New Court Strategy For The WIN!

“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It’s benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It CANNOT BE CLAIMED BY ATTORNEY OR SOLICITOR. It is valid only when insisted npon by a BELLIGERENT CLAIMANT IN PERSON.” McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876.


When playing chess, sometimes it makes sense to sacrifice a queen if it puts you in a position to win.

The point of the game is to win, not to collect pawns, points or a score.

I used to go to court and get jammed up initially because I would try and make the prosecution answer questions about status and standing. When I would answer the plaintiff or prosecutor directly, and what I didn’t realize was that my answers were essentially a non-sequitur and put me in dishonor which was really irrelevant and counter-productive to the point where the judge would actually tell me that “we’re not here for that”. Which was just a kick in the shins when I realized that the judge was right, we are not here for that. The reason that we are not here for those arguments, is because we had not given the court notice that we had wanted to talk about those things.

This is where the “Notice of Appearance” (or Notice of Visitation) comes into play. You need to give them notice of the things that you want to talk about so that they are on the same page as you are.

There are two different trains of thought that I have when I am in the courtroom. The first is where I want to ask about status and the second is if the prosecution has filed a claim upon which relief can be granted. These type of issues should not be brought up at arraignment without first giving the court notice that you are wanting to discuss these things. They automatically presume that you have waived those things or that they don’t matter to you because you never brought them up in the proper way.

These issues that you want to bring up with the prosecution are things that should go into your notice of appearance which you send to the court ahead of time. When you do this, you can then address the plaintiff or the prosecutor directly with the matter at hand that they wrote, and then you stay in honor along with providing the court your side of the case. These conversations tend to be a lot shorter as well when done properly.

You want to catch them with their own rules and win because they didn’t do something that was required, rather than forcing them to do something that they can’t do… which will always be a tougher uphill and unsustainable fight.

It helps if you have authenticated the BC, but this is not necessary. The beauty is that you can handle your status at the last minute. And I have been eyeballs to eyeballs with judges and I can promise you that there really is something to what I am about to express to you. So, when the judge calls the name, I say “I am here on that.”, so essentially I am kind of taking a step back in the conversation figuratively, while also compelling the judge to say more. He will likely raise his voice and say “are you JOHN DOE OR NOT?!?!” It may not be so intense but you know we have all seen the judge white knuckling it trying to get you to admit to being the name, right?

Following Gordon Hall, and contract and understanding language I will say “I am John Doe, as long as it doesn’t give you the idea that I have agreed to joinder or surety to a fiction.” In other words, I am taking control of it. He KNOWS he needs the trust all caps nonsense, but I make sure to say when I use that word, this is what I mean by it. We clarify what that name means when we use it, which forces him to do one of two things; either he will have to explain in detail what the name really means (which is impossible), or he has to let you have it. And they do, they let you have it. So I say, “As long as it doesn’t give anyone the idea that I agree to joinder or surety to a fiction”.

What will happen at this point is that the judge will stumble along and respond one of several ways. He will probably say something like: “what do you mean by that?” In other words, you got him and he is now trying to fix it. So then we shift gears and handle how he is trying to fix it.

Another thing they will try is to give you a command addressing you as “Mr. Doe”. We have all seen how they will address you as “Mister” even when you ask them not to. As a matter of fact I have a recent video on my YouTube channel where the defendant asks the judge to please not address him as “Mister” and then he does it again not more than a minute later! If you don’t catch them when they call you “Mister” and correct them you end up acquiescing to a lower position and they get you that way. So, what we do is we clarify this up front and redefine it from the beginning and nip that whole Mr. Mister game in the bud from the get-go. Say: “The same terms and conditions apply to Mister.” Now, whenever he uses it, it does not give him joinder or surety to the fiction. As a matter of fact, the judge can use that title now without it doing you any harm!

Just tell them that the same terms and conditions apply to the name as they do to Mister! In other words, when you use that word, you are talking to the Man… I don’t know about this other stuff.

Now let’s skip over the rest of the hearing because there is a way that he will get you later on as far as status with the person and the “Mr.” and all that. What he will do is go on and on about this and that and tell you all about how what you are trying to do is this or that. But you have to pay close attention because at some point he will bury the needle in the haystack so to speak and he will talk about representation. It will likely go something like: “Whenever someone is not represented by an attorney, and representing themselves such as you are…” then x,y,z. In other words, he is slyly implying that you are “representing yourself”. This may not sound so bad until you look up the definition for “represent”.

You need to respond to this accusation that you are “represented” or he will have acquired your consent unwittingly. So you respond with “I am not representing myself, I am myself.”

By accepting representation you are essentially giving up your inheritance. “7. To stand in the place of, in the right of inheritance. “ (

This is also why he may be ok with letting you do some of this stuff at the beginning, he knows that he always has that “represent” card up his sleeve.

Also, it likely will not be enough that you only say it once because you have to show that you have conviction. Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is a pattern. They will capitulate the third time.

