03-Jan-06 05:03

goverment stole my Identity

author: John Ulrigg e-mail: julrigg@hotmail.com

Proof positive you don't know what is out there

Jan. 20 , 2004 Wall Street Journal

Employees Fall Victim
To Increased Scrutiny

By Kris Maher

From The Wall Street Journal Online

In the spring of 2000, Johnnie Ulrigg landed a job as a delivery driver for a department store in Missoula, Mont. He had been on the job four days when a supervisor told him that a background check had turned up a list of probation-violation convictions that hadn't been reported on his job application. Mr. Ulrigg contended there was an error and that he had never been on probation before, but he was dismissed anyway.

"They said, 'You're wrong, and because you're wrong, you're done,' " Mr. Ulrigg says.

Yet Stacye Dorrington, criminal records and identification supervisor for the Montana State Department of Justice, says Mr. Ulrigg was right. She says several counties in the state record a failure to pay a traffic violation as a probation violation, and that is what showed up on Mr. Ulrigg's public record. She adds that as a result of a recent policy change, the state is manually reviewing more than 140,000 records to expunge civil and traffic offenses from people's records.

Mr. Ulrigg got his public record cleared of conviction references, but it took roughly two years to do so, during which time he worked only part-time jobs and he wasn't able to get the delivery job back.

Pre-employment background screenings are more common than ever. A recent survey by the Society for Human Resource Management, in Alexandria, Va., found that about 80% of companies performed criminal background checks on potential employees in 2003, up from 51% in 1996. Today, roughly 35% of companies perform credit checks on candidates, up from 19% in the earlier survey. A constellation of factors are driving the increased screening, says Susan Meisinger, president and CEO of the human-resources group. They include increased security fears after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, greater awareness of how often people lie on r�sum�s and technical advances that have reduced the cost of background checks. "It's cheaper to hire somebody with a background check than it is to fire somebody," Ms. Meisinger says.

As they become commonplace, background checks are stirring up worries in many employees. Tena Friery, research director at Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a San Diego privacy-rights advocacy group, says workers should be concerned.

In some cases, Ms. Friery says, government agencies have been slow to update public records to reflect when a criminal conviction has been expunged. In other cases, job seekers have had trouble obtaining a record of a check performed on them.

Given the number of companies performing background checks, workers should at least be aware of their rights when it comes to such screenings.

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, if a decision not to hire an applicant results from negative information found through a background check, an employer is obligated to provide the applicant with the results and an opportunity to dispute them.

Many experts agree that only a fraction of background checks turn up inaccurate information that blocks a candidate's chances. But it is impossible to track how many errors occur, because candidates aren't always told why they aren't hired.

James E. Lee, chief marketing officer for background-checking company ChoicePoint Inc., Alpharetta, Ga., says errors can occur when information, such as a Social Security number, is entered incorrectly into a public record, or when common names cause records to be mixed up.

But errors are rare, he says. ChoicePoint performs about eight million pre-employment screenings each year, which includes background checks as well as drug tests. The company says that 0.025% of background checks result in a consumer dispute and that only 0.005% of its total searches end up requiring a correction. Meanwhile, 9% of criminal background checks turn up an undisclosed felony conviction, according to Mr. Lee.

Further information on background checks and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which sets standards for employment screening, can be found at the Federal Trade Commission's Web site, at www.ftc.gov. Under the act, an employer must obtain an applicant's written authorization before conducting a background check. One of many consumer tips at www.privacyrights.org, which is the Web site of Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, is to be sure to scrutinize the fine print before signing such an authorization.

If you are concerned about what might turn up in your records, consider performing a background check on yourself by hiring a company that provides checks to employers. You can also check individual records that an employer is most likely to look into. If you are applying for a job that requires driving, for example, you can request of copy of your driving record from the motor-vehicles department. Ms. Meisinger advises people to order a copy of their credit report every year.

