Charles Sprinkle Served and filed 2003 Feb 20 Th 3:55 pm
1273 Rice Road #48
Ojai CA 93023
640 0439
In Pro Per
This motion is posted at www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5688.html
Combined Superior and Municipal Court of California
800 S. Victoria, Ventura CA 93003
People
v
Charles Sprinkle
Case # 2002: 013, 441
Document #5688. Version 2.
Revised Motion to Dismiss pursuant to rule 4.111 for failure to answer demurrer, for failure timely answer suppression motion, and for failure of officer to appear at suppression motion.
Waiver of time in order to permit this motion to be heard.
Proof of Service
Date: 4 March 2003. Tuesday
Place: Court 14.
Time: 9 a.m.
Contents
Declaration of Defendant regarding failures of prosecutor to respond
To Prosecutor Anika Harvey, all parties, and counsel: At the venue shown above or at such venue as the court may order, Charles Sprinkle will ask the court to dismiss this case.
Motion to Dismiss pursuant to rule 4.111 for failure to answer demurrer, for failure timely answer suppression motion, and for failure of officer to appear at suppression motion.
Comes now Defendant Charles Sprinkle demanding that the court dismiss this case pursuant to rule 4.111 which states:
Rule 4.111. Pretrial motions in criminal cases: (a) [Time for filing papers and proof of service] Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all pretrial motions, accompanied by points and authorities, shall be served and filed at least 10 calendar days, all papers opposing the motion at least five calendar days, and all reply papers at least two court days before the time appointed for hearing. Proof of service of the moving papers shall be filed no later than five calendar days before the time appointed for hearing.
(b) [Failure to serve and file timely points and authorities] The court may consider the failure without good cause of the moving party to serve and file points and authorities within the time permitted as an admission that the motion is without merit. Rule 4.111 renumbered effective January 1, 2001; adopted as rule 227.5 effective January 1, 1985. Drafter's Notes 1984-See note following rule 227.1 2001-See note following rule 4.100.
Defendant is a semi-retired white man who first drove a tractor in 1944 and began driving a car in 1950. He was in charge of construction of the deck equipment on Platform Gilda, the closest platform to Ventura. He has driven every kind of heavy equipment used in making roads. He has driven horses, tractors, cars, trucks, heavy equipment, and cranes. He has a firmly held legal and philosophical belief that the roads that he is a tenant in common on the public property of the state and that he does not need a license from the state to use common property. He has presented a 35 page brief supporting his position that the law does not require him to have a driver license.
Case should have been dismissed at these 3 events. Prosecution has had 3 strikes.
Thrice Defendant has spent all day in court. This case should have been dismissed on 3 occasions, to wit:
1. When the prosecution failed to answer the demurrer #5613 which was filed on 3 December.
2. When the prosecution failed to timely respond to the suppression motion.
3. When the officer failed to appear for the suppression motion on 14 February 2003. Defendant spent all day in court.
Defendant has spent 3 whole days in court. One he waited for an officer who FTA’dDefendant has appeared 6 times in this case. Defendant has spent 3 whole days in court on this case. The officer has never appeared and failed to appear once.
Declaration of Defendant regarding failures of prosecutor to respond
I, Charlie Sprinkle, declare the following under penalty of perjury: The facts that I have alleged in this motion are true. Here are the dates of my court appearances as best I can recall:
Defendant has appeared 6 times.
1. 14 November 2002. Spent the whole day in court.
2. 5 December 2002.
3. 12 December 2002.
4. 9 January 2002. The court did not have our case on calender despite my having filed it in plenty of time.
5. 10 January 2002. Spent most of the day in court. Talked to Geraldo Rivera at lunch. Commissioner De La Torre said of my 35 page demurrer “This is all constitutional stuff. I know what this is all about. Denied” He has no authority to deny. He is not a judge. I am attempting to appeal but I have yet to receive a transcript despite my immediate request for a transcript.
6. 14 Feb 2003. Officer failed to appear. I spent the whole day in court.
____________________ Defendant
I, Douglas Palaschak, declare the following under penalty of perjury:February 20, 2003, I served this paper on the receptionist at the D.A. office. Thereafter I filed this motion with the clerk. Signed ________________ Date of signature:February 20, 2003