Charlie Sprinkle began his campaign to clean up the courts and hold them to the lawful requirements of the Constitution in the early 70s. Charlie became legend when he sued then Governor Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy over the requirement he have a driver's license. To this day Charlie does not have one of those pesky things.
Below here you will find some of the reasons Charlie is a legend, along with being a very nice guy. Here is his resume.
Here is the law suit that launched a new phase of the Movement to Restore the Constitution:
Charles Sprinkle’s Section 1983 Case from 1975
10580 Creek Road Ojai, California 93023
Plaintiff Pro Se.
U.S. District Court
Central District of California
312 Spring Street, Los Angeles California
Charles R. Sprinkle
Governor Ronald Reagan,
his wife Nancy Reagan,
District Attorney Stanley Trom,
his wife Joan Trom,
Deputy Dist. Atty. William Hinkle,
his wife Mary Hinkle,
Judge Benjamin Ruffner,
his wife Jacqueline Ruffner,
Judge Donald Polack, his wife Georgia Polack,
Judge Richard Heaton,
his wife Anne Heaton,
Officer Glen White,
his wife Judy White,
Officer Gary Hardman,
his wife Patricia Hardman,
Judge Robert Soares,
his wife Kathryn Soares,
Case # CV 75-13 dww(k)
Complaint for Money Damages for:
Deprivation of Constitutional Rights,
Conspiracy do Deprive Plaintiff of Constitutional Rights, and
Failure to Protect Plaintiff from Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional Rights.
Jury is hereby Demanded.
Table of Contents:
1. Comes now the Plaintiff above named in his own natural person and complains against Defendants above named for depriving Plaintiff of constitutional rights under color of State Law, custom or usage, conspiracy to so deprive and/or failure, neglect or refusal to protect plaintiff from said conspiracy although it was within the power to do so.
2. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 USC 1343 (1), (2), (3), and (4) and under USC 1938, 1985.
3. Plaintiff and individuals, named are citizens and residents of the State of California. Defendants are employees of the State of California and The County of Ventura.
1st Cause of Action
4. Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Ventura, State of California for the past thirteen years.
5. Ronald Reagan is Governor of the State of California;
6. Robert Soares is Judge in the Municipal Court County of Ventura State of California.
7. Stanley Trom is District Attorney for the County of Ventura, State of California.
8. William L. Hinkle is Deputy District Attorney for the County of Ventura, State of California;
9. Glen White is Court Officer for the State Highway Patrol, County of Ventura, State of California.
10. Gary Hardman is Highway Patrol Officer in the County of Ventura, State of California;
11. Benjamin Ruffner is Judge in Superior Court, County of Ventura, State of California:
12. Donald Polack is Superior Court Judge, County of Ventura, State of California;
13. Richard Heaton is Superior Court Judge, County of Ventura, State of California;
14. Nancy Reagan, Joan Trom, Mary Hinkle, Ann Heaton, Judy White, Jacqueline A. Ruffner, Georgia L. Polack, Patricia Hardman and Kathryn A. Soares are to the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge and belief, the wives, respectively of Defendants named above;
15. They are joined as a protection to Plaintiff against their husbands unlawful dissipation of assets or attempted conveyances of property in a attempt to defraud legitimate creditors.
16. By Law, Article XX Section 3 of the Constitution, State of California, Defendants, Reagan, Soares, Trom., Hinkle, White, Ruffner, Heaton, Hardman and Polack, have been required by Oath of affirmation, to support and defend Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights when or where they clam to have jurisdiction over or official duties with the Plaintiff.
17. On or about Jan. 15, 1974, Plaintiff while driving a 1967 Triumph automobile on State of California Highway, Plaintiff was arrested and ordered to obtain a Drivers License and a automobile License.
18. Both are Titles of nobility.
order was in violation of Article 1 Section 10 of the
Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;
grant letters of marqueand reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make
anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment ofdebts; pass any bill of
attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or
grant anytitle of nobility. No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or
duties on imports or exports,except what may be absolutely necessary for
executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of allduties and imposts,
laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of
theUnited States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control
of the Congress. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage,
keep troops, or ships of war intime of peace, enter into any agreement or
compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engagein war, unless
actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marqueand reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment ofdebts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant anytitle of nobility.
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports,except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of allduties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of theUnited States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war intime of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engagein war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
20. Defendant Hardman, Highway Patrolman, also required me to pay for said License with Federal Reserve Notes, That are not backed by gold or silver coin, as stipulated in Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.