In some cases, self-checking can also eliminate a nagging uncertainty about why an employer chose someone else for a job

end of article.....

Now the meat and potatoes, the police still had this info on there database:

My name is John Ulrigg and I have a horrible story to tell,

The following is a true recounting of an incident that happened on july 12, 2004

A misdemeanor investigation for disturbing the peace (which I did not do) escalated into police beating me and charging me with 7 charges from disorderly conduct to 2 counts of felony assault on an officer. The officers 2 of them came to the house on a monday morning and asked me to come outside to the front of there car (for purposes of video recording of the interaction) to ask me some questions. After I told them who I was, denied doing anything to the neighbor, the officer told me "well this just proves your nothing but a god damn bully and bullies need to be delt with." I responded "thats what you think huh?" "were done" and I turned and went back to my house once inside I atempted to close the door and an officer stuck his foot in the door to stop it from closing after forcing the door open they told me (inside the house) I was under arrest so I put my hands up and said ok.

I was then beaten infront of my daughters and handcuffed, so tight it cut to the bone on my wrist, also my lip was split through to my teeth from them punching me. I spent ten weeks in jail on these trumped up charges while at jail I was told (after being in handcuffs in a holding cell for 1 1/2 hours when I asked to urinate I was told "thats the breaks tough guy" several things happened to me that I think violated my civil rights....the officers did not have an arrest warrent prior to seizing me and only had the alleged victom sign a P.C. affidavite after I was taken to jail. Damn I think I have a solid case here as this officer the main one (Rossling) had been to my house 2 times prior and did not like me and told me so to my face.

Oh by the way I at 40 years old I have never been in trouble in criminal court ever. But yet the state of montana had a criminal background that listed me as having 9 convictions for probation violation, but no initial charge for that put me on probation in the first place. All this can be verified by googleing my name johnnie ulrigg, Wall Street Journal (jan 20 2004)this was admitted to and corrected by a women named Stayce Dorrington the chief records clerck at the DOJ Montana. Does this sound like a section 1983 claim for excessive force? a claim against the department of justice? feel free to call me if there are any questions..... John Ulrigg 406-239-7996 406-549-3921

source url: http://
phone: phone: 406-549-3921

Add a comment on this article

update.......

16.Feb.2006 07:17

john ulrigg

julrigg@hotmail.com

mon 2/13 trial was held and by unanomusvote of a 12 person jury I was found innocent of 2 counts of assault on a peace officerbut guilty of 3 misdemeanors 2 x criminal mischef and 1 count ressisting arrest wow I won.....hahahahahah

406-239-7996

Response to Mr. Ulrigg's indiginant remarks

16.Feb.2006 19:30

jury foreman

Mr. Ulrigg; You got lucky at your trial. Do not attempt to paint yourself as a fine moral upstanding citizen. I was priviledged to sit on your trial and let me assure you that but for three individuals who wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, the other 9 of us were convinced you handled yourself very poorly and aggressively assaulted those two gentlemen who strap on their uniforms every day to protect people like me. The ONLY reason that we erred on the side of you was because we thought that the police officers should have been held to a higher standard. We did not think you deserved it. I hope that you realize that you were lucky and that you will use this opportunity to be that person you tried to pretend you were at trial.

The facts as you portrayed them were not 'facts' at all. We poured over every detail presented at trial, and found absolutely NO injury to your person from those officers. Hardly the injuries you describe to all our readers in this forum. Additionally, trying to claim you were assaulted in front of your daughters was disgusting. Using them to cover for your atrocious behavior.

The result of this trial is that a thug walked away having assaulted two officers. A true tragedy in this case. And now he's laughing at the system. I can't think of a more horrible ending.
sincerely, jury foreman

hhhmmm who are you really????

07.May.2006 21:33

John Ulrigg

not the jury foreman......

Main Menu

Take Action

Search

topics

categories

regions

Community

Non-Profit Sponsors

News

goverment stole my Identity