On August 21, 2026, I published a fact-check of a website circulating in the Prius community under the name DuwayneMcClendon.com. That morning I saved the site as a PDF, because the first rule of documenting anything online is to preserve what was actually there when you saw it. On August 29 I captured it again.
The two captures are not the same document. The original ran roughly six pages; the update runs ten. Sections were rewritten, new categories were added, and at least four factual problems are now visible by comparing the versions side by side — including one headline that asserts a court ruling the site’s own text shows never happened.
Everything below is checkable without taking my word for any of it. Here is my previous fact-check, the August 21 archived PDF, the August 29 archived PDF, and the Offroad Prius Facebook post where the site was promoted. Open both PDFs and read them against each other.
One thing worth establishing before the specifics. The updated site states its own purpose at the top: it exists to warn anyone who would consider doing business with or giving money to the person it names. That is useful, because it removes any question about what the page is for. This is not a passive archive of court records. It is an argument assembled from records, published to a community of potential customers, for the express purpose of affecting whether they transact with the person it identifies. When that is the stated goal, accuracy stops being a courtesy and starts being the whole ballgame.
1. The Restraining Order Headline Asserts a Ruling That Never Happened
This is the clearest factual error on the page, and it should be stated plainly: the record the website itself cites does not show that any domestic-violence restraining order was granted.
The August 21 version read “Domestic Violence Restraining Order Filed Against McClendon.” The August 29 version reads “Domestic Violence Restraining Order Granted Against McClendon.” That is not a stylistic edit. It changes a word the underlying document supports into one the underlying document contradicts.
California domestic-violence proceedings have two stages producing two different documents:
- A DV-110 Temporary Restraining Order issues ex parte — on the petitioner’s paperwork alone, before the responding party has appeared, testified, presented evidence, or cross-examined anyone. A judge issues it based on what a petition alleges, not on what has been proven. It is temporary by design and expires on its own.
- A DV-130 Restraining Order After Hearing is the actual restraining order. It issues only after a noticed evidentiary hearing where both sides appear and a judge makes findings. That is what people mean when they say someone “has a restraining order against them,” and it is the one that carries lasting consequences.
The document the website identifies is a DV-110. Not a DV-130. The site’s own entry uses the phrase “Petitioner alleged” throughout, acknowledges the temporary order was reissued several times, and states the matter was ultimately dismissed for lack of prosecution.
A case dismissed for lack of prosecution never reached a hearing on the merits. No evidence was weighed. No findings were made. No restraining order after hearing issued. The word “Granted” describes a judicial act that the site’s own text shows did not occur.
I want to state both directions, because I am asking that page for precision and I have to meet the same standard. A dismissal for lack of prosecution is not a judicial finding that the allegations were false — a court never reached that question either. But that cuts against the headline, not for it. If no court adjudicated the allegations, then no court granted anything.
Why this error is different from a framing dispute
Elsewhere on the site my objections are about relevance and construction, and reasonable people can argue about those. This one is a different category. A headline stating that a court granted a domestic-violence restraining order is a statement of fact about a judicial act. It is either true or false, and it is checkable against a docket. There is no reading of “granted” that means “a temporary order issued on an unopposed petition, and the case was later dismissed without a hearing.”
It also is not a harmless slip. A domestic-violence finding is among the most damaging things that can attach to a name. Most readers scan headlines; they do not open the entry beneath and parse DV-110 against DV-130. The impression that headline creates — that a judge heard evidence and found domestic violence — is false, and the correct word was sitting in the site’s own text. Somebody read temporary, alleged, reissued and dismissed, and wrote “Granted.”
Whether that satisfies the legal elements of defamation is not something I get to declare, and I won’t pretend otherwise. That requires assessment of falsity, fault, identification and damages, and it belongs in front of a court. What I can say is that this is exactly the kind of statement that raises the question: a false assertion of fact about a court ruling, on a site whose stated purpose is to warn people away from doing business with the person it names.
2. The Wyoming Business History Now Describes the Same Record Differently
The August 21 capture described the 2020 Wyoming filing in a way that stated the record identified Duwayne McClendon as managing member of Hands On Technologies. The August 29 version tells a materially different story under a new headline: “Hands On Technologies, LLC Formed Anonymously in Wyoming.”
The updated text now says no members, managers, owners or beneficial owners are disclosed on the initial filing, and that the managing-member identity does not appear on the Wyoming public record until a Certificate of Reinstatement is signed on March 27, 2024 — more than three years later. The revised 2024 entry reinforces this, calling that reinstatement the first Wyoming filing to publicly link the name to the LLC.
Two versions of the same page now characterize the same state record two different ways. Possibly the publisher found better records and corrected an error, which is entirely legitimate — people do that, and corrections are not suspicious in themselves. But if that is what happened, say so plainly, because the alternative reading is that the record was described inaccurately to begin with and quietly changed.
Either way, this establishes something that matters more than the specific entry: a website presented as a definitive public-record history can be wrong about public records. Someone arriving today has no way to know the earlier description existed. That is the entire argument for preserving versions.
3. The $70,306 Total Is a Number the Website Created
The updated version adds a section titled “Duwayne McClendon Judgement Total,” which takes a renewed Cardservice judgment of $57,623.76, adds $12,682.24 in child-support arrearages, and presents “TOTAL OUTSTANDING $70,306.00.”
The arithmetic is fine. The problem is that these are two separate obligations from entirely different types of proceedings — one commercial merchant-processing litigation, one family law — merged into a single figure. There is no $70,306 judgment identified anywhere on that page, because no court ever entered one. That number exists only because the website added two unrelated numbers together.
