them "This girl is great in bed", it would be a definite defamatory action. But if he labeled them "She's really cute", I don't see the defaming of character. The plaintiff seems to be claiming that, because McClellan is an admitted pedophile that he's not allowed to post a picture and label it "She's cute", because it's being used "within the paradigm of "pedophilia."".

Were pedophilia illegal in and of itself, this would probably be valid, but it's not illegal in and of itself. Certain actions (which my be motivated by pedophilia) are, but they make no claim that Mr McClellan has performed any of those actions.

[Loss Leader]

The problem is, all the information I have found thus far indicates that he is required to present himself in court. He may (and is advised to) have a lawyer present, but it unclear whether the lawyer may be present in his place. It is listed as acceptable for a lawyer to take the place of a defendant in other types of hearings, so the lack of such a provision for this type is an anomaly, and anomalys always get my attention.



I don't practice in that city or even that state. However, my experience leads me to believe that there would have been no problem with a lawyer appearing without him no matter what the actual text of any law may say. Of course, I would have written the Court ahead of time to state very plainly, "Out of fear of possibly violating the TRO, my client will not be attending this appearance unless the Court so requires." Let the judge put it in writing.

[GodMark2]

I don't practice in that city or even that state. However, my experience leads me to believe that there would have been no problem with a lawyer appearing without him no matter what the actual text of any law may say. Of course, I would have written the Court ahead of time to state very plainly, "Out of fear of possibly violating the TRO, my client will not be attending this appearance unless the Court so requires." Let the judge put it in writing.

My thinking was much the same, including the letter to the judge.

[Checkmite]

Were pedophilia illegal in and of itself, this would probably be valid, but it's not illegal in and of itself. Certain actions (which my be motivated by pedophilia) are, but they make no claim that Mr McClellan has performed any of those actions.


I disagree. I think the situation of a minor unwillingly having his/her image so explicitly connected with pedophilia can most certainly be considered defamatory.

[Loss Leader]

I disagree. I think the situation of a minor unwillingly having his/her image so explicitly connected with pedophilia can most certainly be considered defamatory.


How is the minor defamed?

[Tailgater]

How is the minor defamed?

The pictures being associated with this?

http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/original/0407/0201_girl_love.html

Yay, it's night and I'm linking.

It will be one hell of an arguement either way.

[Checkmite]

How is the minor defamed?


By the fact of being unwillingly associated with a pedophile.

[GodMark2]

The pictures being associated with this?

http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/original/0407/0201_girl_love.html

Yay, it's night and I'm linking.

It will be one hell of an arguement either way.

By the fact of being unwillingly associated with a pedophile.


Defamation is effected by either of the following:
(a) Libel.
(b) Slander. Slander is verbal, so this must fall under libel.

Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.

"false and unprivilegded" publication. Did he say something false? Not directly, so it must fall to section 45a:
A libel which is defamatory of the plaintiff without the necessity of explanatory matter, such as an inducement, innuendo or other extrinsic fact, is said to be a libel on its face. Defamatory language not libelous on its face is not actionable unless the plaintiff alleges and proves that he has suffered special damage as a proximate result thereof. Special damage is defined in Section 48a of this code.(emphasis added)
If the pictures were not deemable to be libelous without the extrinsic fact that the photographer was a pedophile, it's not defamatory "On it's face". It could still be considered defamatory, with extrinsic fact, but he would have to prove "special damage".

As used herein, the terms "general damages," "special damages," "exemplary damages" and "actual malice," are defined as follows:
(a) "General damages" are damages for loss of reputation, shame, mortification and hurt feelings;
(b) "Special damages" are all damages which plaintiff alleges and proves that he has suffered in respect to his property, business, trade, profession or occupation, including such amounts of money as the plaintiff alleges and proves he has expended as a result of the alleged libel, and no other;
(c) "Exemplary damages" are damages which may in the discretion of the court or jury be recovered in addition to general and special damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing a defendant who has made the publication or broadcast with actual malice;
(d) "Actual malice" is that state of mind arising from hatred or ill will toward the plaintiff; provided, however, that such a state of mind occasioned by a good faith belief on the part of the defendant in the truth of the libelous publication or broadcast at the time it is published or broadcast shall not constitute actual malice.

What special damages are they claiming? I can see general damages (reputation, shame, mortification and hurt feelings), but those are only allowed for libel "On it's face", which this is not. Special damages must be direct monetary loss. The only ones they seem to be able to claim would be "such amounts of money as the plaintiff alleges and proves he has expended as a result of the alleged libel". But the rest of section 48a shows when special damages can apply, and all refer to "A correction published or broadcast", which would imply that some statement must made by the defendant still have been in provable error.

It seems a rather tenuous thread from which to hang a case. Either they have a lot more than they are divulging, or the judge was a pushover, due to the emotional ("Won't someone think of the children") content. Considering the broadness of the order, the second seems more likely to me.

All CCP quotes from here (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/civ/43-53.html)

[Oliver]

Just one psychology article on how pedophilia is healthy will do.


Whaddayamean by "healthy"? No one mentioned this term.
But if you're able to explain to me why pedophilia isn't as normal as being gay, you get an article about pedophilia.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Oliver http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2865984#post2865984)
I think they can indeed live with their orientation without having to cross the legal line.
How?


Uhm, by avoiding to do a crime? Seriously: The Guy in question didn't do a crime. Maybe because he ran a Website as his way of outing himself - and share other point of views about this issue (Even including Picture-Sharing if I remember correctly). To remain silent often doesn't help to get problems under control.

