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.
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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, 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,
> 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,
> 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
> 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,
> 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." I said I would like to setup a meeting on
>. I was told, "I'm not sure if Mr. Warwick is available on
>, 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.
> From: email@example.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
> 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
> 3. the period during which a particular administration or system
> 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
> 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?
[pictures of David and Molly showing them being in a relationship]