Charlie spinkle

[Gregg]

And, since he was an organ donor, he was traveling in commerce. He therefore needed a license to ride in the hearse, driving or no.

Now wait just a damn minute, the PARTS OF HIM allegedly "traveling in commerce" were not in the hearse, so he didn't need any license for the ride.



that was the best joke I'm going to tell all day, if you don't like it you'll have to wait until tomorrow for another one

[bmxninja357]

its been a long while since i have dug around the charlie sprinkle matters. the way i see it, even from my unique point of view, is that charlie sued everyone, as the story goes. this included families of those directly involved with the case as they were living off the proceeds of the perceived rights violations. this included ronnies wife nancy. now if i remember correct nancy was pissed and ronnie gave some sort of 'special privilege' to charlie to drop the suit. thats based on my memory as its been a while since i went through it.

but lets say even if it did happen like that there is one clear point. it is not reproducible for others. if it was reproducible it would have been done. as unlikely as it is it could be an interesting anomaly, at best. im quite certain the system would have shorn up many loopholes since 1975.....

i ask anyone using charlies tactics to reproduce the result.

heres an older link to some things: http://countyjustice.synthasite.com/cha ... rinkle.php

peace,
ninj

[LPC]

this [lawsuit] included ronnies wife nancy. now if i remember correct nancy was pissed and ronnie gave some sort of 'special privilege' to charlie to drop the suit. thats based on my memory as its been a while since i went through it.

You think that the Governor of California granted some "special privilege" to some nutjob in order to get him to drop a frivolous lawsuit?

Not credible.

I don't think that the Governor of California even has the power to grant someone a "special privilege" to drive without a license. And, even if he did, why would he? And, even if he could do it and wanted to do it, how could he do it without leaving any paper trail?

This is all nonsense.

[JamesVincent]

You think that the Governor of California granted some "special privilege" to some nutjob in order to get him to drop a frivolous lawsuit?

Yeah, Reagan told him if he ever did it again he would go to jail. There's the special privilege, not getting sent to jail.

[bmxninja357]

yup, could and likely is b.s. however at times one may find an anomaly. im just going by what i remember reading stuff on it a while back. theres no shortage of stuff on charlie but most of it goes back to only a few sources in its origin.

im actually looking forward to this getting some scrutiny. charlie pops up every here and there and im hoping to hear the real story, whatever it may be.

ninj

[grixit]

Forgive me, I was thinking of the late Mr. Palaschak, who was also a bit of a nutter. Not Charlie Sprinkles. I tried reading the complaint just for entertainment, got past the suing the governor, and some typos, but was doubled over laughing when I got to a cause of action for "Infliction of Peonage." I had to stop there.

Here in California, the proper venue to complain of "infliction of peonage" is the UFW.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I don't think that the Governor of California even has the power to grant someone a "special privilege" to drive without a license. And, even if he did, why would he? And, even if he could do it and wanted to do it, how could he do it without leaving any paper trail?

Surely one of the conditions would be absolute secrecy and to not go blabbing it for all the world to know.

This is all nonsense.

You are much too polite.

[fortinbras]

The only favor I could imagine a Governor could do in this situation, and I don't really think any Governor would actually do this in the last half-century, is command the state DMV to give Sprinkle a driver's license notwithstanding he didn't take or he failed the application process. But then, Sprinkle would have had a Driver's License. It would have been gotten in a very unorthodox way, but he'd have it to show traffic cops and the like. So he couldn't say he didn't have a Driver's License.

[notorial dissent]

Why would he have bothered? As Gov, Reagan got sued all the time by all kinds of people for various and sundry reasons and by a great many CA nuts as well. As Gov he was effectively immune from anything having to do with his official position, as would his wife and family have been. Considering the legal talent that the state of CA could have mustered to deal with this it would have gone down hard and fast. Since this appears to have been filed in a Fed Court, at least according to the one heading I read, it would have been fairly quickly tossed on multiple grounds, not the least of which would have been sovereign immunity. Any stories to the contrary, are just that, stories. What it comes down to is why settle with someone when you can squash them like a bug, or in this case, simply, leagally ignore them.