In the 1828 Noah Webster’ dictionary refusal is defined as: “1. The act of refusing; denial of any thing demanded, solicited or offered for acceptance. The first refusal is not always proof that the request will not be ultimately granted.“ ( Pay particular attention to that second sentence.

But the judge still has another ace up his sleeve. How they will usually ultimately get out of it is to tell you that they will have your decision in a week. What they are doing is asking you for your permission for them to use general discretion. (Black’s 4th 1968 / Pg 523 – DISCRETION. Power or privilege of the court to act unhampered by legal rule.)

Respond by saying: “Very well your honor but I object to general discretion and I want the decision based on the facts as they have been expressed (as opposed to presumed) here today.”

For the notice of appearance, you need to say two things:

1) I am unrepresented, not politically affiliated (essentially status information).

2) I am not an expert in law. (You have to say this because all the presumptions are in favor of the one who is well versed in law. For example, if you go silent they will presume that you do it deliberately or willingly unless you are not an expert in law.)

There is a common misconception in the liberty movement and that is that the word “understand” means to “stand under” their authority or what they said, but I am not convinced that this is the case. If you look up the word “understand” in the Noah Websters 1828 dictionary you will see a bunch of definitions for “understand”, one of which is: “12. To know what is not expressed.” (

So, when he asks if you “understand” him, he is really asking you if you know what has not been expressed. But if you say that you “don’t understand” he will act like it means the general definition and public’s understanding of that word. He will say “Well, what is it that you don’t understand?” How can you possibly understand what has not been expressed? To answer the “Do you understand?” question, I believe that it would be safe to say: “To some degree I do, but not completely because I can’t know everything that is in your mind.” You don’t want to respond in a way that puts a padlock on it up to that point. You also need to remove any agreement that you have implied up to that point.

At this point, I must tell you to make sure that you don’t push it too far or get into irrelevant topics. We want to avoid being made a ward of the court and having them assign an attorney to us, or even worse if you push it too far they may order a mental evaluation onto you.

You know that these judges sit around and have the same kind of conversations that we do, except they are discussing how to keep us in their system, while we are discussing how to withdraw from it. Sometimes it helps to look at the chessboard from the other side’s perspective.

You can expect the judge to eventually likely go off on a monolog and a tangent to move you away from that topic.

Let’s talk about shifting the burden. The good thing about the “Notice of Appearance” (or Notice of Visitation) is that it is not to the prosecutor or plaintiff, but to the court. You give them notice that you are going to be making a special appearance as a visitor. Because a visitor according to Websters 1828 is: “2. A superior or person authorized to visit a corporation or any institution, for the purpose of seeing that the laws and regulations are observed, or that the duties and conditions prescribed by the founder or by law, are duly performed and executed.

The king is the visitor of all lay corporations. (

Effective shifting of the burden will require that you inquire from the court if the plaintiff or prosecutor has filed a claim upon which relief can be granted. I am coming in to ask that question before we go any further. And what isn’t going to happen this time is we are not going to hear “We are not here for that” because we ARE HERE FOR THAT.

So you would say: “Your honor, did you get my notice of appearance? Because that’s where I told you what I am here for. Do you have a rebuttal for my notice of appearance? Because I never got one and it seems to me that if I didn’t get a rebuttal to my notice of appearance then that must be what we are here for.”

To be able to explain, and understand (pun intended, lol), and deflect the “we’re not here for that” statement put forth by the judge, you have to know why you are there, and you have to have provided notice to the court as to why you are there as well.

The plaintiff has entered paperwork to the court and that is why he is there. He can’t enter in documents or papers that don’t have to do with why he is there. They can’t see anything outside of what is brought in by either side of the court. So, we do the same thing. We let them know specifically why we are there as well. Like the two sides of the chess board. The game is not able to be played without each side having their pieces on the board. The prosecutors side is only half of the whole story. It is up to us to tell our side so that we figuratively have all of our pieces on the board.

Conversely, once all of the pieces are on the board, there is no bringing in new pieces. In other words, we can only talk about what we brought in. We can only use the pieces on the board. That is exactly what that is if you have ever hear the prosecution say: “Objection, your honor that is outside the scope of the pleadings.” Which means that you didn’t bring it in, you can’t bring it up now. We don’t want to ambush them, an ambush will not work.

So essentially we want to know if the prosecution has stated a claim for which relief can be granted, and if he hasn’t, we need to know. So you ask the judge: “Has the plaintiff/prosecutor filed a complete claim upon which relief can be granted?”

Would the defendant be obliged to respond to anything that is not complete? And guess what the funny part is… they can NEVER file a claim upon which relief can be granted. Checkmate. But what they get you to do is argue back, and then they gotcha and they can skip past that.

So when we go in, it is appropriate to ask that question because we have laid the foundation by giving them notice. This also means that you never have to say anything that might trip you up.

