I am posting Kevin Brown's comment to me in a new thread b/c I don't want it to get lost in the threads below.

Kevin wrote: Dear Mr. Zinnanti,

I am hopeful that this correspondence is genuine, and not a 'spoof' of your e-mail address by someone acting maliciously.

I am fairly aware of the circumstances of the civil proceeding. I read your initial complaint, the two orders, and spoke to reporters who attended both the TRO hearing, the town hall meeting, and the permanent injunction trial.

You are a difficult person to assess from a distance. Your behavior, at times, appeared humanistic and compassionate (as did Mr. Tebo's and Ms. Rose's, in my opinion). At other times, you seemed to me to be opportunistic and willing to sacrifice a (by all appearances) homeless man on disability for a mental disorder to benefit yourself. I didn't reach any conclusive opinion on that matter, but rather found it difficult to sort out.

I did not feel that your complaint was well drafted, but then I am not a lawyer, either. It failed to explicitly state a tortious theory (such as assault, the tort you appeared to plead by the fact pattern in the complaint). I initially thought it was a statutory complaint under the domestic violence laws, and failed to plead the statute. I also thought it was a de facto class action (by virtue of the large number of 'Doe' complainants) and that, had Mr. McClellan been represented, the issue of improper joinder should have been raised.

I thought the Judge committed misconduct when he ordered relief in excess of the pleadings on a TRO. A complaint has been made to the California state judicial conduct commission by a member of the California Bar. I thought Mr. McClellan should have removed the matter to District Court under diversity jurisdiction, to secure a fair and impartial trier of law.

My advocacy issues center around forging a compromise between 'pedophiles' and society, such that the community I belong to may live in peace here, even if they do not enjoy all of the natural rights endowed to men under our system of governance. As it stands, we enjoy no protection of law for crimes committed against us, no rights to property, and a tyranny of numbers that appears to seek our violend ends. It is emotionally distressing to live in such an environment, and fundamentally unfair to a community composed - by and large - of decent human beings who would not place their own interests ahead of harm to others.

Sincerely,

Kevin Brown

Responses:

- Regarding the drafting of the underlying Petition for Injunction, California is an ultimate fact pleading state. So, unlike federal court, you simply plead the ultimate prima facie elements of a cause of action. In this case, the matter was a common law injunction. It wasn't brought pursuant to the domestic violence/civil harassment restraining order law. That would have entailed a whole different proceeding and would not have been appropriate in this case.

So, in ultimate fact pleading, you keep it very straight forward and lacking in much detail.

- I appreciate the fact that you went to the trouble of reading the pleadings. As a lay person, I know that they are difficult to understand sometimes. I would and would have welcomed any direct inquiry. My office telephone is 661 287-6100.

- Whether the complaint was a class action or not was up in the air. It was a unique legal theory. Since, the initial order request for only for the City of Santa Clarita, ROES 1 - 10,000 was an estimate of the persons who could have become petitioners.

- Judicial misconduct would be hard to prove here based upon a pleading based in equity. An injunction is based upon the balancing of the hardships between the parties and likeliness of success on the merits at a final trial in the matter. Accordingly, reversal would require the standard of capricious conduct and abuse of discretion.

While many on this board may think that the result was the case, the proof tendered with the pleadings showed a likelihood for harm. Further, as was stated - in the media and, I believe, on the record - Jack would have benefitted from the order by the city being shown that something could be done.

Here's the unseen point - a lot of people were seriously angry with the authorities. This presented a dangerous situation. People here were talking about killing Jack. The issue with the authorities arises from an "us versus them" approach. The people here in Santa Clarita were very frustrated and the place - being the breeding factory that it is - has a jillion kids running around. So, when Jack stated that he would come back here, it created a real mob mentality.

Simple: Something had to be put in place to keep the peace.

BTW - Diversity jurisdiction was a possibility. In reality, a federal judge would have kicked it back to state court. Right or wrong, federal judges generally don't want to deal with this stuff.

I didn't harbor any ill feelings toward Jack until the UCLA incident. Even then, it was more of a nuisance than any kind of anger. However, when the possible - and I stress "possible" - connection to Adre'anna Jackson's murder was made, I went through the roof. It didn't look good for Jack because of all the things that were being said - by him.

I had tremendous empathy for him after the taping of that horrible incident with the Steve Wilkos Show. They basically lynched a mentally ill guy on stage. NOTE: I am not equating pedophilia with mental illness.

But, they did this to him and they basically dumped him at O'Hare Airport afterward.

So, I spoke out against this and caught hell from the anti-Jacks - except for Ron Tebo. He was honestly trying to help Jack at that point.

In the meantime, however, I learned of two witnesses and two incidents where Jack made very tenacious efforts to get close to kids in secured settings; once at Northridge Park where Jack was found in the restricted little girl's dressing room and ten days later, on June 14, where he tried to get backstage at Thousand Oaks Civil Center five times. There, he first showed up with a bag of food claiming to be a parent. I feel confident that the witnesses recognized him.

This is what happens when you litigate a case on a compressed time frame. Facts change. You constantly learn new things and your direction and POV tends to shift.

Also, I was tremendously frustrated with law enforcement and the LA City Attorney's Office. I was exhausted - running my own trial calendar - and they just stood back and didn't do a damn thing. They could have reigned in the situatio by at least giving some form of appearance of taking action. The worst thing for Jack was the City Attorney's rejection of the violation of a court order case. All of the anger wound up being directed at Jack.

In any event, I appreciate your post and I hope this helps to clarify a few things. There is more and I'll post it. I'm just tired and need to take a break for a bit.

Tony