Thursday, June 6, 2013

David's Story

On April 9, 2009, David Engel sent these three letters to his social circle moments before he took his life. That evening, David was with Molly at his house. Molly was a 37-year old woman who looked a decade years younger than she was. They hid their relationship status form their social circle, but he confided in his closest friends that they were in a relationship, and that it was rocky and on-and-off. I do not know what went on between them that evening, but suddenly David went to his room. Then she heard a loud shot, and upon examining its source, discovered David's deceased body in the bathroom. David was 26.

She met somebody several months after that, and married him 10 months later, on February 14th, 2010,  on Valentine's Day, and coincidently David Engel's Birthday.

Email 1:
> From: davidcengel@gmail.com
> Subject: America Police State: David's Personnel Story -- Timeline -- Update April 9th, 2009
> Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 17:36:11 -0700
>
> America Police State: David's Personnel Story -- Timeline -- Update
> April 9th, 2009
> Please share with others.
>
> March 19th, 2008
> I am arrested, assaulted, falsely charged with, felony DUI,
> misdemeanor reckless driving, and misdemeanor delaying a peace
> officer, and subsequently imprison for 24 hours. Released on $8,500
> bail put forth by my parents in cash.
>
> March 20th, 2008
> My car is released from impound after being forced to pay more then $500
>
> Video from the traffic stop:
>
> Blood Screen Results:
>
>
> May 13th, 2008
> I secure Thomas Warwick as my legal representative in this matter for
> a fee of $2,500.
>
> February 4th, 2009
> Mr. Warwick contacted me stating that the City attorney had offered a
> deal that if I plead guilty to 22348 (B) Speeding over 100 MPH, they
> would drop all charges and NOT suspend my license. The only other
> terms mentioned by Mr. Warwick was that there would be a fine of
> around $500 + fees. At this time I stated, I would have no problem
> plead guilty to going 89-93 MPH, but am morally and ethically opposed
> to pleading guilting to a crime I did not commit. Mr. Warwick
> responded, "It is a fine, vs a fine." Despite this fact, I told Mr.
> Warwick I would consider the deal, and needed time to think it over. I
> also reminded Mr. Warwick that I already had 2 points on my license,
> and 2 more points would make four. Mr. Warwick stated that 22348 (B)
> was a 1 point violation. I stated I believed it was a two point
> violation. Mr. Warwick stated even if it was a two point violation,
> "you are allow 4 points each year."
>
> Sometime between February 5th, and February 11th, 2009
> Mr. Warwick contacted me again, asking if I made a decision. I
> repeated that I would be happy to plead guilty to 89-93 MPH. Mr.
> Warwick responded, again, "It is a fine, vs a fine." I then stated I
> would accept the deal offered by the City Attorney.
>
> February 12th, 2009
> I received a letter for Mr. Warwick stating: "I was found guilty of VC
> 22348 (b)", that I was "ordered to pay a fine of $1,245", and "a $100
> restitution fine was ordered and suspended pending successful
> completion of probation", and that I was "ordered to complete Level II
> Traffic School."
>
> A few days after February 12th, 2009
> I finally managed to get in touch with Mr. Warwick after numerous
> attempts. We spoke on the phone. I questioned the amount of the fine,
> and that our previous conversation where I agreed to pleaded guilty
> did not include any mention of traffic school or probation. At this
> time Mr. Warwick stated the difference in the fine was due to
> "additional fees" and that the probation clause was simply included as
> a slap on the wrist with absolutely no legal consequences, as the
> charge was only for an infraction. You then counseled me that after I
> completed traffic school you would request the charge of VC 22348 (b)
> be removed from my DMV record. At this point I accepted your suggested
> compromise in the spirit of diplomacy, even though it was a violation
> of the original agreement.
>
> March 2nd, 2009
> The DMV takes action to suspend my CA Driver's license for 6 months,
> begining April 4th, 2009, under the grounds that I am a negligent
> operator because I have received 4 points in 12 months. I have 10 days
> to request a hearing to contest this action.
>
> March 9nd, 2009
> The DMV mails me a letter stating the actions it took on March 2nd,
> 2009. This leaves 3 days to request a hearing
>
> March 15th, 2009
> I received a letter from the DMV dated March 2nd, 2009, stating that
> my "driving privilege is suspended as of April 5th, 2009 as a
> condition of probation and can not be reinstated before October 4th,
> 2009." The letter is post marked March 9th, 2009. I had until March
> 14th, to request a hearing to contest the action. The deadline had
> expired.
>
> DMV Letter Available Here:
>
>
> March 16th, 2009
> I sent Mr. Warwick a letter detail events up until this point, along
> with a copy of the letter from the DMV
>
> Letter to Mr. Warwick Available Here:
>
> March 18th, 2009
> Mr. Warwick's office request a negligent operating hearing with the DMV.
>
> March 22nd, 2009
> I complete 16 hour, level 2 traffic school. The instructor and the
> class were equally disturbed by my story, and very supportive. It was
> a therapeutic experience.
>
> March 24th, 2009
> I met in person with Mr. Warwick, Mr. Warwick's assistant Stacy, and
> my father Richard Engel. At this time I stated that if the DMV refuses
> to agree to the terms set forth by the San Diego City Attorny, I must
> insist that my guilty plea be withdrawn, and we proceed to trial if
> that is the only other option.
>
> I was told it is highly unusual for the DMV to take this kind of
> action for receiving only 4 points, and that all efforts were being
> made to request a hearing for the DMV to justify there action.
>
> I was also told that Mr. Warwick would go before the Judge and request
> the charges be removed from my record, as I had completed traffic
> school. Mr. Warwick's office made a copy of the certificate, despite
> my advising that the original certificate would be required. Not a copy.
>
> April 7th, 2009 12:45 Pm
> Mr. Warwick's assistant, Stacy, contacted me via phone and informed me
> that the DMV declined their request for a "negligent operator hearing"
> and that the only other option was to sue the DMV. I stated I am not
> interested in suing the DMV. I asked wether or not Mr. Warwick had
> gone before the judge to request the charge be remove from my record
> for completing traffic, per his suggestion. I was told this had not
> been done yet, but It would be done sometime on Wednesday April 7th,
> 2009.
>
> I reiterated that if the DMV does not agree to abide by the terms set
> forth by the San Diego City Attorney, I must insist that my guilty
> plea be withdrawn.
>
> April 9th, 2009 3:30 Pm
> I contacted Mr. Warwick's office, and requested an update on what is
> being done to correct the situation. I was told, "Mr. Warwick is out
> of town until Monday." I said I would like to setup a meeting on
Monday. I was told, "I'm not sure if Mr. Warwick is available on
Monday, let me give him a message so he can call you back."
>
>
>
> All this means as of April 4th, 2009, my license has been suspended
> for six months and the City of San Diego has not upheld is end of the
> deal, in every possible way. Finally, Mr. Warwick has completely
> failed as a legal representative.
>

