🚀 go-pugleaf

I gotta admit you're making sense here.  You know even in California there has to
be some showing of the element of a crime to convict or accept a guilty plea.  The
defendant has to articulate to the court the elements and have the court find that
the elements are present before even accepting a guilty plea.  I mean a guy could
come in and admit to any old sort of behavior that is crude or unsavory but not
necessarily a crime.  For example, criminal intent is a necessary element of a
felony.  The acourt would have to have heard sufficient information to support the
element of intent, and the list goes on.  Ya can't just walk in and go straight to
jail in America.

My own experience in working with sex offenders tells me that this extreme level of
denial is a dangerous sign and those who would believe the "kissing a 17 year old"
version have never had the experience of trying to put a case together.  Just think
of the possibility of the legal appeal and the sort of trouble the prosecution
could get into if they allowed a case to go forward as it is presented here. Phooie
on anyone who would prefer to believe the self serving, ego salving, whine of
someone who is seemingly still not able to admit to his pederastic behavior.



Anonymous wrote:

> gburnore@databasix.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote:
>
> > >So I take it from your post it IS possible to get convicted for just
> > >"kissing" a 17 year old girl? Isn't the age of consent in California 16
> > >anyway? It still seems pretty far fetched...
> >
> > No. It's 18 and no, it doesn't seem far fetched.
>
> It is if you keep making that assertion and refusing to substantiate it.
>
> > >Maybe if Burnore would provide /evidence/ supporting his claims people
> > >would get off his back and drop the subject.
>
> If he had the evidence he claims to have, I'm sure he would.
>
> > So then if I accuse you of murder, it's up to you to prove you didn't murder
> > anyone, right?  Well then prove it, murderer!  Prove you didn't kill someone.
> >  Sounds stupid, right?
>
> No, it's like a CONVICTED MURDERER suddenly claiming that all he did
> was call someone a bad name -- then refusing to prove it.  Absent
> any other evidence, you'd have to go by the language in the statute
> under which the person was convicted.  And it would say "murder" not
> "name calling" -- just as the one under you were convicted mentioned
> the word "molest" but not "kiss".
>
> Gary, over a year ago you *CLAIMED* you had proof, and promised to
> publish it on your website.  Why is that *NOW* you're claiming that
> it's "impossible" to prove what you said you'd prove then?
>
> > Those that accuse must prove.
>
> Yes, and it's you who are accusing the California legal system of
> convicting you as a sex offender for nothing more than, allegedly,
> kissing a 17 year old girl.
>
> > You can't. They can't. There's nothing to
> > prove.
>
> Your conviction on the child molestation charge is proof enough.
> And you've already admitted to that.  Now if you want to rebut that,
> then the burden of proof is on you, instead.  You had your chance to
> make your accusers prove your guilt in a trial, remember?  You
> passed up that opportunity by pleading no contest, and the legal
> presumption is now that you're guilty.  And you've done nothing to
> rebut it other than that preposterous, uncorroborated story about
> you supposedly "just kissing a 17 year old girl".
>
> And your own claims are not consistent with your "just a kiss"
> theory.  For example, why would "just a kiss" motivate you to go see a
> psychiatrist afterwards?  Why would "just a kiss" cause your shrink
> to report you to the authorities, as you claim?  (Presumable you
> told him many more details than you've posted on Usenet, and he
> still reported you for child molestation.)  Why would "just a kiss"
> be so embarassing to you and/or your victim that a trial was
> supposedly out of the question?  How many 17 year old girls are
> embarassed to admit having been kissed?  (Most would be more
> embarassed to admit that they HADN'T by age 17.)  Why would "just a
> kiss" require $11,000 in psychiatric care for your victim, for which
> you were required to pay restitution?  Why would "just a kiss"
> motivate your victim's mother to go to court to prevent you from
> fleeing the state to evade your responsibility to register as a sex
> offender?
>
> Your story is just too full of holes, Mr. Burnore.