Convicted sex offender Gary Lee Burnore databasix. NC Statute: 14-202.1 MINOR
Nomen Nescio
4201 BLAND ROAD APT J
RALEIGH NC 27609
TELEPHONE (919) 420-7691
Offense and Conviction Information:
Conviction Date: 03-13-1997
NC Statute: 14-202.1 - INDECENT LIBERTY MINOR
Sentence Imposed: PROBATION 3Y
Court County: SANTA CLARA, CA
NC sex offender registry number: (SRN 001693S3)
Registration Status: Registered
Possible Violations: None Reported
BURNORE,GARY LEE
Alias Names:
BURNORE,GARY LEE
Photo Date: 08-27-1997
SRN: 001693S3
Reported Date: 12-16-1997 Address Verified: NO
Street: 4201 BLAND ROAD APT J
City: RALEIGH State: NC Zip: 27609 County: WAKE
Race: W Sex: M Height: 5'08" Weight: 170 LBS. Hair: BRO Eyes: BLU
Birth Date(s): 10-13-1957
Scars, marks, tattoos:
State ID #: FBI #: Dept. Corr. #:
Contact County: WAKE Registration Date: 08-27-1997
Conviction Date: 03-13-1997 Release Date:
Court County: - SANTA CLARA, CA
Reported Date: 08-27-1997 Address Verified: NO
Street: 4201 BLAND ROAD
City: RALEIGH State: NC Zip: 27609 County: WAKE
Aratzio
Bartlett <jgbar...@bigfo0t.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Nice dodge though all too predictable. Tell us the real reason.
>
>And why are Burnore and his so called "business partner" Kevin Cannon
>hiding again?
Why hide behind a sock puppet, chuck?
Thought you were the "brave fighter against anonymous sockpuppets".
--
Hachiroku explaining his *daddy* issues:
Message-ID: <homalb$usi$2...@news.eternal-september.org>
I just keep seeing a pudgy 50 year old with his nethers rattling against
his knees...
The Greatest
"Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:8eqvr59g7e629ebk7...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:54:15 -0400, in the land of news.groups, John
> Bartlett <jgbar...@bigfo0t.com> got double secret probation for
> writing:
>
> >Nice dodge though all too predictable. Tell us the real reason.
> >
> >And why are Burnore and his so called "business partner" Kevin Cannon
> >hiding again?
>
> Why hide behind a sock puppet, chuck?
>
> Thought you were the "brave fighter against anonymous sockpuppets".
Says the brave "Last Ko0k Standing" hiding behind his sneakemail acct. and a remailer....Roz Ratz!!
All whorship the brave Ko0k: Ratzo Rizzo !!
--
HJ
John Bartlett
>On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:54:15 -0400, in the land of news.groups, John
>Bartlett <jgbar...@bigfo0t.com> got double secret probation for
>writing:
>
>>Nice dodge though all too predictable. Tell us the real reason.
>>
>>And why are Burnore and his so called "business partner" Kevin Cannon
>>hiding again?
>
>Why hide behind a sock puppet, chuck?
>
>Thought you were the "brave fighter against anonymous sockpuppets".
I'm not "chuck" but you can feel free to think that if it puts your little
mind at ease, "Aratzio." Maybe you are "chuck."
§nühw¤Łf
thought with news:3lmf7t....@news.alt.net:
I thot I was supposed to be Chuck this week...WHOSE IN CHARGE OF
SHEDULEING THIS SHIT!?
--
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
Aratzio
><a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:54:15 -0400, in the land of news.groups, John
>>Bartlett <jgbar...@bigfo0t.com> got double secret probation for
>>writing:
>>
>>>Nice dodge though all too predictable. Tell us the real reason.
>>>
>>>And why are Burnore and his so called "business partner" Kevin Cannon
>>>hiding again?
>>
>>Why hide behind a sock puppet, chuck?
>>
>>Thought you were the "brave fighter against anonymous sockpuppets".
>
>I'm not "chuck" but you can feel free to think that if it puts your little
>mind at ease, "Aratzio." Maybe you are "chuck."
So you are just a generic coward as opposed to a specific coward.
Aratzio
"§nühw¤Łf" <snuh...@yahoo.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
>John Bartlett <jgbar...@bigfo0t.com> clouded the waters of pure
>thought with news:3lmf7t....@news.alt.net:
>
>> <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:54:15 -0400, in the land of news.groups,
>>>John Bartlett <jgbar...@bigfo0t.com> got double secret probation
>>>for writing:
>>>
>>>>Nice dodge though all too predictable. Tell us the real reason.
