Charlie Sprinkle Sues Ronald Reagan, Governor of California

   Charlie Sprinkle began his campaign to clean up the courts and hold them to the lawful requirements of the Constitution in the early 70s.  Charlie became legend when he sued then Governor Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy over the requirement he have a driver's license.  To this day Charlie does not have one of those pesky things.  

Below here you will find some of the reasons Charlie is a legend, along with being a very nice guy.  Here is his resume.

Here is the law suit that launched a new phase of the Movement to Restore the Constitution:

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

                         plaintiff

v

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,

                                      Defendants

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.

 

Table of Contents:

 

Stopped by Highway Patrol on Jan 15, 1974

 

Driver License is Title of Nobility

 

Federal Reserve notes not backed by silver and gold

 

Denial of Due Process

 

Denial of Counsel of Choice

 

Infliction of Excessive and therefore Cruel and Unusual Punishment

 

Infliction of Peonage and Involuntary Servitude

 

California Bar in Violation of Sherman Antitrust Act

 

Conspiracy. Overt Acts

 

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.

Jurisdiction

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.

1^st 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 marqueand reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment ofdebts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant anytitle 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 theUnited 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 intime 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 5^th 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 9^th and 10^th 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.

Prayer

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.

Letter written by Charlie in 2003


 

Charles Sprinkle

1273 Rice Road #48, Ojai CA 93023

640 0439

Chas@ojai.net

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.

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

And the Skate Board, simple, sweet, and to the point. 

From:

Charles Sprinkle

Ojai California

805 640 0439

chas@ojai.net

 

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE __TH JUDICIAL

Your town, Your state

 

The Prosecutor and clerk dba under false color of law as

“The People”

 

vs.

 

One of the actual “people”, me, Sui Juris

 

 

 

Case No.: _______________________

Judge _______________________

 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice

 

Venue for Hearing on this Motion:

Time:

Date:

Courtroom Number:

Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice

            Now comes the Defendant-in-error, My-Real: Name, a living soul, without assistance in the above-entitled action, who makes this Special Visitation before this Honorable Court and moves this Honorable Court to Dismiss this Matter with Prejudice.

            The people of the state have not filed a certified Final Administrative Determination. The people of the state of Florida have failed to make a claim that this Court can hear as per the Administrative Procedures Act. There is no “Agency Final Administrative Determination” in the record. This court has nothing to Review. The State has not exhausted its Administrative remedies. Therefore, the “court’ lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction. To move this Court forward without exhausting Administrative remedies, will deprive the Accused “Due Process of Law”, a violation of Constitutional Law.

Memorandum of Law

Here are a few Supreme Court cases that back my position:

      “Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved there can be no rule-making or legislation, which would abrogate them” Miranda v. Arizona (1966) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/miranda.html 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 10 ALR 3rd 974 and 59 other ALR treatises .

 

      “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right can not be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

 

      “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional Rights.” Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

 

      “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/murdock.html 319 U.S. 262.

 

      “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5090.html 373 U.S. 262.

 

      “If you’ve relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness.” U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346.

 

      Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right from liability.

Written 2008 - The Safety Stop that Launched Constitutional Restoration

 

The Safety Stop that Launched Constitutional Restoration.

Charlie Sprinkle, The Goatman of Ojai.

It happened on the lovely road that connects Ventura, California to Ojai, that famous, slightly inland village where such famous world figures as Krisnamurti and Annie Besant held forth in the early 20^th Century, changing the direction of spirituality for the Western world. Originally called Nordoff, for Charles Nordoff, the author of “California: A Book for Travellers and Settlers,” published in 1872, the bucolic settlement's name was changed to Ojai in the early 20^th century. 

Theosophy and other inquiries into Eastern philosophy still persist there along with health spas and golf courses. Serious movements happened there; the residents expected it. 

In the early 1970s the Movement to Restore the Constitution was born anew there. Before that morning in early June the focus of those involved had been the IRS; on that morning its directions changed and multiplied. After that day what happened to the Constitution is better understood and so better challenged. 

