Re: Gary Burnore's PGP-Signed Confession

["Graham-John Bullers" <real@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>]

Date sent:      	Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:43:44 +0200 (CEST)
From:           	Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
Subject:        	Re: Gary Burnore's PGP-Signed Confession
To:             	cypherpunks@toad.com
Send reply to:  	Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>


 That some remailer will shut down under pressure is to be 
expected.

 We have all witnessed people breaking down under pressure from 
Jeff Gordon.

> Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to> wrote:
> 
> > I have no love for the man and I am well aware of his remailer harassment
> > campaigns. But these child molestation claims appear to be nonsense. So
> > far, the only deed to which there has ever been any evidence presented to
> > the public is his admission that he kissed a 17 old. If you can present
> > facts that he did more and/or that the acts were non-consensual, then
> > present them. Facts, not the insinuations you posted so far. I would not
> > be at all surprised to find that a CA court would order the guy to pay for
> > mandatory counseling for the girl. Even if all there ever was is a kiss.
> > That's simply an indication of the abomination jurisprudence in this
> > country has become and does not represent any indication of Gary Burnore's
> > supposed depravity.
> > 
> > Now I happen to believe that a 17 year old is perfectly capable of
> > consenting to a lot more than just a kiss, unnatural CA law
> > notwithstanding. So the facts we are looking for here are statements by
> > the girl that what happened was non-consensual. Statements made prior to
> > being brainwashed by $11k worth of mandatory counseling. Surely the court
> > documents are available. Go get them and post them, or shut up and leave
> > the man alone.
> 
> You're missing the point entirely.  If you want to see the court documents,
> I understand you can go get them yourself.  It's not worth a trip to 
> California for me to obtain them.  Gary has them, claims they prove his
> version of the story, promised to publish them on his website over a year
> ago, then reneged.  So be it.
> 
> Frankly, I'm not too concerned with *WHAT* Gary Burnore did to run afoul
> of the law.  The point is that his own misdeeds began a sequence of events
> that resulted in the shutdown of one of the most reliable remailers.  He
> also attempted to violate the privacy of every user of the Huge Cajones
> remailer by making a phony legal demand for the remailer logs, which
> fortunately didn't exist.  And all that in a failed attempt to out the
> whistleblower who got him arrested.  Whether it was for a "kiss" or for
> something more serious is rather beside the point.
> 
> So, unless you're trying to claim that harassing a remailer out of
> existence over a kiss is acceptable, but doing so over full-fledged
> molestation isn't, then the exact nature of what got Gary Burnore
> arrested is immaterial.  The point is that he used an allegation of
> "harassment" as his pretext for trying to out the sender of an
> anonymous email, but what he characterized as "harassment" later was
> proven to be legitimate whistleblowing.  Much of the "abuse" that
> followed that appears to have been manufactured to make the anonymous 
> whistleblower appear to be a harasser instead -- and thus make him
> appear worthy of being tracked down and his identity turned over to
> Gary Burnore.
> 
> My main point in reposting Gary's PGP-signed confession is to highlight
> his chronology.  He admits that he was charged on 2/20/97.  Yet a few
> days BEFORE that, he publicly complained about an anonymous e-mail which
> had been sent to his victim's mother, calling it "harassment".  Since
> the matter had not yet become publicly known, it was obviously not
> written by some outside "harasser" as Gary contended.  How would a
> stranger who was only trying to harass Gary on the internet have known
> about Gary's misdeeds, WHATEVER they were, BEFORE they became a matter of
> public record?
> 
> IOW, Gary's claimed premise for harassing the Huge Cajones Remailer is
> not credible.  His original report of "abuse" turns out to not have been 
> abuse at all.