Email 2:
> From: davidcengel@gmail.com
> Subject: The most chilling words since 'New World Order'
> Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 18:16:16 -0700
>
> The most chilling words since 'New World Order'
> by Joseph Farah
>
>
> On March 6, 1991, President George Herbert Walker Bush, at the
> conclusion of the Persian Gulf War, uttered some words that shivered
> down the spines of Americans who appreciated their country as an
> independent, sovereign experiment in constitutional self-government.
>
> "Now, we can see a new world coming into view – a world in which there
> is the very real prospect of a New World Order," he said.
>
> He went on to expand on this idea, explaining that he envisioned the
> United Nations freed "to fulfill the historic vision of its founders."
>
> In 1991, that was scary talk. It sounded like Bush had forgotten what
> America represented in the world – a nation founded on the principles
> of independence, the rule of law and accountability to the people,
> rather than just one of many states responsible to a global community
> that didn't share its ideals.
>
> Last weekend, speaking in Prague, Barack Obama took the New World
> Order rhetoric to soaring new heights.
>
> "All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime,"
> he said.
>
> Assert your right as a sovereign citizen of the U.S. and repudiate
> moves toward global government: Sign WND's new petition, a Re-
> declaration of Independence
>
> While Bush's earlier phrase set off alarms in some circles, it was
> ambiguous enough to allow for plausible deniability that he actually
> intended to work toward some sort of "world government." Obama's
> choice of words leaves little doubt about what he means.
>
> Though few have so far questioned his desire "to build a stronger,
> global regime," the words are clear.
>
> Let's consult the Random House dictionary for the definition of
> "regime."
>
> 1. a mode or system of rule or government: a dictatorial regime.
> 2. a ruling or prevailing system.
> 3. a government in power.
> 4. the period during which a particular government or ruling
> system is in power.
>
> How about the American Heritage dictionary?
>
> 1. a form of government: a fascist regime.
> 2. a government in power; administration: suffered under the new
> regime.
> 3. the period during which a particular administration or system
> prevails.
>
> Not only are the definitions clear, so are the connotations. They are
> uniformly negative for those who support liberty, accountability,
> limited government and the will of the people operating under the rule
> of law.
>
> Few freedom-minded people would choose to live under any kind of
> "regime." In America, we are supposed to live under a decentralized
> form of government in which most powers are reserved to the states. We
> are supposed to be a self-governing people, not only free from the
> shackles of government oppression and dictates, but actually the
> masters of our own governments. We are supposed to be sovereign
> individuals with our interests protected by the rule of law. And we
> are supposed to be independent of foreign interests and rules.
>
> So why would any American seek to be a part of building "a stronger,
> global regime"? The very idea should be anathema to all of us. Yet,
> the notion is being championed by none other than the president of the
> United States.
>
> Worse yet, the idea is receiving little scrutiny and even less
> criticism.
>
> What has become of Americans?
>
> Are we just too fat, lazy and stupid to recognize the threats to our
> most cherished and basic freedoms?
>
> Are we doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past?
>
> Do we not recognize what has made America great and different from all
> other nations in the world?
>
> Are we really ready to give up our liberty so easily?
>
> For what did our forefathers sacrifice? Why were they willing to risk
> their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for independence
> and liberty? Why are we ready to give up our independence and liberty
> for nothing?
>
> Source:
>
>
>
>
>

Email 3:
[pictures of David and Molly showing them being in a relationship]