>>>>
>>>>And why are Burnore and his so called "business partner" Kevin
>>>>Cannon hiding again?
>>>
>>>Why hide behind a sock puppet, chuck?
>>>
>>>Thought you were the "brave fighter against anonymous
>>>sockpuppets".
>>
>> I'm not "chuck" but you can feel free to think that if it puts
>> your little mind at ease, "Aratzio." Maybe you are "chuck."
>>
>
>I thot I was supposed to be Chuck this week...WHOSE IN CHARGE OF
>SHEDULEING THIS SHIT!?
I just looked, you are Gary this week.
pandora
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:54:15 -0400, in the land of news.groups, John
> Bartlett <jgbar...@bigfo0t.com> got double secret probation for
> writing:
>
>>Nice dodge though all too predictable. Tell us the real reason.
>>
>>And why are Burnore and his so called "business partner" Kevin Cannon
>>hiding again?
>
> Why hide behind a sock puppet, chuck?
>
> Thought you were the "brave fighter against anonymous sockpuppets".
You don't get it. It's okay when *he* does it.
Aratzio
pandora <pan...@peak.org> got double secret probation for writing:
I got it, I just like making him lie some more.
§nühw0£f
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 09:53:37 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> "§nühw¤Łf" <snuh...@yahoo.com> got double secret probation for
> writing:
>
>> John Bartlett <jgbar...@bigfo0t.com> clouded the waters of pure
>> thought with news:3lmf7t....@news.alt.net:
>>
>>> <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:54:15 -0400, in the land of news.groups,
>>>> John Bartlett <jgbar...@bigfo0t.com> got double secret probation
>>>> for writing:
>>>>
>>>>> Nice dodge though all too predictable. Tell us the real reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> And why are Burnore and his so called "business partner" Kevin
>>>>> Cannon hiding again?
>>>> Why hide behind a sock puppet, chuck?
>>>>
>>>> Thought you were the "brave fighter against anonymous
>>>> sockpuppets".
>>> I'm not "chuck" but you can feel free to think that if it puts
>>> your little mind at ease, "Aratzio." Maybe you are "chuck."
>>>
>> I thot I was supposed to be Chuck this week...WHOSE IN CHARGE OF
>> SHEDULEING THIS SHIT!?
>
> I just looked, you are Gary this week.
>
pandora
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:44:54 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> pandora <pan...@peak.org> got double secret probation for writing:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 20:01:43 -0700, Aratzio wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:54:15 -0400, in the land of news.groups, John
>>> Bartlett <jgbar...@bigfo0t.com> got double secret probation for
>>> writing:
>>>
>>>>Nice dodge though all too predictable. Tell us the real reason.
>>>>
>>>>And why are Burnore and his so called "business partner" Kevin Cannon
>>>>hiding again?
>>>
>>> Why hide behind a sock puppet, chuck?
>>>
>>> Thought you were the "brave fighter against anonymous sockpuppets".
>>
>>You don't get it. It's okay when *he* does it.
>
> I got it, I just like making him lie some more.
I know you do. Just funning with ya. And he is quite entertaining.
spooge
news:t171s5pvf77i7d162...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:07:51 -0400, in the land of news.groups, John
> Bartlett <jgbar...@bigfo0t.com> got double secret probation for
> writing:
>
>><a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:54:15 -0400, in the land of news.groups, John
>>>Bartlett <jgbar...@bigfo0t.com> got double secret probation for
>>>writing:
>>>
>>>>Nice dodge though all too predictable. Tell us the real reason.
>>>>
>>>>And why are Burnore and his so called "business partner" Kevin
>>>>Cannon hiding again?
>>>
>>>Why hide behind a sock puppet, chuck?
>>>
>>>Thought you were the "brave fighter against anonymous sockpuppets".
>>
>>I'm not "chuck" but you can feel free to think that if it puts your
>>little mind at ease, "Aratzio." Maybe you are "chuck."
>
> So you are just a generic coward as opposed to a specific coward.
They seem to pop up a lot in the spring along with the other worms.
--
I'm a romantic adventure
And I'm a reptile, too
Gregory Hall
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:23:02 -0400, in the land of news.groups, "atlas
> bugged" <atlasbug...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for
> writing:
>
>>"Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhonda...@earthling.net> wrote in message
>>news:3llc1e....@news.alt.net...
>>> John Bartlett wrote:
>>>>>> Why aren't you posting from your Databasix account?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have 8 or 9 nntp accounts. All of them get exercise--although
>>>>> not much lately, because I have more productive things to
>>>>> do--and that post was Altopia's turn.