Ask again: “Have they done that?” The judge will say: “no” (or if he says “yes” then he is full of shit) and he relies on a refusal. So that brings us back to “The first refusal is not always proof that the request will not be ultimately granted. “

So if the judge says that the prosecutor HAS filed a claim upon which relief can be granted, that is kind of like they are REFUSING your claim. You need to get them to refuse it three times. Make sure to not get excited about it though. Just run the same request again, twice.

NEVER again accept the first refusal or denial. Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern. You simply MUST get to three when being refused in court. How many times have you seen one refusal or denial destroy an argument? I have seen it plenty of times, and all they needed to do was ask two more times to be certain. And you know the absolute worst thing about accepting the first refusal is that you are led to believe that you were wrong and it really just simply defeats you. Look at it this way, you will NEVER be right the first time in any court. You have to do it three times to be right.

You need to have conviction. This is a fight, it is a battle. It is not a time to throw everything at the wall just to see what sticks because you heard it on the internet. This gives them a way to separate the wheat from the chaff, the serious and knowledgeable from the weak and fearful.

Intent is truly the spirit of the law when you have said it three times and have come back with conviction and you really intended it. You didn’t say it on accident.

So when the judge says that the prosecution HAS filed a claim upon which relief can be granted, you say: “Well, your honor I have inspected the file, and I don’t see a corpus delicti. Not only that, but no one has come forward with a first-hand claim that they have been injured. Would you happen to have that in YOUR file?”

Where exactly is the corpus delicti? Where is the injured party with a first hand claim of injury? Can you show me that?

And then no matter what he says… yada, yada, yada, lecture, etc.

You Say: ” I want you to say, for and on the record that there is an injured party, that there is in fact a corpus delicti that you know of for a fact and you have taken judicial notice of.”

When he tries to wiggle out of it, you say it again… I want you to tell me “YES” there is in fact, for and on the record that there is an injured party, that there is in fact a corpus delicti that you know of for a fact and you have taken judicial notice of… and when he tries to wiggle out you do it a third and final time for the pattern.

It is also imperative that you reduce the answer to a “yes” or “no” answer so there is nowhere to go. He is unable to evade you. Either there IS or there ISN’T. Period.

Here is a sample of a Notice Of Appearance to get you going and also if they ever happen to actually find an injured party, we will cover that type of situation in an upcoming article when we get to the “Bill of Particulars”. If you have read this far I congratulate you. Just to be able to comprehend what is written here is so valuable. While we are on the topic of value I want you to know that there are people out there who would charge you a thousand bucks for this information, but I have chosen to gift this to you free of any charges. I am working on doing some incredible things in this world, but I need your help. Please visit and if you have the means to be able to purchase a product that I have available there it will go a long ways in showing me that you support what I do and how much my work means to you. We have items priced as low as $0.99 cents so we are also really not asking for much. But on the other hand, we have some big plans and are in need of some investment capital. If you are interested in helping us further our mission and possibly supplying us with some investment capital that would be repaid quickly, we would be extremely grateful. You can use this link to contact us if you are able to support us in this fashion and to learn about what we have planned. We only need about $5K to give us the boost that we need. Thank you so much for your support, and God bless you.

Peace be with you, and please feel free to share this article if you found it helpful.


By Neil Rowe P.A.G.; Professor of Law

No, I’m not going into to traffic court and arguing illegitimate corporate government, or any of the other varied long winded arguments people and persons propose. Just not interested in approaching it that way for reasons of my own. What follows is my standard template for transportation code or driving offense charges and I’m retiring from answering any more questions related to traffic tickets, until and unless you can quote this back to me verbatim and understand it and still have a problem, moving on to more important issues and frontiers in law. Yes, I could use dozens of additional citations, and you may add them and over complicate matters if you choose, I just don’t think it’s necessary to go into much more detail. Keep it simple stupid.

Submitted to the Public Domain without copyright. Copy and share.

Notice of and Motion for Bill of Particulars and Discovery Request for Brady Material In Answer and Response to Inadequate Notice and Defective Service of Process by Complaint or Information that Fails to State the Requisite Jurisdictional Elements of a Valid Cause of Action and Controversy of Both Fact and Law Required to Establish Personal Jurisdiction

Proposed Jury Instructions

COMES NOW the accused defendant herein named by special appearance in Pro Se, by liberal construction waiving professional rules of pleading practice, and for his preliminary Answer and Response, Discovery request for Brady Material and Motion as styled and en-captioned above, by his own hand and under oath affiant shows this honorable court and states as follows; To Wit:

Based Upon information and belief, affiant states:

1. THAT the undersigned writer is charged in the instant action and proceedings with a Transportation Code or Driving offense.

2. THAT Federal and State statutes and provisions of law narrowly define “Driving” as the professional commercial activity of “transporting persons or property for profit.”

