Doctor heads to court after online se...

Doctor heads to court after online sex sting

There are 17436 comments on the Contra Costa Times story from Oct 13, 2006, titled Doctor heads to court after online sex sting. In it, Contra Costa Times reports that:

A prominent Piedmont doctor is scheduled to appear in court Nov. 2 to answer to felony charges stemming from his arrest in late August in Petaluma in a sting operation involving online sex crimes with children.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Contra Costa Times.

crack pipe johnny

Beijing, China

#16484 Oct 26, 2012
Miggy wrote:
We may not be able to say with 100% certainty what he would or wouldn't do with his daughters.
But I sure wouldn't leave him alone with my daughters!
Why? Don't you want grandkids?

“Be an independent thinker”

Since: Jul 10

Greenville, Ohio

#16485 Oct 28, 2012
Miggy wrote:
Pen,
If you sent something, it might have gotten lost because I never got it.
Just got it done and emailed. Hope I wasn't the only person who read it.

“Serenity Now!”

Since: May 07

York Township, OH

#16486 Oct 28, 2012
crack pipe johnny wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Don't you want grandkids?
Don't bring the girls....

“Be an independent thinker”

Since: Jul 10

Greenville, Ohio

#16487 Oct 28, 2012
I got it back Miggy. When I checked your email address (the one you gave me) I had it wrong *Now* you should get it. Very sorry it took so long.
Viktoria Ironpride

Morgantown, WV

#16488 Oct 29, 2012
I wonder why Chris bothers to try to have an intellectual conversation with these creeps who show up to rape a child ("Is it compulsion? Is it addiction?"). No,this is not necessary. These are just normal men who want to hump underage girls (or boys). I would bet that most men would take a chance at this if the opportunity came along--

“Be an independent thinker”

Since: Jul 10

Greenville, Ohio

#16489 Oct 29, 2012
Viktoria Ironpride wrote:
...these creeps who show up to rape a child...These are just normal men...
Contradicting yourself, sock puppet. Unless you hate men anyway.
Miggy

Charlotte, NC

#16490 Oct 29, 2012
Pen,

I got your e-mail this morning just as I was leaving for work. I got to read it all, but I'll need to find some free time to go through it in detail and reply. Your feedback was obviously well thought out and is much appreciated!

To answer your question of if anyone else has read it: if you mean from Topix, I don't think so (their loss!) Otherwise, lots of people have - some known to me personally and some I know from message boards. Most people seem to really like it.

http://www.landowonder.com/184.html
Carnac The Magnificent

Carrollton, VA

#16491 Oct 29, 2012
CPJ took exception when I stated the following about Maurice Wolin:
- he has "poor impulse control." So says the courts, so says the Medical Board of the State of California.
- he goes beyond "thinking" and "imagining" to "taking physical action" in furtherance of his sexual deviance.
- he has demonstrated that he is willing to knowingly break the law in his search for sexual satisfaction.
crack pipe johnny wrote:
<quoted text>
All these mean roughly the same thing. In these three statments you're just repeating yourself and saying basically the same thing over and over again but acting like you're making different points to add to your "basis" for saying that Wolin would molest his own children when you're really just making one measely little point.
I will make CPJ happy by making it all one point:
- Maurice Wolin has "poor impulse control" according to the courts and the Medical Board of the State of California, he goes beyond "thinking" and "imagining" to "taking physical action" in furtherance of his sexual deviance, and he has demonstrated that he is willing to knowingly break the law in his search for sexual satisfaction.
Now that CPJ is content we can address his characterization of this point (or this multi-part point) as “one measly little point.”
That “one measly little point” brought down a medical career, destroyed a family, and created everlasting shame and embarrassment for someone who should have known better – Maurice Wolin, convicted felon. That “one measly little point” has his ugly mug plastered on California’s registered sex offender’s page, and causes concern for all his neighbors both on the personal safety side and on the lowered real estate values of those living around the sexual predator.
On a related matter, I am glad that CPJ does not challenge my point that states: "- he is willing to take exorbitant risks to satisfy his base proclivities?" Clearly it would be ridiculous to argue with that, and for the first time CPJ has shown the briefest glimmer of intelligence.
Carnac The Magnificent

Carrollton, VA

#16492 Oct 29, 2012
Now let’s do something productive.

What kind of job could MoWo have (or not)?

Or better yet, what are the characteristics (positive or negative) of a job for him?

For example, it cannot be to work for a publicly traded company or one that has contact with many general public customers. The reason for that is that the publicity of employing such a prominent sexual predator would be insurmountable for the employer.

It cannot be dog catcher either, because this would entail giving him a vehicle and letting him roam through the neighborhoods throughout the day, which would be too dangerous for young girls.

Maybe RayBan structural integrity tester, but he is probably overqualified for that.