That magic spark was struck in front of Dahl's Market, which still sits on what is variously known as Ventura Street and Highway 33, on the road to Ventura. The moment came early on that June morning and it was started by a feisty man named Charlie Sprinkle. Charlie had moved to Ojai from Virginia, having spent time in the U. S. Air Force. Sprinkle liked to fly. On that morning he was driving his newly refurbished Volkswagon Van, with a 40 Horse power engine, gliding along the road, minding his own business. He had had the van lovingly repainted a shiny white. Charlie was going into business selling Amway, then a new enterprise that Charlie felt held great promise. Just that morning he had picked up his vehicle at the mechanic's, carefully going over the van before accepting delivery. Charlie was, himself, a mechanic.

The van's paint job was intended to keep the Amway product line as cool as possible. His Amway signs were affixed to the shiny doors. The windows were tinted to further the protection of Charlie's stock, carefully arranged in the back. Tooling down the road Charlie approached the front of Dahl's Market, heading towards Ventura. There ahead of him was a traffic stop, manned by six California Highway Patrol Officers, stopping all traffic going towards Ventura. Charlie came to a halt, watching the line of cars in front of him. It looked like slow going up there. 

45 minutes passed. One of the officers told Charlie this was a safety check, a service provided by the State of California to ensure that drivers were not endangered by malfunctioning vehicles. Ungrateful, Charlie pointed out that the safety check was costing him money; he was told to be quiet. Charlie is not the kind of guy who is naturally quiet. Nearly as soon as he moved to Ojai he had joined a group protesting the IRS and was then planning to make his point in the Ojai 4^th of July Parade which would take place in just less than a month. 

Smirking, the officer who finally examined his van issued Charlie a citation, telling him that his right brake light was not working. Charlie told them that was impossible, explaining that the filament for the brake light and the turn signal were the same filament in the bulb. Charlie laid it out for them with hand gestures and elementary physics. To blank stares he went on to tell them that the electricity arrived at the filament through the wiring to the brake switch through the turn signal mechanism, making it flash. If the brake light does not work the turn signal could not work. It worked, therefore the brake light works. They ignored him, continuing to issue the citation. Well, said Charlie, in that case, put your badge number, name, and the exact time the citation was issued on the citation. Still smirking, the officer complied. 

Fifteen minutes later Charlie was walking into the California Highway Patrol Office located near Ventura at the Intersection to the Santa Paula Road and the 101 Freeway. Entering the office, he asked that his truck be inspected. He had, he told the office manager and the guy sitting at the desk, just gotten it from his mechanic and before venturing on to the roads of California he wanted to make sure it passed muster. Impressed with his fervor, the two men hastened out to the parking lot. 

They took fifteen minutes, going over it in minute detail. They walked around it, admiring its shiny new paint job; they checked the brake lights, the turn signals and other such complex technologies. All worked perfectly. Affixing the INSPECTED sticker to the windshield they congratulated him on getting the truck in such top shape. The desk officer wiped off the water left from placing the sticker. Then Charlie told them he had just been cited. As that sunk in he followed with the fact they would be served with a law suit.

The trial took place in Ventura Court and lasted 30 minutes. The judge found that the CHP had no cause to stop Charlie. Charlie had tried to subpoena their mechanic expert who was training officers to do inspections. The CHP admitted that they have no such experts. This remains the case today.

Two weeks later the CHP announced they would no longer be pulling people off the road to check their vehicles for safety. The judge, finding in Charlie's favor had declined to compensate him, saying they had no way to pay for the liabilities they had created. There should be a means for getting them to pay for his time, said Charlie. Charlie knew nothing about the law. This changed. The law library was pointed out to him. Two weeks later California announced it would no longer be providing Safety Checks for disappointed drivers. The State of California could no longer afford this luxury.

The 4^th of July Parade went on, though not as the Committee planned. Charlie was determined to have a float in the parade and make himself heard. The Committee told him he had to construct his float first and then get their approval. What?! Said Charlie! Approval for a float on the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence?

On a day by day basis the local paper, the Ojai Valley News, and other local papers followed the train of events as the committee did battle against Charlie's First Amendment right to self expression. Charlie read that he intended to hang President Nixon in effigy while the parade was in motion with amusement. Charlie had other plans.