3. THAT Federal and State statutes and provisions of law defining the elements of “Driving” omit “traveling for recreation or pleasure,” the writer contends, because ‘A Citizen must be free to travel throughout the [several] United States uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulation.’ (Shapiro v. Thomson, 394 US 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322 ( )); “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.” (Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22). “As has been well said in the case of Ex parte Dickey (W.Va. 85 S.E. 781): The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage coach or omnibus. This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities.” (Thielke v. Albee, 79 Or. 48, 153 P. 793); “It is to clear for the purpose of extended discussion that it was competent for the legislature under the police power to regulate the use of the streets and the public places by jitney operators, who, as common carriers, have no vested right to use the same without complying with a requirement as to obtaining a permit or license. The right to make such use is a franchise, to be withheld or granted as the legislature may see fit.” (Fifth Ave. Coach Co. V. New York, 194 N.Y. 19,86 N.E. 824, 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 744, 16 Ann.Cas. 695; Dill. Mun. Corp. 1210, 1229); “[W]hile a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion…” (State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078. (For further distinction between traveling and transportation, See : Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784).

4. WHEREFORE the writer contents and asserts, based on information and belief supported by points in authority provided, that transporting persons or property for profit in commerce is a condition precedent and form the requisite jurisdictional elements of any transportation code driving offense.

5. THAT the Plaintiff officer by state attorney has failed by sufficient complaint or information to state or inform the accused defendant of the “person(s)” or “property” the accused defendant is accused of transporting, or for what “profit.”

6. THAT the plaintiff prosecution is required to inform the accused defendant of the essential elements of, and material facts alleged substantiating the crime as charged and to prove these same elements and material facts beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence at trial, and for this reason the accused defendant contends jury instructions must reflect the requirement that the prosecution plaintiff establish and prove the person(s ) or property that were transported for what profit, and who those persons or what that property transported for what profit was, with particularity.


WHEREFORE all the good and proper reasons stated, the undersigned accused defendant prays this honorable court grant the motion for bill of particulars, or provide discovery of the essential material facts constituting the driving or transportation code offense charged, and compel the plaintiff prosecution to amend defective information or complaint to apprise the accused defendant of the same so that he might reasonably respond or prepare his defense having notice of both the nature of, and, cause for the instant charges and proceedings as required by rules of substantive and procedural due process, or in the alternative quash the information or complaint for inadequate notice and defective service of process and dismiss the instant action and proceedings for failure to prosecute, and grant any other relief this court deems equitable and fair in good faith and conscience.

Foot Note: I am not arguing against statutory authority. Travel is mentioned, but Statutory authority to regulate Transportation is accepted and acknowledged.

I am asking for fair and proper notice. The elements of driving are clear.

If charged with assault, how, by punching, kicking or slapping?

If contempt of court for disrupting proceedings, how? By what noise, outburst or disruptive behavior, specifically?

If murder, who, and by what means?

The prosecution must demonstrate the case he intends to put on, so the defendant is informed of the case he must meet.

Driving drunk? Driving on suspended?

Forget drunk, forget suspended…

How driving?

It’s simple calculus.

And with that having been said, I’m charging for the next question.

Dedicated to my parents, who took a clever little six year old intent on being the worlds greatest liar and cheat, and changed the course of his life by paddling his behind, conditioning him to study instead and violently hate liars and cheats.

Courtroom Ace in the Hole… Taxable Events

You know… when people attempt to stand up for their rights and defend themselves in their corporate tribunal administrative courts and the court plays dirty and attempts to circumvent rights and railroad people for victimless code violations it just makes them look bad and also typically makes the resolve of the one defending themselves stronger.

The fact that they are so quick to play dirty tells me that they have absolutely no legitimacy and everything that they do is strictly coercion under threat of violence. This house of cards is coming down. (keep reading)

Every bill we get from a corporation is a taxable event….Your Gas, Trash, Water, Cell Phone, Mortgage and car note…etc… It is all a tax. Because it is a tax, there are documents you should file with the IRS. The 1099-A reports the transaction and the 1099-OID returns the tax back to you…minus 10%. So if done correctly, a $150 bill should be returned to you in form of a treasury check of $135.00. But because the United States is operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy since 1933…and no gold standard is in place… consequently every U.S. Corporation is also bankrupt due to lack of assets and are therefore unable to discharge any debts.

We, the American people who hold a SSN, have not been told that we are the “Bankers” in this Corporate world and the “Donors” in the world of trusts…and that we have all the tools at our disposal to discharge any public debt. The problem America faces today is not the actions of one man in office (U.S. President) it is that nobody wants to read anything meaningful or important…and because we refuse to educate ourselves, every generation after us gets dumber and dumber.

Almost 10 years ago, I went on a very long journey in trying to make sense out of this chaotic world we live in. I have read everything from the IRS code to the Laws of Nations. I was fortunate enough to have the time to research everything under the sun. It is an incredible maze to say the very least and also very rewarding if one can see the bigger picture of this “puzzle”. The average American’s view of taxation, financing, accounting, politics and the way the judicial system operates may be quite different than from those that have educated themselves. Nothing works the way we have been led to believe…in fact, everything is almost the opposite.

