DuwayneMcClendon.com Changed Its Timeline Again: What the September 7 Version Corrected, Added, and Removed

DuwayneMcClendon.com has changed again.

On August 29, 2026, I preserved another version of the so-called public-record timeline on DuwayneMcClendon.com. On September 7, 2026, I captured the site again, and once again the changes are more than cosmetic. Some of the wording has become more accurate. Some damaging information has been added. Some important context that was previously there has disappeared.

At this point, preserving each version has become part of the story.

If you’re just finding this series, start with the original article about why a “public records timeline” should not automatically be treated as objective truth. Then read my detailed claim-by-claim fact-check and the August 29 update showing how the website had already begun changing.

You can also examine the source material yourself. Here is the August 29 archived PDF, and here is the September 7 archived PDF. The timeline was originally promoted inside the Offroad Prius Facebook group.

The Restraining-Order Headline Was Corrected, But Something Else Disappeared

One of the clearest changes involves the 2020 domestic-violence section. The August 29 version called the entry “Domestic Violence Restraining Order Granted Against McClendon.” I specifically questioned that language because the document described underneath it was a temporary restraining order.

The September 7 version of DuwayneMcClendon.com now uses the more accurate headline “Temporary Domestic Violence Restraining Order Issued Against McClendon.” I have no problem acknowledging that correction. That is exactly what people should do when wording can create a stronger impression than the underlying record supports.

But at the same time, something important disappeared. The prior version expressly stated that the temporary order was repeatedly reissued before the case was ultimately dismissed for lack of prosecution. That language is no longer present. Instead, the newest version adds information from a February 2020 response and highlights a claimed admission concerning a GPS tracker while stating that the remaining allegations were denied.

If the response supports that statement, include it. But a real chronology should also be capable of preserving the later procedural outcome. Correcting the headline while removing the dismissal context creates a different impression than simply presenting the entire history.

The Fraud-Lawsuit Section Now Has Another Explanation

The August 29 version of the site stated that the 2017 civil fraud lawsuit was dismissed because it was filed outside the applicable statute of limitations. The September 7 version now adds that the underlying allegations were therefore never evaluated on their merits.

I need to tighten my own earlier reading here. The Orange County docket I reviewed shows a different path: the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on March 26, 2018, after a demurrer hearing, and the docket states no statute-of-limitations reason. If the site has a document showing a limitations ruling, it should cite it.

The point that the allegations were never decided on the merits is fair. A dismissal without prejudice does not mean a judge determined the allegations were false. But the reverse is equally important: filing a complaint does not mean a judge determined the allegations were true.

That has been my argument from the beginning. An allegation is an allegation. A finding is a finding. A procedural dismissal is a procedural dismissal. None of those terms should be stretched into something they are not simply because one interpretation better supports the story somebody wants readers to believe.

The $70,306 “Total” Disappeared

This may be the most amusing correction.

The August 29 version created a section called “Duwayne McClendon Judgement Total” and combined a $57,623.76 Cardservice judgment with $12,682.24 in child-support arrears to create one large “TOTAL OUTSTANDING $70,306.00.”

I criticized that presentation because there was no single $70,306 judgment. DuwayneMcClendon.com created that number by combining two unrelated obligations from completely different proceedings.

The September 7 version no longer does that. The section has been renamed “Duwayne McClendon Judgments & Citations on Record”, the amounts are listed separately, and the page now specifically tells readers that the amounts “are not aggregated.”

I cannot prove why that change was made, and I am not going to claim my earlier article caused it without evidence. What I can document is much simpler: the August 29 version aggregated the amounts, I publicly questioned that presentation, and the September 7 version now goes out of its way to explain that the amounts are not aggregated.

I have to admit, I find that pretty amusing.

A Name Is Still Not a Fingerprint

There is another point that remains foundational to this entire project: a name is not a fingerprint.

The publisher of DuwayneMcClendon.com is taking decades of court records, business filings, websites, social-media accounts, companies and online identities and telling readers that all of these things belong to, identify, or concern the same individual they want associated with PriusOverlanding and The Black Jimmy Neutron.