21. Defendant Hardman threatened Plaintiff with deprivation of Liberty and property with out due process of Law.
22. All this was done under, Color, Custom and Usage of California State Vehicle Code.
23. Defendant White acting in conspiracy with Hardman and under color, custom and usage of law, ordered Plaintiff to court.
24. The constitutes a violation of his Oath of Office as covered by Title 18, USC 241and 242.
25. Defendant Soares was assigned to Court wherein Plaintiff appeared as defendant in a criminal Traffic Case.
26. Plaintiff filed a motion for counsel of his own choice, as is his right, as set forth in the 6th Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.
27. Defendant Soares in concert with the California State Legislature, has denied Plaintiff's motion for counsel of his own choice.
28. Plaintiff is guaranteed Freedom of Speech and Freedom of association under the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution.
29. Therefore, Plaintiff is free to associate with counsel of his choice and to have a spokesman (counsel of his choice to speak for him).
30. Plaintiff is guaranteed Due process of Law by the Fifth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.
31. The Bill of Rights includes, Counsel of choice in the 6th amendment.
32. Due Process is guaranteed by the both the 5th and the 14th amendments to the constitution.
33. Under the 8th Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment may not be applied against Plaintiff.
34. Defendants have imposed just such cruel and unusual punishment upon Plaintiff by the mental stress placed upon Plaintiff as a result of Defendant Soares’s denial of Counsel of choice.
35. Under the 9th amendment to the constitution Plaintiff’s right to counsel of choice is protected from encroachment by any individual or government body under the 10th amendment to the constitution.
36. Plaintiff reserves all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal or State Government and he has not waived any of the rights aforementioned, which for the most part are natural rights, but which are also protected by the constitution.
37. Under the 13th. amendment to the constitution Plaintiff is protected against peonage and involuntary servitude, where the actions of Defendants appear to destine Plaintiff.
38. Under the 14th amendment of the, Plaintiff is protected under Title 18 USC, Sec. 241and 242 from the acts of Defendants.
39. Defendants , Under Color, Usage and Custom of California set forth in Article VI Sec.9 of the California constitution (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and made a part here of as though stated in total herein, in their capacity of public ministers have denied plaintiff the unalienable right to counsel of Plaintiff own choice, Who may or may not be a member of an exclusive organization, Which Organization may well be in Violation of the Sherman antitrust Act 25 USC 1,2,3,
40. Defendants Trom and Hinkle Conspired in concert with other Defendants, Hardman, White, Soares, Reagan, Ruffner, Polack and Heaton, acting outside their Lawful Duties, To bring to bear upon Plaintiff unconstitutional acts under Color, custom and Usage of State laws.
41. Defendants Reagan, Soars, Hardman, Trom, Hinkle, Pollack, Heaton, Ruffner and White acted outside the perimeters their Lawful Duties.
42. Defendants Violated their Oaths of office. They did so under Color, Custom and usage of Federal and State Law. Defendants acted Grossly, Willfully, Wantonly, Unlawfully, Carelessly, Recklessly, Negligently, Maliciously, purposefully, Intentionally and Discriminatingly against Plaintiff and did so taking advantage of Color, Custom and Usage of State Law and custom within a citizen’s fear of State personal prosecuting good citizens for having stood up for their Natural rights protected by the U.S. constitution and the California State Constitution.
43. Defendants conspired together and with others as yet unknown to Plaintiff to deprive him of his rights.
44. Overt acts committed by Defendants Pollack, Ruffner, Soares, Hardman, White, Reagan, Trom and Hinkle includes that complained of in above paragraph of this complaint.
45. Denying Plaintiff a right to counsel, are all in collusion with the State Legislative Branches of the State of California.
46. Defendants named above relying on their own discretion and erroneous interpretation of the Supreme Law of the Land, Which is the Constitution and not any statute in conflict there with issued or coursed to be issued order for plaintiff conspire with Defendants to subvert the constitution by excepting Titles of Nobility and to make something other them gold and silver coin a tender for payment of debt.
47. All these are contrary Article 1, Sec. 10, of the Constitution.
48. Defendants aforenamed deprived Plaintiff of his 9th and 10th Amendment rights, which protect him from Oath-breaking so-called "public servants" who wallow in the pubic trough while trampling upon Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights.
