Charles Sprinkler                                                  Served and filed 4:50 pm Monday, March 10, 2003

1273 Rice Road #48, Ojai CA 93023                   Talked with Ann who says it will go to 3 judge panel

640 0439                                                              Of the Superior Court. Ha! She says that they have

Chas@ojai.net                                                      3 courts in this one court. Ha!

Sui Juris

This motion is posted at www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5694.html

Combined Superior and Municipal Court of California

800 S. Victoria, Ventura CA 93003

People

v

Charles Sprinkler

Case # 2002: 013, 441

Document 5694

Notice of appeal .

Request of clerk to prepare Clerk’s transcript on appeal.

Demand for transcript.

Declaration of Defendant Charlie Sprinkle re Appeal.

Request for continuance/ abeyance pending appeal.

Proof of Service

Date:    11 April 2003. Tuesday.

Place:   Court 14.

Time:    9 a.m. 

Notice of Appeal.

            To this Traffic Court, District Attorney Greg Totten, Deputy District Attorney Anika Harvey:

his employees: I hereby inform you that I appeal from the rulings in my motions in this case so far. I seek review in the court of appeal by writ or whatever remedy is available. Pursuant to California statute a defendant may review denial of demurrer, the denial of a suppression motion, and a denial of a 995 motion.

____________________ Charles Sprinkle, Defendant. Monday, March 10, 2003

Declaration of Defendant Charlie Sprinkle

      On approximately 10 December 2002 I requested a transcript of this case. Of course, I could not get a transcript, because there was no court reporter. Therefore I immediately ordered a voice recording of this case. As soon as I received the recording I delivered it to the court reporters to be transcribed. On 6 March, nearly 3 months after I requested a transcript, I was informed by the transcriber that my transcript was ready. I picked up my transcript the next day, March 7.

            I have suffered numerous frustrating denials of my fundamental constitutional rights to due process in this case.

            The latest happened at my last court appearance on 21 February.

            Neither the prosecutor nor the court had a copy of my motion to continue that I had filed the previous day. The court refused to offer me a continuance although the court gave a continuance to the prosecution on the previous Friday when the police officer failed to appear.

            On the occasion of the police officer failing to appear, the prosecutor handed to me her answer to my suppression motion - and answer that was 5 days late.

            On the 21^st at court 14 I had 2 motions. They were sent upstairs to Judge _____ . He said that he would only hear one motion. So what happened to that other motion?

            Previously Commissioner De La Torre denied my 35 page demurrer summarily in about 10 words. The prosecution failed to respond to my demurrer in any way.

            The list is not exhaustive. I merely intend to register my grievances. This business of shuffling the defendant from judge to judge and losing papers and proceeding without the prosecutor must be fixed. Traffic court is an instrument of oppression. The courts were designed to resolve disputes between humans, not to serve as an inquisition where the human is haled to court at the command of a camera, denied counsel, prosecuted by a commissioner sitting also as judge, and then, if he misses court, prosecuted by the judge on another charge (failure to appear) initiated by the court clerks.

________________Charles Sprinkle, Sui Juris

Proof of Service

            I, Douglas Palaschak, declare the following under penalty of perjury: On Monday, March 10, 2003 at 4:40 pm I delivered this notice of appeal #5694 in person to the 3^rd floor office of the district attorney in the hall of justice in Ventura. Thereafter I filed it with the clerk in room 118.

___________________________ Douglas Palaschak Monday, March 10, 2003.