Sprinkle's version is in this video. He claims that, in 1975, he sued a whole bunch of CA officials "and their wives". In the video, he brags that, when they couldn't get the case dismissed, the CA lawyers privately asked him to at least discontinue against the wives. He refused. One evening shortly after, a black limo pulls up to his door, and a couple of guys beg him to withdraw the suit, and promise him that if he does he will never be bothered on the road again by anyone. So he discontinues, and the rest is history. Charlie wins, Miller time.
A google brings this stuff up over and over, frequently with the sort of embellishments usually encountered in a children's game of "Pass It On". For example, "Ticketslayer", a site frequently referred to in the usual numbnuts' hangouts, says:
These guys unquestioningly retell the Sprinkle version. "First Amendment Radio" claims that SprinkleIn the early seventies Charlie forced then California Governor, Ronald Reagan to concede that God granted Charlie the right to travel freely (without a driver's license and vehicle registration) upon the public right of ways of California.
RICO, now? Guess it sounds more impressive. This groyse chochem actually reproduces Sprinkle's complaint, claiming that it proves thatwon a RICO lawsuit against the State of California, and the county for the abuse of those who travel by right.
Groyse, baby, you really need to learn that what the litigant writes isn't law.This is the law suit Charlie Sprinkle used to defeat the state of California in their attempt to extort money from him for "driving" without a license. Because of this suit, the state backed down and Charlie traveled in his automobile until his death some 40 years later without a "drivers license"
Anyway, if you google "Charlie Sprinkle", you see how far and wide this nonsense has spread. I couldn't take it any more. I knew that, if I looked into it, I would find that either (1) Sprinkle never filed such a suit, or (2) if he did, he lost, probably ignominiously. So: As I wrote above, he claims that, in 1975, he sued CA officials "and their wives". That part is true (noting, in passing, that there were not a whole lot of female public officials in CA in 1975). He did. 75cv13 (CACD). The rest is abject bullshit.
In point of fact, shortly after Sprinkle filed suit, about half of the defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Not only did they win, but the Court sua sponte dismissed against all the other defendants who didn't move. The docket sheet, the Magistrate's recommendation to dismiss and the DJ's order adopting it and dismissing the entire case is here as a single pdf (hey, this is long before PACER).
I particularly like Sprinkle's response to the Magistrate's report and recommendation - see the 11-7-75 docket entry. It appears that he tried to charge the poor Magistrate with "treason" and "levying war against the US". It seems that didn't work.
Conclusion: Sprinkle was - and a lot of others are - garden-variety sovrun liars. I'm shocked.