US v. Emerson: profile of Dr. Emerson, Balto Sun

Covert Mission

New member
www.sunspot.net > News > Crime & Punishment | Back to story
from: SOURCE

A small-town doctor caught in the cross fire
Right to bear arms could face major test in Texas gun case

By Ann LoLordo
Sun National Staff

SAN ANGELO, Texas - In the debate over the constitutional right to bear arms, Timothy Joe Emerson is an unlikely protagonist. He's no Charlton
Heston. Not even close.

Broke and living with his 80-year-old dad, Emerson is a physician who bounced from one job to another until he opened a medical practice in this
Texas plains town. He's a father trapped in a nasty divorce who has been barred from seeing his daughter for 11 months.

But it is Emerson's possession of a handgun during an argument with his ex-wife and the federal court case that followed that have attracted the
attention of legal scholars and historians across the country.

Emerson allegedly threatened his wife with the 9 mm Beretta, in violation of a restraining order commonly issued in divorce cases that precludes
spouses from threatening or harassing each other. He was arrested Dec. 10, 1998.

The federal charge upended Emerson's life and set in motion what could become the first Supreme Court review in 61 years of the Second Amendment
right to bear arms.

Emerson's court-appointed lawyer argued that the soft-spoken physician had a constitutional right to have the gun. A federal judge in Texas agreed
and dismissed the case. The government appealed.

It didn't take long for the gun lobby and anti-gun activists to weigh in. More than 20 groups - including the state of Alabama, the National Network to
End Domestic Violence, and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership - have filed briefs in United States vs. Emerson.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is to hear the case the week of June 12 in New Orleans. If that court agrees that Emerson does have a constitutional right to his gun,
the Supreme Court is likely to hear the case.

Such a review may affect the myriad gun control laws passed since 1939. It also may lead to a review of temporary restraining orders issued in divorce proceedings.

The key issue for the appellate court is the extent of the constitutional right to bear arms. Is it an individual right or one to be exercised as part of a state militia? Does the
Second Amendment restrict regulation of firearms by the government?

But the question nagging Timothy Joe Emerson is this: When will my life get back on track?

At the time of his arrest, Emerson didn't know that the mere possession of a gun put him at odds with a 1994 federal law intended to curb domestic violence. His arrest 16
months ago worsened an already difficult time for the 43-year-old physician.

His wife left him for her hairdresser. He was working on a restricted license. He was behind in the office rent.

"It's like a West Texas soap opera. Your business goes to the tanks when the cops come to arrest you," said David Guinn, the court-appointed Texas lawyer who represented
Emerson.

Most recently, Emerson spent a couple of nights in jail for failing to pay child support. He's broke and has been for some time. Credit card companies are hounding him. He
owes about $17,000 in back taxes. He didn't have the $310 fee to renew his medical license.

If you engage Timothy Joe Emerson in a conversation about the Second Amendment, he can recite only part of it. The adopted son of an insurance salesman and his wife,
Emerson grew up in Dallas and got his first gun at age 14. He learned early on that "you don't point a gun, a real gun, a toy gun - any gun - unless you intend to shoot it."

Over the years, he collected about 35 guns - an AK-47 and other military-style weapons among them - and kept them in a safe. Emerson says, "I'm not even going to say the
right to bear arms is a good thing. But it's a right we have."

He hasn't been a member of the National Rifle Association in years and years. Anyway, he says, he can't afford the $35 membership fee.

Federal agents arrested him in December 1998 as he was leaving the beauty shop where his girlfriend worked. He spent the night in jail and, he says, missed a morning
appointment to purchase the building that housed his medical office.

Since then, Emerson has been alternately depressed, confused and angry. He has been refused visits with his 4-year-old daughter, Logan Ashley, although his parents see her
monthly. His ex-wife has moved with the child to a town about 50 miles away.

In a recent letter to her dad, Logan wrote, "I love you. I hope you come back."

Life wasn't always this hard. But it hasn't exactly been a physician's dream.

"I've got one of those resumes that everybody looks at and says 'something's wrong with this guy,'" says Emerson, whose boyish face and casual dress make him appear
younger than he is.

After graduating from the University of Texas medical school, Emerson wanted to become a Green Beret doctor. He ended up working as a civilian physician at North
Carolina's Fort Bragg. When his contract wasn't renewed, he returned to Texas where he worked in a series of jobs: a medical clinic in San Angelo, several emergency rooms
and a student health center.

In 1991, Emerson was charged with sexually touching a minor and received probation before judgment. He was ordered to undergo psychiatric counseling. As a result of the
court action, Emerson's medical license was suspended.

Emerson's life turned upside down. His wife divorced him. He became depressed and had suicidal thoughts, according to state medical records. Stripped of his medical
license, he returned to college in pursuit of a doctorate. He taught biology as a graduate assistant and worked in a convenience store. There he met Sacha, a petite brunette
15 years his junior. They married Nov. 27, 1993, with wedding bands that cost $59. Things were looking up.