Debt is money, slavery is freedom, war is peace and schooling is education. That is what the “Matrix” wants us to believe. We put our children in the care of others (public schools) because we lack the ability to educate our own children, then we wonder why they can’t even open up a can of beans when they have reached the age of 18.

The powers that be have placed us in a gigantic “farm”…and very few people care about it or they seem to be overwhelmed by this very truth. There is a reason why humans have the same status as animals…this is not just my opinion…this is an actual fact. Why are food stamps under title 7 of the U.S. Code (Department of Agriculture)???

The schools are designed to remove our ability to think. This school model we have today was adopted from the communists believe it or not. Mom goes to the school with a birth certificate of her child and registers not the child, but the ALL CAPS NAME (Since living humans can’t be legally or lawfully registered) so they can do a role call every morning for 12 years and get the child to actually believe that they are the NAME they are calling out every morning. No real history, math, geometry or civics is taught in any of the U.S. public schools. There is a very good reason why the federal government funds State schools every year with about $2,500 per student….so they can decide on what goes into the head of a young man/woman and to make them obedient taxpayers.

Now since everybody today went to some form of “Public Fool System”…the ability to think and to question has been removed. So we end up getting a drivers license, become “patriotic” tax-payers, follow the doctors orders and our children get to pay the 30% Star-Spangled inheritance tax when we die.

This “matrix” that has us blind-folded, ignorant and unaware of the actual truth is not lawless and is limited by the world of the “dead”. It can only operate in the fictional world it has created. Therefore it requires “persons” (not people) to carry out the dirty work and to assist in enslaving all the other “civilly dead” humans. The world of the living is governed by and for the living…there are no “overlords” because the “living” are their own governors. In order for your so-called “Government” to get control over you, they had to get you to go down to the DMV with the Birth Certificate so you could get that drivers license. The Drivers License is what establishes “Legal Residency in the United States (D.C.)” and abolishes one’s lawful domicile in the 50 states of the Union. The Cops are none the wiser and are told to arrest or cite every “Person” without a driver’s license. The Drivers License or State ID has a “FIRST MIDDLE LAST” name…this NAME was created by the State and if it is used, the person using it is subject to penalties and taxes. If you look in the Passport, it has the “Family name” first, followed by the “Given names”. You are NOT using the State’s property when you use a Passport for Identification.

Why is it that we are led to believe that we are “citizens of the United States” if in fact, we are “Citizens of the United States of America”?
The answer to this is simple: to control and to tax you. The U.S. Constitution is very clear on this in the 14th Amendment and it says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the State where they reside”.

Notice that it does NOT say “Citizens of the United States of America”…because a “Citizen of America owes his/her allegiance to a republic and a U.S. citizen owes his allegiance to a democracy…and is subject to the rules of that democracy.

If you ever have to go to court for another stupid traffic ticket or some other victimless “crime”…walk in there with a W-9 form (request for EIN). Let the Judge know that you accept his/her oath of office and instruct the judge to enter a plea on your behalf upon condition that the prosecuting attorney fills out the W-9 form. You just might find out how powerful you are when you realize that every taxable event has to be sent to the IRS for recording because they are attempting to stiff YOU with the tax and to make you the trustee and themselves the beneficiary. I am almost certain they will make the case go away very quickly. If not, the IRS is your friend. They are there to do the accounting for a bankrupt corporation (D.C.)…so let them do it. All that is needed is a W-9, 1096, 1099-a and then a 1099-OID. You pay the fine…you file the forms with the IRS, then you get your refund. The prosecuting attorney gets a bill for the tax and will do everything in his power to prevent another case against that ALL CAPS NAME (not you).

In my honest and educated opinion…this is what being an American is all about. Standing tall in front of every unrighteous man and only serving the righteous one…his creator.

You can only be with God or without…there is no gray area. Chose wisely and govern yourselves accordingly.

I know it is not an "ace" but I liked this picture for this article. ;-)
I know it is not an “ace” but I liked this picture for this article. 😉



United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

The aftermath of the American Civil War was marked by the passage of a series of constitutional amendments and federal laws designed to establish and preserve the civil rights of African Americans. Most significantly, the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, provided for equal protection of the law for all American citizens and prohibited the deprivation of a citizen’s ‘‘life, liberty, or property without due process of law.’’ Congress extended these protections in 1870 by passing the first Enforcement Act, which forbade two or more private citizens from depriving another citizen of his or her civil rights, making such conduct a felony under federal law.

These federal measures helped to stymie efforts to preserve the system of white supremacy that survived in the former Confederate states after the abolition of slavery. In reaction to these measures, white supremacists sought to preserve the southern racial caste system through state and local ‘‘Jim Crow’’ laws enforcing racial segregation and through the extralegal activities of paramilitary terror groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Lynchings, or the enforcement of mob justice through public beatings and executions, became commonplace in many areas of the American South, in direct violation of the Enforcement Act.