Any thoughts? The funnier the better.
crack pipe johnny

Beijing, China

#16493 Oct 29, 2012
penman1 wrote:
Contradicting yourself, sock puppet. Unless you hate men anyway.
If you're an independent thinker than a disgusting piece of horse manure is delicious chocolate mousse.
crack pipe johnny

Beijing, China

#16494 Oct 29, 2012
Carnac The Magnificent wrote:
the lowered real estate values of those living around the sexual predator.
Where's your proof of that, phukface?
dont be stupid

San Jose, CA

#16495 Nov 1, 2012
Carnac The Magnificent wrote:
Now let’s do something productive.
What kind of job could MoWo have (or not)?
Or better yet, what are the characteristics (positive or negative) of a job for him?
For example, it cannot be to work for a publicly traded company or one that has contact with many general public customers. The reason for that is that the publicity of employing such a prominent sexual predator would be insurmountable for the employer.
It cannot be dog catcher either, because this would entail giving him a vehicle and letting him roam through the neighborhoods throughout the day, which would be too dangerous for young girls.
Maybe RayBan structural integrity tester, but he is probably overqualified for that.
Any thoughts? The funnier the better.
how many RSO are there on MEGANS LAW
they have cars
the police program has programs for employment for RSO's
so all RSO's should not have jobs or cars?
ignorant

San Jose, CA

#16496 Nov 1, 2012
innocuous

San Jose, CA

#16497 Nov 1, 2012

“Serenity Now!”

Since: May 07

York Township, OH

#16498 Nov 1, 2012
innocuous wrote:
Thank you, innocuous, for keeping the focus on Mr. Wolin and his many sins.
Miggy

Charlotte, NC

#16499 Nov 1, 2012
Roisman's lucky he found him a soft-hearted judge.

What more did he need to prove intent than to immediately start stripping?
DrTruth

Warminster, PA

#16500 Nov 2, 2012
Brittle Fingers wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, innocuous, for keeping the focus on Mr. Wolin and his many sins.
And a most grateful thank you, too, Brittle Fingers, for keeping the focus on Mr. Wolin and his many sins.

“Serenity Now!”

Since: May 07

York Township, OH

#16501 Nov 2, 2012
I...I....I shouldn't have come. I was curious.
crack pipe johnny

Beijing, China

#16502 Nov 2, 2012
Carnac The Magnificent wrote:
CPJ took exception when I stated the following about Maurice Wolin:
- he has "poor impulse control." So says the courts, so says the Medical Board of the State of California.
- he goes beyond "thinking" and "imagining" to "taking physical action" in furtherance of his sexual deviance.
- he has demonstrated that he is willing to knowingly break the law in his search for sexual satisfaction.
<quoted text>
I will make CPJ happy by making it all one point:
- Maurice Wolin has "poor impulse control" according to the courts and the Medical Board of the State of California, he goes beyond "thinking" and "imagining" to "taking physical action" in furtherance of his sexual deviance, and he has demonstrated that he is willing to knowingly break the law in his search for sexual satisfaction.
Now that CPJ is content we can address his characterization of this point (or this multi-part point) as “one measly little point.”
That “one measly little point” brought down a medical career, destroyed a family, and created everlasting shame and embarrassment for someone who should have known better – Maurice Wolin, convicted felon. That “one measly little point” has his ugly mug plastered on California’s registered sex offender’s page, and causes concern for all his neighbors both on the personal safety side and on the lowered real estate values of those living around the sexual predator.
On a related matter, I am glad that CPJ does not challenge my point that states: "- he is willing to take exorbitant risks to satisfy his base proclivities?" Clearly it would be ridiculous to argue with that, and for the first time CPJ has shown the briefest glimmer of intelligence.
Listen phukface, I'm not "content" because you're still full of shit. You didn't "make it all one point", all you did was change the punctuation. You're still trying to pretend that your one measley little point is composed of three different parts when really it's only got one part. It would be like me saying "hey, here's some information about this guy's shirt, and this bunch of information I'm about to give you breaks down into three pieces. Here it is: the shirt is red, the shirt is crimson, the shirt is scarlet." That would be a bunch of crap because I'm would only be saying one thing and one thing only: the shirt is red. Likewise, you don't have three parts to your measley little point, you just have one point that you repeated three times. You should have just said: "Wolin did something stupid that got him in trouble because he was impulsive."

And it's total BS that you're saying that I'm showing intelligence now just because I didn't challenge one measley little point that you made. You need to quit acting like such a retard.
Carnac The Magnificent

Chesapeake, VA

#16503 Nov 2, 2012
Miggy wrote:
Roisman's lucky he found him a soft-hearted judge.
What more did he need to prove intent than to immediately start stripping?
Miggy,

It was the same judge, Judge Wick, for both Roisman and Wolin. Earlier, we tried to compare the two cases, but we lack the chat log for Roisman, so trying to figure out why the two cases came out so different requires consideable speculation.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

San Leandro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 2 hr Inspector tiny ta... 20,694
News Benicia goes to the dogs as one of the top 10 c... (Jul '10) 8 hr Ben 14
News Christmas donations sought for Tots in American... 13 hr Uncle Sam 5
News Dictionary.com's word of the year: "Xenophobia" Thu Trumpsnutsinyoface 20
News Race and Beyond: Let's Talk About Race and Poverty (Oct '12) Nov 29 Raj 168
News Oakland: 30 arrested in anti-Trump protests Nov 15 Genl Forrest 8
Review: East Bay Hand Med Ctr Therapy - Andrew ... (Sep '09) Nov 8 Reginald Stocking 4

San Leandro Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

San Leandro Mortgages