In August of that year, the Texas medical board agreed to return Emerson's medical license; he had successfully attended counseling and was a model probationer. He could
resume his medical practice, provided he attended continuing medical education courses, underwent a psychiatric evaluation and saw patients in the presence of a female
professional, the board ruled.

Emerson went to work at a family clinic in McAllen, Texas, then took a job working for an insurance firm in San Antonio. He also practiced with a medical school friend. In
1996, he returned to San Angelo with his family and opened a small practice. He borrowed money from relatives to buy used equipment and office furnishings. His wife
worked as his assistant; a friend was the receptionist.

"We started out with zero patients a day. It slowly built to where we saw 10 patients a day on a good day. We did a little bit of everything," including body piercing,
Emerson said.

But in 1998, Emerson's marriage fell apart. His wife, Sacha, began seeing more and more of a family friend who was her hairdresser. She filed for divorce that August. Then
she accused Emerson of threatening her boyfriend, and she got a restraining order against him.

Meanwhile, Emerson's small medical practice limped along. To help pay for food, he said he repeatedly hocked six or eight of his guns at the local pawnshop. His wife, who
worked at a nursing home, continued to pay the car insurance and he reimbursed her.

It was during a November 1998 visit to his medical office to collect an insurance payment that Sacha Emerson claims her ex-husband pulled out a gun in a threatening
manner. She accused him of pointing the gun at her in the presence of their young daughter.

Emerson won't talk about the circumstances of that day, except to say he bought the Beretta at a local gun show and brought it to the office after an outburst by a patient
whom he suspected of abusing his pain medication.

His possession of the gun violated a state restraining order, which triggered a little-known provision in federal domestic abuse law. Federal agents arrested Emerson on
Dec. 10, 1998.

The next day, his medical office was padlocked. The landlord sold off his medical equipment and donated the furniture to a Christian group, Emerson said. His wedding band
was in a desk drawer. His physician's certificate, medical books, patient charts, accounts receivable - all gone, he says.

Emerson's lawyer - a public defender - challenged the doctor's indictment on the federal gun charge almost immediately. Guinn's argument that the restraining order violated
Emerson's constitutional right to have a gun was just one among many arguments he presented to the judge.

But it was the one seized on by Judge Sam R. Cummings.

"It is absurd that a boilerplate state court divorce order can collaterally and automatically extinguish a law-abiding citizen's Second Amendment rights, particularly when
neither the judge issuing the order, nor the parties nor their attorneys are aware of the federal criminal penalties arising from firearm possession after entry of the
restraining order," Cummings wrote in his April 1999 ruling. "That such a routine civil order has such extensive consequences totally attenuated from divorce proceedings
makes the statute unconstitutional," he wrote. "There must be a limit to government regulation on lawful firearm possession. This statute exceeds that limit, and therefore it
is unconstitutional."

Emerson still lives with his father in a small, unkempt rancher with a collection of old cars, trucks and boats and an aging motorcycle in the yard.

He remains unemployed. He stopped taking his anti-depression medicine because he has no health insurance.

"I kind of went on a diet 'cause I got bored eating," says Emerson, whose one indulgence is DrPepper soda. "There have been three or four days I've just sat in my room and
not gone outside. You have to have ambition enough to do stuff. Today I just don't care.

"I don't know if I really care about getting my life back. But I want my daughter back. I can honestly say I want my wife back, but I'm smart enough to know what's real.

"When my marriage broke up, Logan was my family," he says of his daughter. "I'll work in a car wash. I'll clean toilets. I'll dig ditches. When they took her away, they took
part of me."

The Emerson case could become the legal gunfight of the age. But for Tim Emerson, it's a chance to be reunited with his only child.

"If this was not a big constitutional-rights case, I'd be sunk," he says.


Originally published May 30 2000

News | Sports | Features | Opinion | Classified
www.sunspot.net

Edited to fix formatting problem. - TBM

[This message has been edited by TheBluesMan (edited June 06, 2000).]
 
Reporter needs to get her facts straight. Emerson was arrested by the feds prior to the alleged brandishing of the gun. It came about as he was selling one of his guns to a pawn shop to come up with his child support payments. Guess that would not make Emerson sound enough like a bad guy for Ann LoLordo.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
Let me ask a very honest question here.

Does anyone on TFL have personal knowledge of Dr. Emerson? While in St. Louis last year, I heard Guinn discuss the case, and he was very interesting.

To be honest, I'm wondering if it would be proper and worthwhile to extend some assistance to Dr. Emerson? I can empathize with the man, and while he certainly didn't intend to get into such a mess, he has unwittingly become a potential linchpin in what most of us consider a critical civil right.

Your thoughts?

Regards from AZ
 
Jeff: I had the same thought. I feel like even if "we" coughed up enough $$ for the guy to renew his medical license, it would be a good deed. He seems to have had a serious run of bad luck ( albeit some of his own making, as is often the case), but his misfortune may yield for us some good fortune, in the form of a positive court decision in the Emerson case.