At 6am on the morning of the 4^th of July Charlie was at the starting point, near the Ford Motor Company just north of the “Y” in Ojai. There, in an open field where everyone assembled, was Charlie with his own Parade Committee made up of two small children dressed in rags and an elderly milking goat with an udder that nearly dragged on the ground. The goat was wearing a pillow case that dangled down on both sides that read, “Don't Let the IRS Get Your GOAT .” 

A polite and lawful gentleman, Charlie asked the organizer where his float should be. We will pass over the response. 

That year the parade started off with Charlie leading the goat followed by two wailing children waving small American flags, coached as to the appropriate behavior for an American taxpayer. All along the route, which stretched from the Ford Dealership to Bryant Street, about a two mile route, people would cheer for Charlie, the goat and the performance put on by the children. Many had come just to see the final denouement of the saga they had followed in the paper. Claims by the Ojai 4^th of July Parade Committee had included the claim that Charlie intended to hang President Nixon in effigy during the parade. Some hoped it would actually be President Nixon. They were wrong about the effigy, but there was more excitement to come.

When Charlie, the goat, and the kids, reached The Hub, a watering place of some repute, on main street, an aggravated organizer rushed over and began yanking on the goat's halter. The elderly goat, treated for a few moments like a ping pong ball, was rattled. A second official, white slacks and red coat, entered the fray to hear Charlie say, “she does not give much milk and she drinks a whole lot.”

Abruptly, the rope jerking stopped. As if this was a sign giving permission, the much abused goat raised her tail and relieved herself onto the leg of the second nattily dressed official, who distracted by the acrimony, did not immediately notice the dark spot on the ground or his pants and white suede shoes turning yellow.

“My goat has her opinion of you, too!” yelled Charlie. Enraged, the well watered official demanded one of the cops standing by eject Charlie, the goat and the kids. Sighing, the cop said, “Look, leave that guy alone, he will sue your ass. Also, you are holding up the parade.” So much has changed with law enforcement.

And so the parade continued on to its end at Bryant Street as the crowd roared their approval. Unfortunately, Charlie's float did not win the prize, but he deserved it.

Soon afterwards a Congressman contacted Charlie. The letter was addressed to, “The Goatman of Ojai.”

These are the true and accurate events that launched Charlie into history and into his life-long vocation of holding those in authority accountable.

The Constitution and common law are the tools of justice that, in the hands of the people, keep us free. Through the devious strategies of a few they have been removed from use, resulting in the world we see today. A few have struggled to place them back in the hands of the people. Charlie is one of those individuals.

Sometimes serious movements make their points through humor, but the gravity of their purpose and the urgency of need remains unchanged. This is how the Movement to Restore the Constitution began – that unfolding continues today with Charlie still active and as cantankerous as always.

Watch this space for the ceremony that will install the memorial plaques appropriate to the history. America needs its Constitution and the common law; now you know why. Join us to commemorate the efforts of stalwart individuals like Charlie Sprinkle. .

Here, on June 197

Charlie Sprinkle

began the Movement to

Restore the Constitution.

On this Spot

July 4^th 197

Charlie Sprinkle's Goat

Exercised the First Amendment

Road safety checks are just to generate income and intimidate like so much else they do.

The Year of the Goat in Ojai

The 4^th of July Committee in Ojai was determined that Charlie would not enter a float in the yearly parade which started t the Ford Motor Company just north of the Y in Ojai and went all of the way to Bryant Street, about a two mile route. There was an open field where everyone assembled, Country Land Drive in Ojai. Charlie had been discussing his float with them for a month before the parade. They did not want Charlie in the parade, telling people that he was going to hang President Nixon in effigy.

By the time the second official, white slacks and red coat, “she does not give much milk and she drinks a whole lot. The rope jerking stopped and the goat raised her tail and let it go. She needed relief. The dark spot started getting dark and his pants and white suede shoes turned yellow. My goat has her opinion of you, too. Tells the cop to get him out of the parade. Look, leave that guy along, he will sue your ass and you are holding up the parade. Charlie and the goat continued leading the parade and the crowd roared their approval. Unfortunately, Charlie's float did not win the prize.

Right in front of The Hub, a watering place of some repute, on main street.

Two months later someone in Washington sent a letter to Charlie to, The Goat Man of Ojai. He said he would help if Charlie wanted to sue.