Among the first persons charged with violating the Act was William J. Cruikshank, who along with approximately eighty co-conspirators was indicted for the lynching of two African-American men on April 13, 1873, for trying to vote in a local election. United States Attorney J. R. Beckwith had sought indictment of the co-conspirators on Federal charges, because the murder of an African American by a white person was not a crime under existing Louisiana law. The Federal Circuit Court for Louisiana convicted Cruikshank and the other defendants; after which the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on appeal during the fall term of 1874. The prosecution, assisted by U.S. Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont and Solicitor General Samuel F. Phillips, argued that the Fourteenth Amendment provided a basis for the 1870 Enforcement Act by giving the federal government the authority to prosecute violators of citizens’ civil rights. The defense team, headed by David Dudley Field, countered that the Fourteenth Amendment only protected citizens against government violations of civil rights, not against the oppressive acts of private citizens. In October of 1875, the Court ruled unanimously that prosecution of the defendants under federal law was unconstitutional, because state law was primarily responsible for protecting citizens from each other.

As a result of the Court’s decision, victims of civil rights abuses were left to seek protection from state courts, which were often uninterested in safeguarding the civil rights of southern blacks. The decision led to a variety of civil rights abuses, including a proliferation of state and local segregation laws, poll taxes and literacy tests designed to deny the vote to African Americans, and a continuation of racial intimidation and violence. Not until the passage of the federal civil rights legislation of the 1960s would African Americans receive full protection of their civil rights under federal law.


References and Further Reading

  • Foner, Eric. ‘‘The New View of Reconstruction.’’ American Heritage 34 (October–November 1983): 6: 10–16.
  • Neely, Mark E. The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
  • Nieman, Donald G. Promises to Keep: African Americans and the Constitutional Order, 1776 to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
  • Tomlins, Christopher, ed. The United States Supreme Court: The Pursuit of Justice. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2005.

Cases and Statutes Cited

  • Fourteenth Amendment to U.S. Constitution, USCA Cons. Amend. 14s 1
  • Enforcement Act, Act of May 31, 1870, c. 6,16 Stat. 141

See also Civil Rights Act of 1964; Federalization of Criminal Law; Freedom of Association; Thirteenth Amendment

Charlie Sprinkle’s Law Suit

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”:

Charles Sprinkle’s Section 1983 Case from 1975

Charles Sprinkle                                                                             Filed 3 January 1975

10580 Creek Road Ojai, California 93023

Plaintiff Pro Se.

U.S. District Court

Central District of California

312 Spring Street, Los Angeles California

Charles R. Sprinkle



Governor Ronald Reagan,

his wife Nancy Reagan,

District Attorney Stanley Trom,

his wife Joan Trom,

Deputy Dist. Atty. William Hinkle,

his wife Mary Hinkle,

Judge Benjamin Ruffner,

his wife Jacqueline Ruffner,

Judge Donald Polack, his wife Georgia Polack,

Judge Richard Heaton,

his wife Anne Heaton,

Officer Glen White,

his wife Judy White,

Officer Gary Hardman,

his wife Patricia Hardman,

Judge Robert Soares,

his wife Kathryn Soares,


Case # CV 75-13 dww(k)

            Complaint for Money Damages for:

            Deprivation of Constitutional Rights,

            Conspiracy do Deprive Plaintiff of Constitutional Rights, and

Failure to Protect Plaintiff from Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional Rights.

Jury is hereby Demanded.

1.         Comes now the Plaintiff above named in his own natural person and complains against Defendants above named for depriving Plaintiff of constitutional rights under color of State Law, custom or usage, conspiracy to so deprive and/or failure, neglect or refusal to protect plaintiff from said conspiracy although it was within the power to do so.


2.         This Court has jurisdiction under 28 USC 1343 (1), (2), (3), and (4) and under USC 1938, 1985.

3.         Plaintiff and individuals, named are citizens and residents of the State of California. Defendants are employees of the State of California and The County of Ventura.

1st Cause of Action

4.         Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Ventura, State of California for the past thirteen years.

5.         Ronald Reagan is Governor of the State of California;

6.         Robert Soares is Judge in the Municipal Court County of Ventura State of California.

7.         Stanley Trom is District Attorney for the County of Ventura, State of California.

8.         William L. Hinkle is Deputy District Attorney for the County of Ventura, State of California;

9.         Glen White is Court Officer for the State Highway Patrol, County of Ventura, State of California.

10.       Gary Hardman is Highway Patrol Officer in the County of Ventura, State of California;

11.       Benjamin Ruffner is Judge in Superior Court, County of Ventura, State of California:

12.       Donald Polack is Superior Court Judge, County of Ventura, State of California;

13.       Richard Heaton is Superior Court Judge, County of Ventura, State of California;

14.       Nancy Reagan, Joan Trom, Mary Hinkle, Ann Heaton, Judy White, Jacqueline A. Ruffner, Georgia L. Polack, Patricia Hardman and Kathryn A. Soares are to the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge and belief, the wives, respectively of Defendants named above;

15.       They are joined as a protection to Plaintiff against their husbands unlawful dissipation of assets or attempted conveyances of property in a attempt to defraud legitimate creditors.