And hats off - that appearance on Fox was something I couldn't imagine for my own with his kind of problem. Especially not on Fox. :boxedin:

It doesn't matter. If they can't control themselves, why should the public care if they don't have a choice?


Who said they cannot control themselves? Your distrust?
Just remember the Guy from the OP.

How is giving tips on getting away with pedophilia and posting pictures of children "self-help"?


You really think Alcoholics talk about how to get more Alcohol in Self-Help-Groups? :confused:

I'm guessing here but you seem to have a lot of fantasies concerning this issue. Help-Groups concerning psychological issues are being held with assistance from professional people, e.g. Psychologists.

[Checkmite]

Whaddayamean by "healthy"? No one mentioned this term.
But if you're able to explain to me why pedophilia isn't as normal as being gay, you get an article about pedophilia.

It's a matter of definition. Your implication is that pedophilia is a sexual orientation equal to and as valid as heterosexuality or homosexuality. This premise is incorrect.

Reasoning: "child" is not a sex. We have two sexes: male and female. An individual can be oriented towards the opposite sex (heterosexuality), the same sex (homosexuality), or both sexes (bisexuality). Or, perhaps even none (asexuality?). Unlike some other creatures (for instance, grasshoppers), human children are not androgenous nymphs; from the day they are born, they belong to one sex or another. They do not comprise a sex of themselves.

This is further underscored by the fact that pedophiles sometimes have regular adult relationships (gay, straight, or bisexual), and that they most often are particular to children of one sex (although some aren't so discriminating, in the same way that bisexuals do not discriminate between adult partners).

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, it is a paraphilia. In simpler terms, it is a fetish. Unlike the the S&M set, however, there is no legal avenue with which a pedophile can indulge his fetish.

I'm not entirely convinced that a fetish is analagous to a sexual orientation; nor am I entirely convinced that the person who holds a fetish is similarly unresponsible for his having that fetish.

[Tailgater]

Uhm, by avoiding to do a crime? Seriously: The Guy in question didn't do a crime. Maybe because he ran a Website as his way of outing himself - and share other point of views about this issue (Even including Picture-Sharing if I remember correctly).

C'mon Oliver, at least read the news articles. The picture sharing and how he is getting the pictures is the tip of the issue. If you have to think about it, you havn't read anything.

To remain silent often doesn't help to get problems under control.

Yes, professional help would be good.

And hats off - that appearance on Fox was something I couldn't imagine for my own with his kind of problem. Especially not on Fox.

It's funny the Americans that you will tip your hat off too.


Who said they cannot control themselves? Your distrust?
Just remember the Guy from the OP.

The guy from the OP can't control himself. If he could, he wouldn't be having the problems he is.

You really think Alcoholics talk about how to get more Alcohol in Self-Help-Groups? :confused:

Exactly. It's not helping, it's indulging in fantasies with other pedophiles. You got it.

I'm guessing here but you seem to have a lot of fantasies concerning this issue.

huh? Either it's the english barrier we have sometimes or you are in /sarcastic mode.

Help-Groups concerning psychological issues are being held with assistance from professional people, e.g. Psychologists.

Good. Send him a letter and let him know because, I don't think anyone has told him.

[Tailgater]

It's a matter of definition...<snip>

Good answer.

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's a matter of definition. Your implication is that pedophilia is a sexual orientation equal to and as valid as heterosexuality or homosexuality. This premise is incorrect.

Well, it's unproven anyway. It might or might not turn out that paedophilia is something you are born with more than it is something you choose.


Reasoning: "child" is not a sex. We have two sexes: male and female. An individual can be oriented towards the opposite sex (heterosexuality), the same sex (homosexuality), or both sexes (bisexuality). Or, perhaps even none (asexuality?). Unlike some other creatures (for instance, grasshoppers), human children are not androgenous nymphs; from the day they are born, they belong to one sex or another. They do not comprise a sex of themselves.

This is further underscored by the fact that pedophiles sometimes have regular adult relationships (gay, straight, or bisexual), and that they most often are particular to children of one sex (although some aren't so discriminating, in the same way that bisexuals do not discriminate between adult partners).

As I understand it, exclusive paedophiles are a minority amongst child molesters. Most child molesters are ominvorous sexual predators. I'm not implying this makes McClellan any less likely to molest children - that guy has Danger To Kids written all over him in big red letters. I'm just pointing out, since it often gets missed, that we could lock up all the Jack McClellans and most of the child molesters would still be loose.


Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, it is a paraphilia. In simpler terms, it is a fetish. Unlike the the S&M set, however, there is no legal avenue with which a pedophile can indulge his fetish.

I'm not entirely convinced that a fetish is analagous to a sexual orientation; nor am I entirely convinced that the person who holds a fetish is similarly unresponsible for his having that fetish.

The social stigma and legal risks associated with wanting to boink kids makes the stigma against being gay (even back in the bad old days) look trivial. If people are exclusive paedophiles by choice, it's an incredibly bizarre choice.

I'm guessing in McClellan's case it's not a chosen fetish. It looks to me like there's just something wrong with him.

In the case of the typical (ominvorous) child molester, I'm guessing it is closer to a chosen fetish. They aren't exclusively attracted to youngsters like McClellan, they'll just take sexual advantage of anyone they can if they feel like it.

What would be nice is if we could prove there was a biological basis for McClellan's problem. Then we could either treat him or put him in an insane asylum with a clear conscience.