The charges against this defendant have been dismissed. The judge allowed a motion to suppress, holding that the police had no valid reason to order him out of the car or to search him.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Brookline Doctor Busted With Gun & Hooker
- Thread starter Mike S
- Start date
I have often wondered how that works. Maybe the judge could see how deep the Dr pockets were and he didn't want to be embarrassed by his ruling being overturned on appeal, so he dismissed the case.
Do judges get embarrassed when their ruling is overturned?
nstassel
NES Member
No they don't usually care. Because the appeals court reversing happens very rarely the trial judge isn't trying to cover their butt.
KBCraig
NES Member
FIFY, since it's probably long gone.
Agnotology
NES Member
"we met on tinder" instantly in the clear.
Last edited:
Because it's true.
Next time he'll be smarter and hire a hooker who knows when to open her mouth and shut it.
ridleyman
NES Member
The "federal income tax" is a tax on "federal income." It's not the federal tax on income. I haven't paid a dime of federal or state income tax since 2015, and got all my money back for 2016 + Plus Interest! Just think about it: is a "small business owner" a small owner of a business or the owner of a small business? -- Dr. Kang Lu --
D
Deleted member 12999
We like how you party Doc
[/QUOTE]
Not true! The 2nd Amendment is completely intact in Massachusetts and the rest of the United States.
There is NO license to "keep and bear Arms," is there?
Of course not! Never heard of one... There's only a license to carry!
Look guys, I doctor, so I need a license to doctor.
Nurses nurse, accountants account, plumbers plum -- and they all need licenses.
So guess what boys: carriers carry, and you MUST have a license to carry, if you carry!
But what does carry mean?
MGL 41 § 98 authorizes the "powers and duties" of police officers to carry weapons "while on official business,"
MGL 161A § 47 - Bus carriers carry passengers "for hire,"
MGL 90 § 51M (2017 edition) - public and private carriers perform "transportation of persons for hire,"
MGL 90 § 49O (2017 edition) - public air carriers transport "for hire,"
MGL 159 § 12 - common carriers serve in the "carriage of passengers for hire,"
MGL 161 §52 - carriers of mail are companies hired to carry the mail,
and MGL 266 § 38 - carriers generally are those "in the business of transporting ... property for hire."
So "carry" means a "power" or "duty" of the executive branch of government, or commercial "business of transporting ... property for hire."
Again, just like I told the cops, the ADA and the court -- I'm a doctor, I need a license to doctor.
I don't "carry," I merely "bear Arms," and there's no license to "bear Arms!"
--Dr. Kang Lu --
Not true! The 2nd Amendment is completely intact in Massachusetts and the rest of the United States.
There is NO license to "keep and bear Arms," is there?
Of course not! Never heard of one... There's only a license to carry!
Look guys, I doctor, so I need a license to doctor.
Nurses nurse, accountants account, plumbers plum -- and they all need licenses.
So guess what boys: carriers carry, and you MUST have a license to carry, if you carry!
But what does carry mean?
MGL 41 § 98 authorizes the "powers and duties" of police officers to carry weapons "while on official business,"
MGL 161A § 47 - Bus carriers carry passengers "for hire,"
MGL 90 § 51M (2017 edition) - public and private carriers perform "transportation of persons for hire,"
MGL 90 § 49O (2017 edition) - public air carriers transport "for hire,"
MGL 159 § 12 - common carriers serve in the "carriage of passengers for hire,"
MGL 161 §52 - carriers of mail are companies hired to carry the mail,
and MGL 266 § 38 - carriers generally are those "in the business of transporting ... property for hire."
So "carry" means a "power" or "duty" of the executive branch of government, or commercial "business of transporting ... property for hire."
Again, just like I told the cops, the ADA and the court -- I'm a doctor, I need a license to doctor.
I don't "carry," I merely "bear Arms," and there's no license to "bear Arms!"
--Dr. Kang Lu --
Last edited:
4th offense?
read this....
read this....
Doctor held on gun charge
WORCESTER - A Brookline doctor accused of carrying a firearm without a license and paying a prostitute for sex was ordered held without bail for up to 120 days after a dangerousness hearing Thursday …
www.telegram.com
4th offense?
read this....
Doctor held on gun charge
WORCESTER - A Brookline doctor accused of carrying a firearm without a license and paying a prostitute for sex was ordered held without bail for up to 120 days after a dangerousness hearing Thursday …www.telegram.com
No that was a mistake. And no, there was NOT an offense, not even one:
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be into a crime." Miller v. United States, 230 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1956).
D
Deleted member 12999
I honestly hope so.
Yes I am, and I'm here to support my Constitution.
Look guys, I doctor, so I need a license to doctor.
Nurses nurse, accountants account, plumbers plum -- and they all need licenses.
So guess what boys: carriers carry, and you MUST have a license to carry, if you carry!
But what does carry mean?
MGL 41 § 98 authorizes the "powers and duties" of police officers to carry weapons "while on official business,"
MGL 161A § 47 - Bus carriers carry passengers "for hire,"
MGL 90 § 51M (2017 edition) - public and private carriers perform "transportation of persons for hire,"
MGL 90 § 49O (2017 edition) - public air carriers transport "for hire,"
MGL 159 § 12 - common carriers serve in the "carriage of passengers for hire,"
MGL 161 §52 - carriers of mail are companies hired to carry the mail,
and MGL 266 § 38 - carriers generally are those "in the business of transporting ... property for hire."
