Charlie Sprinkle

[wserra]

Sprinkle was not a promoter. However, I got sick of his name popping up virtually everywhere as someone who "proved" that you didn't need a driver's license. When it came up at Q ten days or so ago, that was the last straw. I'm checking this out, I said, to show that either Sprinkle never filed such a suit or that it was an epic fail.

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:

In 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.

These guys unquestioningly retell the Sprinkle version. "First Amendment Radio" claims that Sprinkle

won a RICO lawsuit against the State of California, and the county for the abuse of those who travel by right.

RICO, now? Guess it sounds more impressive. This groyse chochem actually reproduces Sprinkle's complaint, claiming that it proves that

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"

Groyse, baby, you really need to learn that what the litigant writes isn't law.

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.

[LPC]

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).

Thanks for spending the time (and money) to do this.

Because the case was in the 70s, I knew that the only way to get copies of the records was to pay someone to dig up the paper (or microfilm) and make copies. I wasn't willing to do that, but I'm glad you were.

Now, we need to create additional links to this thread, and those documents, so that people searching for "Charlie Sprinkle" have a chance of finding the truth as well as the BS.

[wserra]

No problem. It was ticking me off.

[JamesVincent]

I also appreciate you taking the time and effort to get this done Wes. However, I have no illusions that this will change any minds if it surfaces while they are looking for the real Charlie Sprinkle. As should be dreadfully apparent this could never have gained any traction with an intelligent mind, it would have been dismissed instanter, if not sooner, since it involved suing a sitting Governor for actions that would have been part of his position, and he would have enjoyed full immunity against suit. The other defendants would also have enjoyed immunity based on their positions. Also, any intelligent mind would have seen the suit involved suing the wives of said officials and the only thought would have been, what a scumbag. Alas, while I am appreciative of the action, I don't think this will do much to dispel the myth of Charlie Sprinkle.

[wserra]

Alas, while I am appreciative of the action, I don't think this will do much to dispel the myth of Charlie Sprinkle.

James, I don't disagree. All we can do is to lead the horse to water. If the horse decides on Koolaid, it's on him.

[pigpot]

So what's this about Charles Sprinkle. Real or not. Strange as I've read about him lately and he's not much discussed here. Anyone's thoughts upon the man and his activities.

[NYGman]

viewtopic.php?t=10228

Been There Done That

[Burnaby49]

I'm clueless so I had to be advised Sprinkles has been already covered. So I'm checking it out and plan to delete the topic and move the posts over to an existing discussion.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Anyone's thoughts upon the man and his activities.

Yeah. Sprinkle was a liar.

[The Observer]

Anyone's thoughts upon the man and his activities.

Yeah. Sprinkle was a liar.

And a failure.

[notorial dissent]

Wow, a twofer, and they say freeman never have any accomplishments.