>>
>>Oh, sure, do let us know when DBSUX's turn rolls around.
>>
>>>> Nice dodge though all too predictable. Tell us the real reason.
>>>
>>
>>Every few months, someone trots out this same vapid defense of Burnore.
>>
>>For those of you in AUK (or, that is to say, both of you) equipped to
>>think
>>in terms of analogy, this bit is like:
>>
>>"You say the guy stabbed someone with a knife. But that's false, I've
>>*investigated* this. He shot someone with a gun."
>>
>>"Therefore, the shooter is the *true victim* of a *smear campaign.*"
>>
>>"Don't dignify the false knife theory with a response...or, at least not
>>until I'm easily trolled into it in a few months."
>>
>>The Megan's registry bit is a lame dodge. Megan Kanka had neither lived -
>>nor died - at the time of the offense.
>>
>>"Ex Post Facto" is a legal concept that is honored in the breach these
>>days,
>>but it still survives.
>>
>>No one, not even Burnore, has denied he essentially did what he did.
>
> You know, chuck, I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure the lawyer in
> your case engaging the defendants outside of court in debate about the
> case or anything even related to the case, is downright stupid.
>
> In case you were thinking that your anonymity is protected because you
> use Altopia, a subpoena to Altopia for your information would be valid
> since you are a principle in the case. Trying to get general users
> information would get you smacked down pretty hard, but principals in
> the case is a whole different matter.
>
> If you knew Chris you would know that his policy does not include the
> actual parties involved in such a case.
>
> I do hope the Judge does not find out what you did, I doubt it will
> reflect well upon your professionalism.
But, what if a subpoena disclosed the fact that atlas bugged, in this
particular case, is just another of my many socks?
Bwahahhahahahahhahaha. Moron! Go shave your legs - they're disgustingly
stubbly.
--
Gregory Hall
Kent Wills
[...]
>> No one, not even Burnore, has denied he essentially did what he did.
>
>You know what would be both ironic and self-mocking?
He probably doesn't.
What's most amusing is that Charles presents that he believes if
someone doesn't deny a claim presented, the person is, in essence,
admitting to the accuracy of the claim.
A dangerous position for Charles to take, given the number of
accusations made against him that he's never denied.
>
>Someone who makes a living, so to speak, defending drug dealers, drunk
>drivers and wife beaters casting aspersions on what is the typical SOP
>for defense lawyers, i.e.: portraying the accused as a victim. Defense
>attorneys do that all the time: they'll blame the BAT machines of being
>faulty; they'll claim that their client had no knowledge of the 2 kilos
>of coke crammed up their ass; or assert that the abused spouse was
>deserving of the beating she received because of some minor transgression
>against her much larger and stronger spouse. Those are the only possible
>defenses to crimes that are so clearly repugnent as to beg the question
>'how do their attorneys sleep at night?'.
>
>So surely someone who has used those tactics themselves would never, ever
>openly publish something that denigrates that strategy. Make no mistake
>about it, any defense attorney with a clientel that includes the scumbags
>accused of those crimes will either have to resort to that tactic or
>limit her/his practice to plea-bargaining with the prosecutor because
>99.9% of their clients are guilty.
With trial delusion, the defense attorney should believe their
client is innocent.
It would be difficult to present a defense if defense counsel
believe's the defendant is guilty.
>Either way, the majority of the losers
>they defend end up in the hoosegow as they most assuredly deserve.
Some, yes. However, that someone is accused of, and tried for, a
crime, doesn't mean that they MUST be guilty of said crime.
Further, innocent people can be convicted.
>
>I bet many of the people reading such a missive would laugh long and hard
>at someone silly enough to do that and expect to be taken seriously.
I think most people laugh at anything Charles posts. Of course,
that's simply what I *think*. There is no way for me to prove my
thought to be correct or not.
--
Death: Weight doesn't come into it. My steed has carried armies. My
steed has carried cities. Yea, he hath carried all things in their due
time. But he's not going to carry you three.
War: Why not?
Death: It's a matter of the look of the thing.
War: It's going to look pretty good, then, isn't it, the One Horseman
and Three Pedestrians of the Apocalypse.
(from Sourcery, by Terry Pratchett)
Gregory Hall
news:o364s55vsj0rs454r...@4ax.com...
>
> Gary kissed his girlfriend's 17 year old daughter. Very
> inappropriate, but not anywhere near what you dishonestly try to
> imply.
> Is there a specific reason you are trying to make it appear as if
> Gary did that which he did not?
Maybe you should read this:
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc3.JPG
--
Gregory Hall