[bmxninja357]

i found a vid on the subject with charlie himself. it shows a court doc but its illegible. but what the heck, will post the vid and see if anyone can find the case. with all the relevant info perhaps we can bury this notion.

part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFRYrJ14jus

theres three parts, the others are in the list on the right.

peace,
ninj

[LPC]

i found a vid on the subject with charlie himself. it shows a court doc but its illegible.

I think you mean "imaginary."

[davids]

I would be willing to be that neither Ronald or Nancy Reagan, much less other public officials, ever had any idea what Mr. Sprinkle was suing for. None of what he says makes sense. Even if he claimed to be suing them in personal capacity, if he alleged liability from things they did as government workers, they would be represented by the government and there would be sovereign immunity problems left and right.

I think some people are so uneducated and frankly effing stupid that they get charmed by Mr. Sprinkle's awe shucks cornpone cowpoke demeanor and somehow conflate that with being credible as to what happened in a court case.

[bmxninja357]

this is a case that makes its rounds and im looking to put it in its grave with a stake through its heart and a rock in the mandible.

that vid has lawyers names and such, and a few other things and i think those who can access the right places should help get this one gone. he gives dates and such so there should be something. if not ya cant prove a negative and it dies. or he failed and it dies. either way, a proper burial for a notion thats been around since the 70's.

hope it gets the scrutiny it deserves.

peace
ninj

[Burnaby49]

rumpelstilzchen, I sent you a PM. Have you seen it?

[wserra]

im actually looking forward to this getting some scrutiny. charlie pops up every here and there and im hoping to hear the real story, whatever it may be.

This new thread in another Q forum answers all your questions and more.

Now perhaps you could do the same. You are a moderator of a forum dedicated to "freemen on the land". What is a "freeman on the land"? I've asked this question several times; to the extent you've answered at all, you supplied only non-answers. This is a very straightforward question, nothing loaded or tricky about it. Hell, it's not even leading.

Perhaps you could answer.

[bmxninja357]

i replied in another thread when you asked. it simply wasnt the answer you have chosen to believe. i see no point in arguing about it.

and thank you for looking into the sprinke case.

ninj

[wserra]

i replied in another thread when you asked. it simply wasnt the answer you have chosen to believe.

Your "answer" includes me as a "freeman on the land". And Barack Obama. And Stephen Harper. I'd wager that the people who contribute to your board don't believe that.

i see no point in arguing about it.

You actually see no point in answering the question. From your point of view, you're probably right.

and thank you for looking into the sprinke case.

You're welcome. Glad to answer.

[fortinbras]

Many many thanks to WSERRA for finding that rare document (which predates not only PACER, but WestLaw and LEXIS) and making it available to put the stake through the heart of this particular flimflam.

[davids]

Many many thanks to WSERRA for finding that rare document (which predates not only PACER, but WestLaw and LEXIS) and making it available to put the stake through the heart of this particular flimflam.

While it will put an end to that flimflam for those of us who are compos mentis, it won't for true sovereign believers. They would rather believe that there is a "secret" court order somewhere which grants his furthest sovrun wishes, than believe the obvious and plain truth. I've been round and round with these types, as many here have, and have heard many times the "they don't put it on paper" defense, usually followed by some insulting adjective which is supposed to demonstrate how foolish I am for thinking the sky is blue and water is wet.

[AndyK]

Perhaps now is a good time to throw more kerosene on the fire.

Quite a few years ago, Spinkle was a significant topic on one of David Merrill's forums. I don't recall if it was David's, Sui Juris, or one of the many other venues where David went for adult conversation.

In any case, somehow, David took credit for Spinkle's major court victory.