16.       By Law, Article XX Section 3 of the Constitution, State of California, Defendants, Reagan, Soares, Trom., Hinkle, White, Ruffner, Heaton, Hardman and Polack, have been required by Oath of affirmation, to support and defend Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights when or where they clam to have jurisdiction over or official duties with the Plaintiff.

Stopped by Highway Patrol on Jan 15, 1974

17.       On or about Jan. 15, 1974, Plaintiff while driving a 1967 Triumph automobile on State of California Highway, Plaintiff was arrested and ordered to obtain a Drivers License and a automobile License.

Driver License is Title of Nobility

18.       Both are Titles of nobility.

19.       Said order was in violation of Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports,except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws: and the net produce of allduties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engagein war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Close .

Federal Reserve notes not backed by silver and gold

20.       Defendant Hardman, Highway Patrolman, also required me to pay for said License with Federal Reserve Notes, That are not backed by gold or silver coin, as stipulated in Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.

21.       Defendant Hardman threatened Plaintiff with deprivation of Liberty and property with out due process of Law.

22.       All this was done under, Color, Custom and Usage of California State Vehicle Code.

23.       Defendant White acting in conspiracy with Hardman and under color, custom and usage of law, ordered Plaintiff to court.

24.       The constitutes a violation of his Oath of Office as covered by Title 18, USC 241and 242.

25.       Defendant Soares was assigned to Court wherein Plaintiff appeared as defendant in a criminal Traffic Case.

26.       Plaintiff filed a motion for counsel of his own choice, as is his right, as set forth in the 6th Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.

27.       Defendant Soares in concert with the California State Legislature, has denied Plaintiff’s motion for counsel of his own choice.

28.       Plaintiff is guaranteed Freedom of Speech and Freedom of association under the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution.

29.       Therefore, Plaintiff is free to associate with counsel of his choice and to have a spokesman (counsel of his choice to speak for him).

Denial of Due Process

30.       Plaintiff is guaranteed Due process of Law by the Fifth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.

Denial of Counsel of Choice

31.       The Bill of Rights includes, Counsel of choice in the 6th amendment.

32.       Due Process is guaranteed by the both the 5th and the 14th amendments to the constitution.

Infliction of Excessive and therefore Cruel and Unusual Punishment

33.       Under the 8th Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment may not be applied against Plaintiff.

34.       Defendants have imposed just such cruel and unusual punishment upon Plaintiff by the mental stress placed upon Plaintiff as a result of Defendant Soares’s denial of Counsel of choice.

35.       Under the 9th amendment to the constitution Plaintiff’s right to counsel of choice is protected from encroachment by any individual or government body under the 10th amendment to the constitution.

36.       Plaintiff reserves all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal or State Government and he has not waived any of the rights aforementioned, which for the most part are natural rights, but which are also protected by the constitution.

Infliction of Peonage and Involuntary Servitude

37.       Under the 13th. amendment to the constitution Plaintiff is protected against peonage and involuntary servitude, where the actions of Defendants appear to destine Plaintiff.

38.       Under the 14th amendment of the, Plaintiff is protected under Title 18 USC, Sec. 241and 242 from the acts of Defendants.

California Bar in Violation of Sherman Antitrust Act

39.       Defendants , Under Color, Usage and Custom of California set forth in Article VI Sec.9 of the California constitution (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and made a part here of as though stated in total herein, in their capacity of public ministers have denied plaintiff the unalienable right to counsel of Plaintiff own choice, Who may or may not be a member of an exclusive organization, Which Organization may well be in Violation of the Sherman antitrust Act 25 USC 1,2,3,

40.       Defendants Trom and Hinkle Conspired in concert with other Defendants, Hardman, White, Soares, Reagan, Ruffner, Polack and Heaton, acting outside their Lawful Duties, To bring to bear upon Plaintiff unconstitutional acts under Color, custom and Usage of State laws.

41.       Defendants Reagan, Soars, Hardman, Trom, Hinkle, Pollack, Heaton, Ruffner and White acted outside the perimeters their Lawful Duties.

42.       Defendants Violated their Oaths of office. They did so under Color, Custom and usage of Federal and State Law. Defendants acted Grossly, Willfully, Wantonly, Unlawfully, Carelessly, Recklessly, Negligently, Maliciously, purposefully, Intentionally and Discriminatingly against Plaintiff and did so taking advantage of Color, Custom and Usage of State Law and custom within a citizen’s fear of State personal prosecuting good citizens for having stood up for their Natural rights protected by the U.S. constitution and the California State Constitution.

Conspiracy. Overt Acts

43.       Defendants conspired together and with others as yet unknown to Plaintiff to deprive him of his rights.

44.       Overt acts committed by Defendants Pollack, Ruffner, Soares, Hardman, White, Reagan, Trom and Hinkle includes that complained of in above paragraph of this complaint.

45.       Denying Plaintiff a right to counsel, are all in collusion with the State Legislative Branches of the State of California.

