We all know that one's driver's license is the primary form of identification in this country.  That driver's license is supposed to reflect what we look like and where we can be found, as Mr. Dusek pointed out.  When you are stopped by the police they will demand identification so that they know to whom they are speaking.  By what process did Mr. Orlosky arrive at the conclusion that it was permissible to live in Jamul and have an Oregon license showing his residence as being in Oregon?  When he applied for his Oregon license, he stated that he had to give up his California license, so he knew that he could not hold licenses from two states.  How did he think that it would be right to move back to California and not reapply for a California license?
    If Oregon renews by mail, where did they send the renewal application?  It would not have been to his Jamul address.  It would have been to the address listed as his residence in Oregon.  That means that there must be some form of collusion involved, as I don't think they would send a renewal form to a post office box.  Someone must have sent the renewal to him in Jamul, or at least let him know that it had arrived so that he could go back up to Oregon and renewed in person.  That still raises the question of perjury.  If he signed a renewal form, he knew he was not living in Oregon.  We know by his own admission that he falsified his application for a California driver's license on a previous occasion, so this later act begins to establish a pattern.  It still was quite a stretch to come up with the explanation involving the Commercial Motor Vehicle Act.  I think he had this worked out long ago just in case he had to explain himself.  I am sure that it sounded just fine to the jury. 
  

What kind of man is "Bob" Orlosky?  During his 2008 trial for the killing of Chuck Crow, the prosecutor asked him several questions about some of his personal and business practices, I presume in an effort to demonstrate to the jury that when "Bob" took the stand and swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, he could not be trusted to do so.  Obviously, one of the versions of the tragic events of that Dec. night cannot be true.                                                                                                                           Mr. Orlosky, at least at the time of the trial, had no California driver's license.  He had an Oregon commercial  driver's license.  He said that he had a regular Oregon  license beginning in about 1991, and subsequently changed it to a commercial license from the same state.  Why did Mr. Dusek bring this up?  Did he expect the jury to be conversant in the esoteric regulations of the DMV?  You see, you are not supposed to do that.  Mr. Orlosky's explanation for having an Oregon license, even though he lived in California, is found on page 370 of his testimony, a link to which can be found in a previous post.  He said: "Many years ago a truck driver would have multiple license in multiple states.   He could get tickets in one state and he would just keep driving and hand in the license when he gets the ticket in another state.  So the Federal Department of Transportation under the Federal Motor  Carrier Act passed a law that said that you can't have commercial driver's licenses anymore in multiple states.  Whatever state you want to chose to keep your license in you may, and every state will honor that license forever." (This is the exact wording of the transcript.)  Mr. Dusek did not challenge this explanation. Are you sure?  You mean I can live in Texas and have a driver's license from New York.  So when I show my I.D., it has a New York address on it.                                                     I went to the source to see if any of this made sense.  In 1986 the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration under the Federal department of Transportation established a set of guidelines (not laws) called the Commercial Motor Vehicle Act of 1986.  These guidelines were adopted by all states in 1992 and became state law.   There is no reference that I can find which allows an individual living in one state to hold a commercial driver's license, or any driver's license, issued by another state.  In fact the only reference to "home" is contained in the following passage: "All cited CDL (commercial driver's license)violations that result in a conviction are transmitted via the Commercial Driver's License Information System  (CDLS) to the home state." It does not say anything about the Federal Government allowing individuals to pick a state to be licensed in.  The licensing of drivers is under the jurisdiction of the individual states.  Furthermore I contacted both the Oregon DMV. and the California Highway Patrol and asked if it was permissible to have a license and not be a resident of that particular state.  Both gave an emphatic, NO!   Bob has lived in Jamul since 1994.  If you move into this state and have a license from another state, you have 10 days to apply for a California driver's license.   You are considered a resident if you vote here,pay resident tuition, take a homeowner's tax exemption, or utilize any other benefit or privilege not ordinarily extended to non residents.   I believe that Mr. Orlosky's "ranch" is held in a trust, but I can't believe that he does not take advantage of the tax exemption on his house.  His children go to school here.  His business addresses are here.  He is a resident of California.                                                                                                                                 
    I am told that Oregon renews licenses every eight years.  I am not sure about commercial ones, however when you renew your license you swear under penalty of perjury that the information is true and correct to the best of your knowledge.  What address does Mr. Orlosky put on his Oregon license?  It must be somewhere in Oregon, or they would not give him the license.  That home address is a lie.  Mr. Dusek did not give any of this information to the jury.  Maybe he was not allowed to.  I don't know.  What I do know is that it reflects directly on the character of the person sitting up there swearing to tell the truth.