I tried to call all the Emersons in San Angelo (via an internet search), with no luck in reaching Dr. Tim. I was hoping to get permission to post his mailing address here and elsewhere. $10 X 100 or 200 might help a lot. If anyone here knows a better way to track him down, feel free.

I feel sorry for the guy, even if he might, and I say might, be a bit flaky. He is surely right in thinking that were it not for the 2nd amendment aspect of this case which has gotten so much attention, he'd be up a creek. I'd like to send him a twenty-spot.
 
I'd start with a search for his lawyer if I wanted to find him post haste.

Emerson upheld 7-2 in 2002!

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited June 07, 2000).]
 
A friend is making inquiries on this subject, regarding financial assistance. I'll post the results here on TFL.

Regards from AZ
 
This bit of reporting is either very bias, or this guy is a real mess. If this is a fair representation of the case, then the MMM folks must be in seventh heaven, because this is a nightmare vehicle for testing the intent of the second ammendment. This is really scarry stuff. Let's see if a sexual deviant and violent man should be using guns to make a point. I hope that this is journalistic bias, otherwise we are cooked.
 
It WOULD be kind of nice if the guy survived until the trial, wouldn't it? I mean, I'd hate to see this turn into a replay of Miller, where only the government gets to argue it's case, because the defendant is either dead or missing.

Gary: There's probably a bit of journalistic bias involved, but remember, the Supreme court is used to constitutional issues being raised by scumbags... As a general rule, selective prosecution keeps the truly admirable people out of the higher courts. The government wants to win these appeals, to establish precidents in their favor, and they deliberately drop charges against nice people to assure that they've got the scumbag factor working in their favor when constitutional law cases are decided. If Emerson were Dr. Kildare, we wouldn't have a case. It's disgusting, but true.

The exception, of course, is when the government WANTS to lose; Supposing that Bush is actually better on the Second amendment than he currently sounds, the ideal thing to do during his administration would be to set up some test cases with sqeaky clean defendants, and the Justice department taking a dive in defending the gun control laws. THAT is how they're going to be taken down, if it's going to happen!

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!

[This message has been edited by Brett Bellmore (edited June 08, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Brett Bellmore (edited June 08, 2000).]
 
On one hand, it's unfortunate that this particular hard-luck/scumbag case is possibly the lynchpin for a key right of righteous free men.

On the other hand, if the 2nd is upheld for this generic lowlife, then the right is much more strongly reinforced for upstanding citizens.
 
I'm rather hesitant to blindly accept a passing reference that Emerson is a deviant. We all know the danger of broad categorization and the machinations of the legal system.
Regardless of the real and perceived facts, it wasn't sufficient to have him serve felony jail time, and it is totally irrelevent to the important RKBA issue he represents.

Its the typical smear job the socialists are adept at (ala Paula Jones, et al)

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Emerson's court-appointed lawyer argued that the soft-spoken physician had a constitutional right to have the gun. A federal judge in Texas agreed and dismissed the case. The government appealed. [/quote]

This is the key to the story. If Emmerson was such a scumbag, the judge wouldn't have ruled as he did.

The Government is appealing the case because, well to put it frankly, what else are they going to do?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Such a review may affect the myriad gun control laws passed since 1939. It also may lead to a review of temporary restraining orders issued in divorce proceedings. [/quote]

The Government is litereally screwed if Emerson's case was not appealed. They have no choice.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The key issue for the appellate court is the extent of the constitutional right to bear arms. Is it an individual right or one to be exercised as part of a state militia? Does the

Second Amendment restrict regulation of firearms by the government? [/quote]

I'll be willing to make a prediction here. Emmerson is going to win the the 5th Circuit. The Judges will simply uphold the verdict of the previous Court, without comment. And send it allong to the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court decides to take on the case (which i doubt it will), it will find some sort of compromise between the RKBA and the Governments jurisdiciton to regulate firearms.

In other words, sure you have the RKBA, because it is a plainly understood and well documented precident that the people are sovergin not the states (a fact demonstrated by Roe v. Wade and by all other 1st Amendment rulings.)

However, the Supreme Court will then find that licensing, "safety regulations", and "capacity regulations" are not "infringements" on the RKBA, by stating that they do not directly effect your ability to possess some arms.

Effectively leaving us with the same BS set of rules we have today.

I just simply cannot see the current, or any near future, Supreme Court adjudicating that original intent of the Bill of Rights. I just don't see this happening.



------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

~USP

"... I rejoice that America has resisted [The Stamp Act]. Three millions of people, so dead to all feelings of liberty as to voluntarily submit to being slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest of us." -- William Pitt, British Parliament, December 1765
 
USP45,

"I just simply cannot see the current, or any near future, Supreme Court adjudicating that original intent of the Bill of Rights. I just don't see this happening."

Concur. These SCJ's are appointed,

by politicians,

from the government.

No way will any of the BOR's ever be properly interpreted again. Bummer.

CMOS

------------------
NRA? Good. Now join the GOA!
 
Back
Top