46.       Defendants named above relying on their own discretion and erroneous interpretation of the Supreme Law of the Land, Which is the Constitution and not any statute in conflict there with issued or coursed to be issued order for plaintiff conspire with Defendants to subvert the constitution by excepting Titles of Nobility and to make something other them gold and silver coin a tender for payment of debt.

47.       All these are contrary Article 1, Sec. 10, of the Constitution.

48.       Defendants aforenamed deprived Plaintiff of his 9th and 10th Amendment rights, which protect him from Oath-breaking so-called “public servants” who wallow in the pubic trough while trampling upon Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights.

49.       Said defendants, Meanwhile attempt to impose totalitarian Socialism upon the People, Although such a System is the Antithesis of the Constitution, That public servants and duly constituted Authorities are Sworn to uphold

50.       Defendants have exceeded their jurisdiction.

51.       They have abused their discretion.

52.       They have acted outside the Lawful perimeters of their official duties.

53.       They have Grossly, Willfully, wantonly, 19) Unlawfully, Carelessly, Recklessly, Negligently, Intentionally, 20) maliciously, Purposefully, and Discriminatingly Conspired to deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional rights and They have Refused, neglected or Failed to Protect Plaintiff from said Conspiracy although they have been a position to do so.

54.       Defendants Nancy Reagan, Joan Trom, Mary Hinkle, Judy White, Jacqueline A. Ruffner, Georgia L. Pollack, Anne Heaton, Patricia Hardman, Kathryn A. Soares, are the wives respectively of the afore-named Defendants Who are Employed as Erstwhile “public-servants”;These wives are in effect are “Socialist- Queens”, enjoying and living on the Largess and Unlawful spoils brought home by their husbands as compensation for said husband’s Violation of their Oaths of Office and for their willing perversion of the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution.

55.       Said wife Defendants named above have failed, refused or neglected to protect Plaintiff from the conspiracy of their husbands and said failure is intentional, purposeful and malicious.

56.       The acts of omission of said wife Defendants named above constitute an overt act of conspiracy to refuse to protect Plaintiff.

57.       Defendant acts as heretofore complained of, Have caused harm and damage to Plaintiff.

58.       Said acts have caused mental and physical suffering, insomnia, worry, financial insecurity, stress and strain in relationships, in his work, with his family, relatives and friends, Defendants activities have impaired Plaintiffs credit standing.

59.       They have subjected him to public ridicule and embarrassment.


60.       Defendants complained of acts entitle Plaintiff to recover money 21) damages from Defendants and from each of them as follows:

61.       For general damages $ 50,000;

62.       For punitive damages $100,000;

63.       This shall be payable to Plaintiff in Constitutional Lawful Money redeemable in gold or silver coin as set forth in Article 1 Sec. 10 of the constitution.

64.       In addition plaintiff prays such other and further relief as to the jury demanded in this case shall appear just.

65.       Defendants herein are sued in their individual capacities and not as agents of the State of California or The United States.

66.       This is a civil rights Suit and not under the torts claims act.

67.       The United States or the State of California can not be substituted as a party defendant and the consent of the united States or the State of California to be sued is not demanded.

68.       If necessary; Plaintiff demands for all issues to be decided by the Jury Demanded;

69.       If defendants move to dismiss this suit, Plaintiff Demands that it be heard by the jury demanded, and only be dismissed if the Jury considers it lacks merit.

(Respectfully submitted)

Charles Sprinkle, Laborer, Pro Se

Charles Sprinkle

1273 Rice Road #48, Ojai CA 93023

640 0439

Notice of Violation of my Constitutional Rights

Demand to Cease and Desist

Letter #5673

Tuesday, January 28, 2003

Greg Totten
District Attorney
800 South Victoria
Ventura CA 93003

Dear Mr. Totten:

I am a member of a revolutionary group. We forced the King to sign the Magna Charta in 1215 at the point of a sword in a field near Runnymede. Later we wrote the Declaration of Independence which is still recognized authority in some jurisdictions today. Then we wrote the constitution. We the People are the Sovereign described in the Magna Charta, The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the California Constitution.

I am informed that recently you swore to uphold the constitution. That is why I am writing.

We the People are the Sovereign described in the Magna Charta, The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the California Constitution.


Charles Sprinkle

Ojai California


I do not encourage the art of ”holding court at the side of the road” as it can be detrimental to ones health and well being. Therefore, if you choose to hand this Contract to a person in a blue costume, wearing a badge and packing a gun, who is a member of a gang of thugs known as “policemen/police officers” or the like, be forewarned that the majority of them are NOT going to be nice. They do not act as “public servants”. Their master is the CORPORATION which employs them, rather that CORPORATION be a city, state or federal CORPORATION and they advertise that on their badges and on the side of their vehicles.














DATED AND SIGNED THIS ______DAY OF________, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD, 2013 AT__________(AM/PM).

__________________________________________                           ______________________________________________________

             DETAINING OFFICER                                                                                MYSELF