That connection is itself a factual assertion.

Finding a court record bearing the name Duwayne McClendon does not, standing alone, establish that every record bearing that name belongs to the same human being. There are countless Carlos Garcias, Marcus Richardsons and John Smiths in this country. Identity is established through actual identifying information such as dates of birth, addresses, middle names, signatures, relationships between records and other corroborating evidence.

Putting names, websites, businesses and social accounts together at the bottom of a webpage does not make the connection self-proving. The publisher is making that connection, and because the stated purpose of the website is to warn people away from doing business with the person it identifies, getting that identification correct is not a minor issue. It is fundamental.

This Is Why I Believe the Publication Is Defamatory in Nature

I also want to be clear about why I keep describing this as more than somebody merely sharing public records.

The website itself says its purpose is to warn people who might consider doing business with or giving money to the individual it identifies. It connects that individual to criminal conduct, debts, business failures, family-law matters, arrests, allegations, parking citations and other negative information and distributes that presentation inside an automotive community where the businesses and online identities being referenced are known.

From my perspective, the intent to damage character and business reputation is difficult to miss. I believe the publication is defamatory in nature because factual claims, identity associations and negative characterizations are being assembled and circulated for the express purpose of changing how people view and do business with the person they have chosen to identify.

That does not mean I am declaring that a court has already found every statement legally actionable as defamation. No court has made that ruling here. Truth, falsity, opinion, privilege, identification, fault and damages are legal questions that have to be evaluated based on the specific statement and evidence.

What I can do now is preserve the record: what was said, when it was said, which version said it, how it changed, what evidence was cited, where it was distributed, and whether the publisher continued making the same statement after contrary information became available.

DuwayneMcClendon.com Now Has Its Own Timeline

This is the part I find increasingly funny. Someone created an entire website intending to chronicle another person’s supposed history. Now the website itself has developed a history worth documenting.

There was the August 21 version, then August 29, and now September 7. A restraining-order headline went from “Filed” to “Granted” and then to the more accurate “Temporary … Issued.” A dismissal appeared in one version and disappeared in another. A combined $70,306 total appeared and was later replaced by separate amounts accompanied by an explicit disclaimer that they are not aggregated.

If I had simply bookmarked the website, most of that history would be invisible today.

Instead, I saved it.

And the more it changes, the more useful those archived copies become.

My Position Remains Simple

I am still not asking anyone to blindly believe me. Read the previous articles. Open the archived PDFs. Compare the wording. Read the underlying records where they are available.

Distinguish allegations from findings, arrests from convictions, temporary orders from final adjudications, and complaints from judgments. And remember that the person connecting all of these records to one identity bears responsibility for proving those connections rather than assuming a matching name settles the question.

If something on their website is corrected, I will acknowledge the correction. If something disappears, I will preserve the earlier version. If new accusations appear, I will document them. And if an official record proves something I have written is wrong, I will correct my own work too.

That is the standard: preserve it, compare it, and verify it.

The Bottom Line

The September 7 version of DuwayneMcClendon.com contains several changes worth preserving. The restraining-order headline has been corrected to identify the order as temporary. The prior dismissal-for-lack-of-prosecution language disappeared while a new claimed admission was added. The 2017 fraud section now says the merits were never decided, but attributes the dismissal to the statute of limitations, a reason the docket I reviewed does not show. And the website-created $70,306 aggregate has vanished, replaced by separately listed amounts and an explicit statement that they are not aggregated.

Meanwhile, the fundamental issue remains unchanged: a name is not a fingerprint, an allegation is not a finding, and somebody’s interpretation of a public record does not become a public record simply because it is written next to one.

I started this series because I found the entire situation remarkable. At this point, I genuinely find parts of it amusing. Someone apparently expected a twenty-five-year negative timeline to become the definitive record. Instead, every revision is creating another document for me to preserve, compare and write about.

Someone created a website to document another person’s supposed history. Now the website itself has a history worth documenting.

Author: THE BLACK JIMMY NEUTRON