[117217] in Cypherpunks
Re: Databasix.com, Gary Burnore's own private, personal abuse factory.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anonymous)
Sat Aug 28 15:30:03 1999
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 20:42:43 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <199908281842.UAA29170@mail.replay.com>
From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
To: mail2news@basement.replay.com, mail2news@nym.alias.net,
cypherpunks@toad.com
Reply-To: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
In article <37caae7b.43635768@news.alt.net>, suehim@happy.exe (Sue the Bastard) wrote:
> People v. Carskaddon (1957) 49 Cal.2d 423, 426
> People v. Thompson (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 459, 463
>
> Under section 647.6, "‘[a]nnoy and molest’ are synonymous and mean to
> disturb or irritate, especially by continued or repeated acts; to vex;
> to trouble; to irk; or to offend.
Too bad Gary Burnore can't read. It says "'annoy' and 'molest' are
SYNONYMOUS". None of this, "I was convicted of 'annoying' not
'molesting'" bullshit. If he was convicted under Section 647.6(a)
of the California Penal Code, as he admits [1], then he's a
convicted child MOLESTER. He can try to quibble over what
molest/annoy means, but he can't claim they mean different things.
And none of that court decision would indicate that a single kiss
involving a willing, sane, and sober 17 year old girl would be
legally actionable under that section, as Gary Burnore repeatedly
claims without proof. Note the reference to "continued or repeated
acts". It doesn't match the "one simple kiss" scenario Gary Burnore
would have us believe.
Thanks for posting this, Sue.
--
[1] See http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.99.06.07-99.06.13/msg00096.html
