🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7tfm8l$r2l$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,  <kleim@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>Dave Schreiber <noone@nowhere.gov> whines at me:
>
>> >Of course, they keep records when YOU owe them money, or when they
>> >want to impose some penalty, but, when it's in the favor of the
>> >People, oh, "we don't have any records..."
>
>> Well, far be it from me to interrupt your rant with mere facts, but
>> the DMV never actually said "we don't have any records".
>
>DMV Form ADM 399 states "DMV will not honor refund requests that
>are...received more than three years after payment due to the Statute
>of Limitations and because department records are no longer available
>for verification."

Ahh, so that's why everyone's been talking about refunds for fees paid
before 09/12/1992.  It would seem that the crime of collecting fees
improperly has a three year statute of limitations.  So, does this mean
that refunds are due to people who paid them up to three years before the
lawsuit was filed (the lawyers' position), or to people who paid them up
to three years from the present (the state's position)?  That issue is
apparently yet to be resolved.

>Mere facts, asshole.

Another tantrum?  Perhaps if you screamed at the top of your lungs, that
would have some effect...

>
>> On the contrary, the court ordered the DMV to inform everyone who is
>> eligible for a refund that they are eligible.
>
>Indeed it did, back to 1992.  But I have ZERO confidence that DMV will
>voluntarily comply with this.  I may be wrong, and I'll make a public
>apology if I am.
>
>> Speaking of facts, I decided to see how the DMV itself is handling the
>> situation.  As part of their clever plan to ensure that no one gets a
>> refund, the DMV has refund instructions on the top level of their web
>> site, complete with refund application form in PDF format:
>
>>    <http://www.dmv.ca.gov>
>
>> Now, there have been rumors that the DMV won't refund the fee if the
>> vehicle has been sold, or if its been more than three years since the
>> fee has been paid.  I don't think that's the case.
>
>A Bee article from Tuesday quoted Deputy Attorney General Michael
>Cornez as indicating it was the State's intention not to make refunds
>to those ripped off over three years ago, despite the court's clear
>command.

Well, why didn't you say that in the first place, rather than getting all
hysterical about the Big Bad Evil DMV?

Anyway, I found that article.  It does sound like they're going to fight
it tooth and nail (I wouldn't be surprised if they appealed to the CA
Supreme Court).  I will admit that that article makes it appear much less
clear-cut that the SJ Mercury News article, the lawyers' website, or the
DMV's website imply.

Of course, there's still the option of doing what the original lawyers
should have done:  file a class-action lawsuit against the state.

-- 
Dave Schreiber     "Can money pay for all the days
 sonic@dks2.net         I lived awake but half asleep?"
 ^^^^^ ^^^^                -Primitive Radio Gods (SOaBPBwMiMH)
(For my e-mail address, swap the ^^^'d parts and remove the "2")