You genuinely have no idea what the fuck you're talking about - that is already the case. SIGSEGV's info was subpoena'd because he broke the law, which is the only case I can recall off the top of my head. It's not about what I want, it's about what the law is. I personally doubt Andy would ever do this, but he's allowed to.
This is where you ignored what I said. I reviewed the evidence and concluded there was no proof that they were even minors in the first place. Ergo there is a shadow of a doubt, ergo you are probably defaming Andy by claiming otherwise. Does that make sense?