Presentation is the point here. One large total leaves a different impression than two obligations explained in their own contexts, which is presumably why it was constructed that way. Readers can decide for themselves why merging a commercial judgment with child support was necessary.
4. One Correction the Site Got Right, and I’ll Say So
Not every change was in the wrong direction, and the comparison is only credible if I say when the site improved.
The earlier version discussed a 2017 civil lawsuit alleging fraud, concealment and intentional misrepresentation, and my previous article stressed that filing a complaint is not the same as proving it. The updated site now adds the disposition: the case was dismissed as untimely, filed outside the statute of limitations.
That outcome belongs there, and this is precisely what I meant about final dispositions mattering. If you are going to tell readers someone was sued for fraud, what happened to the lawsuit is part of the same history. The dismissal does not establish the allegations were false — a limitations ruling is not an acquittal — but the reverse holds just as firmly: filing the complaint never proved them either.
I have no problem crediting the site when it becomes more complete. I am not arguing every edit is nefarious. I am documenting what changed.
A Name Is Not a Fingerprint
Stacked on top of every issue above is a second one that runs through the whole project.
Before any of those records mean anything, the website has to establish whose they are. It now assembles “Duwayne Lanell McClendon,” “Jimmy McClendon,” “The Black Jimmy Neutron,” PriusOverlanding, this blog, several social accounts and multiple business entities into one identity map, and attaches roughly twenty-five years of records to it. Every one of those connections is a factual assertion made by the publisher. None of them is proven by appearing on the same page as the others.
So the failures compound. Take a temporary order from an unadjudicated proceeding, relabel it as a granted restraining order it never was, attach it to a name, attach that name to a business and a blog, and present the chain to that business’s customers as established public record. Each link is an assertion someone is responsible for getting right. Carelessness on the first link — where the underlying document was quoted in their own citation — does not build confidence about the links that are harder to check.
Use the correct words for what happened. Filed is not granted. Temporary is not permanent. Alleged is not proven. Dismissed is not adjudicated. A name on a document is not proof of who the document describes. In this area of law those are not technicalities. They are the difference between an accusation and a court ruling.
On Relevance
One observation about scope, stated once and then dropped.
The updated timeline now reaches into criminal proceedings, probation, merchant accounts, defunct businesses, corporate filings, civil litigation, legal separation, domestic-violence allegations, child support, driver’s-license issues, San Dimas parking citations totaling a claimed $332, Instagram photographs of shipping boxes, and decades-old judgments. The new “PUBLIC STATEMENT – SOCIAL MEDIA” category places an April 2024 photograph of shipping boxes next to a child-support filing six months later concerning employment.
Those two items do not establish what the juxtaposition implies. Shipping orders in April says nothing definitive about employment status in October, and a photograph of boxes tells you nothing about revenue, profit, ownership of funds, shipping frequency, or what changed in the intervening months. Placing them side by side is not archiving. It is editorial construction.
The narrower point stands on its own: if the underlying dispute concerns whether an automotive component was manufactured correctly, the evidence for that is the component, the measurements, the installation, the transaction and the correspondence. A publisher is free to explain why parking citations belong in that analysis. Readers are equally free to weigh how far the project has traveled from ordinary consumer criticism.
Why I’m Preserving Versions
The most telling fact about this update is how actively the site is being maintained — new documents, new social-media material, new financial totals, rewritten headlines, changed descriptions of business records, dispositions inserted that were previously absent. That is ongoing work, which is why I intend to keep capturing it.
If the site corrects something, I’ll document the correction. If a claim becomes more aggressive, I’ll preserve the earlier wording. If something disappears, the archived PDF shows it existed. And if an official record proves something I’ve written is wrong, I’ll correct it — that is the standard I have been asking for from the start.
I don’t want to be reconstructing from memory two years from now whether a headline said “filed” or “granted.” I want the PDF that shows exactly what it said.
Compare It Yourself
Don’t take my word for any of this. Read the August 21 fact-check, then open the August 21 PDF and the August 29 PDF side by side.
Look specifically at four things: the restraining-order headline that changed from “Filed” to “Granted” while the entry beneath it still describes a DV-110 temporary order, repeated “Petitioner alleged” language, and a dismissal for lack of prosecution. The Hands On Technologies sections, which describe the same Wyoming record two different ways. The $70,306 figure, which no court ever entered. And the newly added 2017 dismissal, which the site got right.
Then look at the Facebook post promoting it to the Prius community and decide what you’re looking at.
The Bottom Line
Eight days apart, two captures of the same website differ in four material ways. One change improved accuracy: the 2017 civil case now discloses its dismissal, and that’s to the publisher’s credit. Three did not: a temporary restraining order dismissed without a hearing is now headlined as “granted,” a Wyoming business record is now described differently than it was on August 21, and two unrelated obligations from unrelated proceedings have been merged into a $70,306 total no court ever entered.
For the record, since the site now characterizes this blog as an “AI blogspam network”: that phrase appears in no docket, filing, judgment or agency record. It is commentary, which is fine — but it is worth noting that the commentary and the “public records timeline” are published by the same author on the same page, and readers should know which is which.
My opinion, clearly labeled as opinion: I believe this material is assembled and circulated to damage a person’s character and business reputation, and I don’t have to infer that, because the site states its purpose in its own words. What I am not doing is declaring a legal conclusion. No court has ruled anything defamatory based on what I’ve published here, and I’m not calling a win before there’s a case.
What I can do is make sure the evidence doesn’t disappear. Someone set out to build a permanent record about another person, and in doing so gave that person good reason to keep a permanent record of what they publish.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.