49. Said defendants, Meanwhile attempt to impose totalitarian Socialism upon the People, Although such a System is the Antithesis of the Constitution, That public servants and duly constituted Authorities are Sworn to uphold
50. Defendants have exceeded their jurisdiction.
51. They have abused their discretion.
52. They have acted outside the Lawful perimeters of their official duties.
53. They have Grossly, Willfully, wantonly, 19) Unlawfully, Carelessly, Recklessly, Negligently, Intentionally, 20) maliciously, Purposefully, and Discriminatingly Conspired to deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional rights and They have Refused, neglected or Failed to Protect Plaintiff from said Conspiracy although they have been a position to do so.
54. Defendants Nancy Reagan, Joan Trom, Mary Hinkle, Judy White, Jacqueline A. Ruffner, Georgia L. Pollack, Anne Heaton, Patricia Hardman, Kathryn A. Soares, are the wives respectively of the afore-named Defendants Who are Employed as Erstwhile "public-servants";These wives are in effect are "Socialist- Queens", enjoying and living on the Largess and Unlawful spoils brought home by their husbands as compensation for said husband’s Violation of their Oaths of Office and for their willing perversion of the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution.
55. Said wife Defendants named above have failed, refused or neglected to protect Plaintiff from the conspiracy of their husbands and said failure is intentional, purposeful and malicious.
56. The acts of omission of said wife Defendants named above constitute an overt act of conspiracy to refuse to protect Plaintiff.
57. Defendant acts as heretofore complained of, Have caused harm and damage to Plaintiff.
58. Said acts have caused mental and physical suffering, insomnia, worry, financial insecurity, stress and strain in relationships, in his work, with his family, relatives and friends, Defendants activities have impaired Plaintiffs credit standing.
59. They have subjected him to public ridicule and embarrassment.
60. Defendants complained of acts entitle Plaintiff to recover money 21) damages from Defendants and from each of them as follows:
61. For general damages $ 50,000;
62. For punitive damages $100,000;
63. This shall be payable to Plaintiff in Constitutional Lawful Money redeemable in gold or silver coin as set forth in Article 1 Sec. 10 of the constitution.
64. In addition plaintiff prays such other and further relief as to the jury demanded in this case shall appear just.
65. Defendants herein are sued in their individual capacities and not as agents of the State of California or The United States.
66. This is a civil rights Suit and not under the torts claims act.
67. The United States or the State of California can not be substituted as a party defendant and the consent of the united States or the State of California to be sued is not demanded.
68. If necessary; Plaintiff demands for all issues to be decided by the Jury Demanded;
69. If defendants move to dismiss this suit, Plaintiff Demands that it be heard by the jury demanded, and only be dismissed if the Jury considers it lacks merit.
Charles Sprinkle, Laborer, Pro Se.
Letter written by Charlie in 2003
1273 Rice Road #48, Ojai CA 93023
Notice of Violation of my Constitutional Rights
Demand to Cease and Desist
Tuesday, January 28, 2003
800 South Victoria
Ventura CA 93003
Dear Mr. Totten:I am a member of a revolutionary group. We forced the King to sign the Magna Charta in 1215 at the point of a sword in a field near Runnymede. Later we wrote the Declaration of Independence which is still recognized authority in some jurisdictions today. Then we wrote the constitution.We the People are the Sovereign described in the Magna Charta, The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the California Constitution.
I am informed that recently you swore to uphold the constitution. That is why I am writing.
e the People are the Sovereign described in the Magna Charta, The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the California Constitution.
And the Skate Board, simple, sweet, and to the point.
805 640 0439
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE __TH JUDICIAL
Your town, Your state
Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice
Now comes the Defendant-in-error, My-Real: Name, a living soul, without assistance in the above-entitled action, who makes this Special Visitation before this Honorable Court and moves this Honorable Court to Dismiss this Matter with Prejudice.
The people of the state have not filed a certified Final Administrative Determination. The people of the state of Florida have failed to make a claim that this Court can hear as per the Administrative Procedures Act. There is no “Agency Final Administrative Determination” in the record. This court has nothing to Review. The State has not exhausted its Administrative remedies. Therefore, the “court’ lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction. To move this Court forward without exhausting Administrative remedies, will deprive the Accused “Due Process of Law”, a violation of Constitutional Law.
Memorandum of Law
Here are a few Supreme Court cases that back my position:
“Where Rights secured
by the Constitution are involved there can be no rule-making or legislation,
which would abrogate them” Miranda v.
Arizona (1966) http://www.lawyerdude.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right can not be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional Rights.” Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
“No state shall
convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Murdock v. Pennsylvania
“If the state
converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with
impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham
“If you’ve relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness.” U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346.
Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right from liab