Comments on: Who Will Guard the Guardians? http://www.duiblog.com/2009/04/16/who-will-guard-the-guardians-2/ Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution Wed, 22 May 2013 01:11:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: RichardAlan http://www.duiblog.com/2009/04/16/who-will-guard-the-guardians-2/comment-page-1/#comment-2437 RichardAlan Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:44:08 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=1558#comment-2437 Anyone? any Idea's? -- Does MADD have concerns over this "Fraudulent" information being reported on their abstract record for public viewing to an innocent "private citizen'? Anyone? any Idea’s? — Does MADD have concerns over this “Fraudulent” information being reported on their abstract record for public viewing to an innocent “private citizen’?

]]> By: RichardAlan http://www.duiblog.com/2009/04/16/who-will-guard-the-guardians-2/comment-page-1/#comment-2435 RichardAlan Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:54:31 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=1558#comment-2435 Is there anyone here that might have an idea as to why after two attempts the court, court clerk, and DMV is unable to provide the correct information that: a Conviction of reckless driving on 4 23-2009 23104 A is true and correct, that's not a conviction of DUI 23152 A, which is false and fraudulent information on my abstract??????. Why I've had to file two "Nunc Pro Tunc Minute Orders" ? and they still can't get it right. Is there anyone here that might have an idea as to why after two attempts the court, court clerk, and DMV is unable to provide the correct information that: a Conviction of reckless driving on 4 23-2009 23104 A is true and correct, that’s not a conviction of DUI 23152 A, which is false and fraudulent information on my abstract??????.

Why I’ve had to file two “Nunc Pro Tunc Minute Orders” ? and they still can’t get it right.

]]> By: RichardAlan http://www.duiblog.com/2009/04/16/who-will-guard-the-guardians-2/comment-page-1/#comment-2434 RichardAlan Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:53:17 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=1558#comment-2434 No kidding, brings to mind; what about intoxicated judges, prosecutors, and court clerks?? I just went to the CA DMV and got my Commercial Class A with endorsements reinstated. I asked for my abstract DMV report. I was convicted of a 23104A Dry reckless, no alcohol was involved. It was well documented in the Court room by a judge and court clerk, the clerk is then by law to report this court status to the DMV, right? So last June, 19 of 2008 almost 60 days after my conviction in court for a reckless driving non alcohol related offense, I get a phone call from a family friend who works in Law enforcement telling me that my abstract say I was convicted of a 23152 A DUI. Was the court clerk drunk when he typed in "23104 A dry reckless" ? did the court clerk stagger and swerve on his keypad and accidentally type 23104 A? I mean there is a big difference of 04, and 52, dry reckless, and DUI. The actual letters and numerals are completely different, 0 does not =a 5, and 4 does not = a 2, right? The words "Dry Reckless" and "Driving under the Influence" do not match up. Dry does not = driving, and Reckless does not = under the Influence. So last June 19 of 08 I had to call my attorney and notify them that the Court Clerk reported my Dry Reckless and a DUI driving under the influence. My attorney filed a "Minute Order" which included a "Nunc Pro Tunc" meaning "now for then' The court updated my abstract with the DMV, that my conviction 0n 4-23-08 was a "Dry Reckless" and not an "Alleged DUI" All was well, right? Well no, on April 16 2009, yesterday I asked for my abstract and guess what was "Fraudulently Reported" I was still convicted of an" alleged make believe DUI 23152 A", and on top of that a "Reckless Driving" for which I was convicted for, now I have two convictions, one is real and the DUI is fake. Again, today I call my lawyer for another "minute order" and "Nunc Pro Tunc" to "remove" this imaginary DUI from my record, it's been sitting there for a year. The damage is done, The DMV is a Fraud, I hold them accountable. No kidding, brings to mind; what about intoxicated judges, prosecutors, and court clerks??

I just went to the CA DMV and got my Commercial Class A with endorsements reinstated.

I asked for my abstract DMV report. I was convicted of a 23104A Dry reckless, no alcohol was involved. It was well documented in the Court room by a judge and court clerk, the clerk is then by law to report this court status to the DMV, right?

So last June, 19 of 2008 almost 60 days after my conviction in court for a reckless driving non alcohol related offense, I get a phone call from a family friend who works in Law enforcement telling me that my abstract say I was convicted of a 23152 A DUI.

Was the court clerk drunk when he typed in “23104 A dry reckless” ? did the court clerk stagger and swerve on his keypad and accidentally type 23104 A? I mean there is a big difference of 04, and 52, dry reckless, and DUI. The actual letters and numerals are completely different, 0 does not =a 5, and 4 does not = a 2, right?

The words “Dry Reckless” and “Driving under the Influence” do not match up.

Dry does not = driving, and Reckless does not = under the Influence.

So last June 19 of 08 I had to call my attorney and notify them that the Court Clerk reported my Dry Reckless and a DUI driving under the influence.

My attorney filed a “Minute Order” which included a “Nunc Pro Tunc” meaning “now for then’

The court updated my abstract with the DMV, that my conviction 0n 4-23-08 was a “Dry Reckless” and not an “Alleged DUI”

All was well, right? Well no, on April 16 2009, yesterday I asked for my abstract and guess what was “Fraudulently Reported”

I was still convicted of an” alleged make believe DUI 23152 A”, and on top of that a
“Reckless Driving” for which I was convicted for, now I have two convictions, one is real and the DUI is fake.

Again, today I call my lawyer for another “minute order” and “Nunc Pro Tunc” to “remove” this imaginary DUI from my record, it’s been sitting there for a year.

The damage is done, The DMV is a Fraud, I hold them accountable.

]]> By: standup http://www.duiblog.com/2009/04/16/who-will-guard-the-guardians-2/comment-page-1/#comment-2433 standup Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:07:07 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=1558#comment-2433 How many more were given "professional courtesy" from fellow cops? That's easy, just mutiply 70 times "87". Right Don ? How many more were given “professional courtesy” from fellow cops? That’s easy, just mutiply 70 times “87″. Right Don ?

]]>