Charlie spinkle

[Patriotdiscussions]

http://countyjustice.synthasite.com/cha ... rinkle.php


Any thoughts on why this guy never needed a license?

[AndyK]

Interesting how all the URL links in the document point to the (now-defunct) web site of the (now-deceased) LawyerDude

Based on past experience here with LawyerDude's veracity, it's highly questionable that his disciple Spinkle's allegations are totally accurate.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Any thoughts on why this guy never needed a license?

First you need to provide proof that is the case.

[JamesVincent]

Yeah, a couple of thoughts actually.

First, I cannot find any record of this suit actually being filed. Which makes sense since it would have been dismissed without ever going to court since Reagan, as Governor of California, would have been immune against suit involving his duties of Governor.

Second, every point he brought is the same tired and worn out sov'run philosophy that has been debunked and has lost in every court case it has ever appeared in so I don't expect it would have been any different here.

Third, anyone can put an alleged court document on the internet. Since they didn't post the actual decision that would usually mean there wasn't one favorable to their point or they would have posted that instead.

[notorial dissent]

If Lawyerdud was involved in it, it was a for sure no win. As I recall, he had a near perfect record of loss up to and including his own disbarment. I fail to see why this would be any different if he were involved.

[JamesVincent]

If Lawyerdud was involved in it, it was a for sure no win. As I recall, he had a near perfect record of loss up to and including his own disbarment. I fail to see why this would be any different if he were involved.

It doesn't look like LawyerDude was directly involved. Looks like he used this case as one of his "success stories" to make himself look like he knew what he was doing.

[fortinbras]

I echo James Vincent. No case in either WestLaw or Lexis mentioning this Charles Sprinkle. Nor a newsclipping. Since the purported complaint in the link asks for a bunch of things - including that paper money is invalidated, that the California Bar ceases to function, that driver's licenses are a title of nobility (funny, I can't inherit one, and having one doesn't cause other people to kneel or bow or anything), etc., you'd think that winning on just one point would have shown up in the newspapers and been mentioned in other court cases.

I was able to find that a Charles Sprinkle of Ventura County, Calif., was convicted of multiple Vehicle Code infractions in 2002. In fact, a whole lot of Californians are still being charged and convicted for unlicensed driving so I really wonder if Sprinkle won, as some internet nutters claim. If he had won, even in an unpublished decision, lawyers all over California would have gotten copies of that unpublished disposition and made sure to mention it in subsequent cases involving other unlicensed drivers, but that didn't happen either.

I can tell you right now: He tried to sue a bunch of state judges - they have judicial immunity; ditto for the prosecutors. Wives are probably going to be dismissed from the case simply because they have nothing to testify about or to mount a defense. All of the issues - the requirement of a drivers license, the use of paper money, the requirement of admission to the bar in order to practice the legal profession - had already been decided against Sprinkle's position in numerous courts including the US Supreme Court and the highest courts in California. Any contrary result on any of these in Sprinkle's lawsuit would have been trumpeted in the newspaper and engendered a ton of other court cases - never happened.

[wserra]

Any thoughts on why this guy never needed a license?

Any thoughts on how my great-aunt Tillie grows prize-winning tomatoes in her garden in the Sea of Tranquility?

[rumpelstilzchen]

Fish emulsion?

[notorial dissent]

Any thoughts on why this guy never needed a license?

Seriously! That's the best you could come up with??? And you call yourself a troll??? You're embarrassing!!!!

[fortinbras]

I'll throw it back to the troll.

There's nothing to indicate that Sprinkle "didn't need a driver's license". On the contrary, he ran up multiple convictions in just 2002.
Please provide evidence - something more than Sprinkle's bare say-so - that shows that he "doesn't need" a DL and/or that he won his lawsuit.

PS: From another website I get an explanation why Charlie Sprinkle doesn't need a driver's license now -- his most recent ride was in a hearse and he wasn't driving.

[rumpelstilzchen]

PS: From another website I get an explanation why Charlie Sprinkle doesn't need a driver's license now -- his most recent ride was in a hearse and he wasn't driving.

Well, there you have it.
He wasn't driving he was travelling.

[wserra]

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.

[JamesVincent]

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.

I think you missed your calling Wes. You should have written one-liners for sitcoms instead. Probably would have made more money too.

[davids]

Any thoughts on why this guy never needed a license?

Seriously! That's the best you could come up with??? And you call yourself a troll??? You're embarrassing!!!!

[davids]

If this is the same person who used the moniker lawyerdude way back when, I remember arguing with him on the internut when it was fairly recent that he had been disciplined by the California bar. If at one point he was sharp enough to become a lawyer, he clearly lost it by the time he started advocating driving without a license and suing the governor. Didn't he recently pass away in some other state? Perhaps he didn't need a license there because he was only driving farm combines on his family farm.

[davids]

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.

[fortinbras]

Charlie Sprinkle passed from this world of woe in December 2009.

http://www.notacitizen.com/pipermail/me ... 00264.html

I presume he is now trying to find legal loopholes in the Ten Commandments.

[Judge Roy Bean]

http://countyjustice.synthasite.com/cha ... rinkle.php


Any thoughts on why this guy never needed a license?

He does not need a license unless he wants to avoid the penalties for being stopped and cited for driving without one.

[Pottapaug1938]

Charlie Sprinkle passed from this world of woe in December 2009.

http://www.notacitizen.com/pipermail/me ... 00264.html

I presume he is now trying to find legal loopholes in the Ten Commandments.

... and trying to convince God that he, Charlie of the family Sprinkle, is sovereign and a Freeman upon the Firmament, and thus not accountable even to Him.