So "carry" means a "power" or "duty" of the executive branch of government, or commercial "business of transporting ... property for hire."
Again, just like I told the cops, the ADA and the court -- I'm a doctor, I need a license to doctor.
I don't "carry," I merely "bear Arms," and there's no license to "bear Arms!"
Watch I don't need a "license to carry!" on YouTube to see excerpts of my case in the Worcester District Court.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCdR7ct20cY
--Dr. Kang Lu --
The U S Supreme Court has ruled that states can impose reasonable restrictions on gun permitting, so as much as I believe in 2A Constitutional Carry, until the law is changed in MA, or the U S Supreme Court rules otherwise, a license to carry or possess is required in MA.
How the good Doctor had 3 previous charges dropped or otherwise disposed of without conviction is beyond me.
IF we are to believe the article above, and we believe the Police ( and sorry to our members in Blue, I have to take their observations with a grain of salt for the purposes of discussion) the person in the passengers seat gave the Police probable cause to believe a crime ( sexual conduct for a fee) was in progress ( money changed hands) and they wanted the good Doctor out of the car so as to interview each party out of earshot of each other, then regardless if a knife was seen strapped to his hip, a pat down would not IMHO be unreasonable for Officer safety. When they pulled the car over and ran the plate ( there was probable cause for the Ch 90 stop) they probably saw the registered owners history, and were already acting out of an abundance of caution.
It was not unreasonable for the Officers to ask the Doctor to step out of his vehicle IMHO if they had reason to believe a criminal act was in progress.
This is NOT the person I want as a champion of 2A rights.
OK Brookline, an anti 2A community of the highest degree REVOKED his LTC in 2003.
Under what circumstances? 209A? 208?
( Lautenberg was upheld by the Supreme Court, the test case was some Bozo from Maine who did us no favors)
If it was revoked why didn't he do what the Dentist from Wakefield did and go into court and fight it?
P.S. the Dentist lost under the discretionary licensing part of the law.
How the good Doctor had 3 previous charges dropped or otherwise disposed of without conviction is beyond me.
IF we are to believe the article above, and we believe the Police ( and sorry to our members in Blue, I have to take their observations with a grain of salt for the purposes of discussion) the person in the passengers seat gave the Police probable cause to believe a crime ( sexual conduct for a fee) was in progress ( money changed hands) and they wanted the good Doctor out of the car so as to interview each party out of earshot of each other, then regardless if a knife was seen strapped to his hip, a pat down would not IMHO be unreasonable for Officer safety. When they pulled the car over and ran the plate ( there was probable cause for the Ch 90 stop) they probably saw the registered owners history, and were already acting out of an abundance of caution.
It was not unreasonable for the Officers to ask the Doctor to step out of his vehicle IMHO if they had reason to believe a criminal act was in progress.
This is NOT the person I want as a champion of 2A rights.
OK Brookline, an anti 2A community of the highest degree REVOKED his LTC in 2003.
Under what circumstances? 209A? 208?
( Lautenberg was upheld by the Supreme Court, the test case was some Bozo from Maine who did us no favors)
If it was revoked why didn't he do what the Dentist from Wakefield did and go into court and fight it?
P.S. the Dentist lost under the discretionary licensing part of the law.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 12999
This guy F*U*C*K*S
Hi Appraiser,
I appreciate your comment on what the Supreme Court said, but here's some thing else the Courts and our Constitution also said (in quotes):
There's no such thing as a license to bear arms, any more than there's a license for free speech or a license to practice one's religion.
Our right to defend our own lives is a "fundamental right," secured by the "supreme Law of the land;" which, "is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans;" it "is fully applicable to the States;" and "A state may not impose a charge [or a license tax] for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution;" where "...the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice;" and "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Please See
Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), Article VI, clause 2, Supremacy Clause of the Constitution for the United States, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22 (1923), and Miller v. United States , 230 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1956), respectively.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
-- Dr. Kang Lu --
Last edited:
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,916
- Likes
- 23,496
This guy F*U*C*K*S
This guy IS the throbbing hardon of freedom in MA. My newest hero around here.
D
Deleted member 12999
Doc. You are the most 'No Step On Snekingest' motherf***er I've seen on NES ever.
Can you imagine if the ATF rolled up on Doc for the NES lower buy instead of NOTTOM?
Cordwood
Can you imagine if the ATF rolled up on Doc for the NES lower buy instead of NOTTOM?
Cordwood
![[popcorn]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/043.gif "Popcorn [popcorn]")
Guns and hookers... My kinda guy. Rock on, doc.
IMO, the gun is a constitutional right and should be a non event, and the hooker thing is two consenting adults adulting, with some money thrown into the mix. Nothing wrong for paying a woman to leave you the fugg alone when you're done doing business. Seeing how expensive some marriages and subsequent divorces are, I'd consider that a sound investment. Anywho, I'd have a beer with the doc.
IMO, the gun is a constitutional right and should be a non event, and the hooker thing is two consenting adults adulting, with some money thrown into the mix. Nothing wrong for paying a woman to leave you the fugg alone when you're done doing business. Seeing how expensive some marriages and subsequent divorces are, I'd consider that a sound investment. Anywho, I'd have a beer with the doc.
