CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

Post Reply
User avatar
realist
Posts: 34576
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#1

Post by realist » Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:55 pm

I don't think this one will be very long-lived, but...Steven L. Craig appeals to the Tenth Circuit from the Western District of Oklahoma.Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-6017 Docketed: 01/19/2011Nature of Suit: 2440 Other Civil RightsCraig v. United States, et alAppeal From: United States District Court for the Western District of OklahomaFee Status: fee/IFP forms due DCCase Type Information: 1) civil 2) USA as party 3) -Originating Court Information: District: 1087-5 : 5:10-CV-01345-C Trial Judge: Robin J. Cauthron, -, Chief U.S. District Judge Date Filed: 12/14/2010 Date NOA Filed: Date Rec'd COA: 01/18/2011 01/19/201101/19/2011 Open Document [9833095] Civil case docketed. Preliminary record filed. DATE RECEIVED: 01/19/2011 Fee or ifp forms due in district court 02/18/2011 for Steven Lee Craig. Notice of appearance due on 02/18/2011 for Steven Lee Craig.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34576
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#2

Post by realist » Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:57 pm

Notice of Appeal cross-posted from Craig v U.S.A. initial thread...





01/18/2011 [link]15,[/link] NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 13 Order on Motion for Judgment, 8 Judgment by Steven Lee Craig. (cps) (Main Document 15 replaced on 1/19/2011) (cps, ). (Entered: 01/19/2011)Cuz, you know, the Court dismissed his POS case sua sponte without giving time for the Defendants to demur or respond and address the issues. =))


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 25301
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#3

Post by bob » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:16 pm

I predict an OSC to show why the appeal should not be summarily disposed of, some SLC blather, and then a summary disposition.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#4

Post by Piffle » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:49 pm

A stunningly lucid piece of DIY appellate lawyering. Apparently, the gravamen is that the judge dismissed his suit...





Sua Sponte and without allowing sufficient time to provide Defendant’s [sic] the opportunity to demur or comply with Motions therein and for failure to acknowledge the underlying issue giving rise to the action.Yoo hoo! Counselor Craig!





Okie dokey! So, if I'm understanding this right, you're appealling the oh-so-unjust dismissal because the opposing party was denied its right to waste time and money responding to your nonsensical gibberish heartfelt complaint? (Oh, and BTW, demurrers were abolished in Federal court decades ago but we won't nitpick that -- you being Pro-Say and all!)





And the part about "failure to acknowledge the underlying issue." Oh yeah, I get it. That's like when Judge Judy says, "Hey, the party you're suing for unreimbursed beer money is a real scumbag but you can't collect because you didn't save the poptops", right? I mean, at least she acknowledged the scumbagitude of the dude.




Sekrit Stuffs!
When you write your brief, be sure to include these majic words: "Abuse of discretion by failing to issue an advisory opinion defining 'natural born citizen' and failing to declare Obama a lying scumbag after the suit was dismissed."



User avatar
DaveMuckey
Posts: 4110
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#5

Post by DaveMuckey » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:03 pm

Didn't the Judge threaten sanctions in Act I? -xx



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34576
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#6

Post by realist » Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:30 am

ruh roh... gonna have to dig into the wallet, Stevie. :P





New Docket Entry...





01/26/2011 [link]19,[/link] ORDER of USCA dening without prejudice 18 re; Motion to Appeal in Forma Pauperis as to 15 Notice of Appeal filed by Steven Lee Craig (cps) (Entered: 01/26/2011)link shortly





The Order is worth a read. \ :D /





Although the District Court has not yet ruled on that motion, we note that it dismissed the appellant’s complaint pursuant to § 1915 (e) (2) (B) (ii), for failure to state a claim, and warned the appellant that future repetitive filings may lead to sanctions.





In light of the district court’s disposition of the complaint, this court wil lrequire the appellant to either pay the fee for this appeal or file with this court aproperly completed motion for leave to proceed


in forma pauperis.





ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#7

Post by Piffle » Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:03 pm

Geez. They even sent him copies of forms to use. Will he pass this reading test? Stay tuned. -xx




Edit: Not necessarily squarely on topic, but once...just once...I'd like to see one of these courts follow up on abuse of the IFP process and, where the application is dodgy or bogus, either issue an OSC why the applicant should not be held in criminal contempt or refer it to the applicable prosecutor. While I'm sympathetic to poor folks who cannot afford to assert their rights except via IFP, I'm for taking a harder line with the serial pro se litigateurs. Apologies if I'm being unduly grumpy today.



User avatar
kate520
Posts: 15220
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#8

Post by kate520 » Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:38 pm

I keep hoping that when i click on this thread, this time it will be about Daniel Craig (hubbahubba). :mrgreen:


DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
DaveMuckey
Posts: 4110
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#9

Post by DaveMuckey » Thu Jan 27, 2011 3:49 pm

Perhaps Sharon should consider sending back Craig's donation. He's going to need it.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34576
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#10

Post by realist » Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:11 pm

mini threadjack...





Mr. Craig has not done well in the 10th. He has several cases there... this is one example from a prior case where he'd sued Holder, et al.





Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-9501 Docketed: 01/18/2011


Craig v. Holder, Jr.


Appeal From: Board of Immigration Appeals


Fee Status: ifp pending - circ.c


Case Type Information:


1) petition for review


2) petition for review


3) -


Originating Court Information:


District: BIA-1 : A087 672 698


Date Filed: 01/18/2011


Date Rec'd COA:


01/18/2011


Prior Cases:


09-6082


Date Filed: 04/22/2009 Date Disposed: 08/05/2009 Disposition: Affirmed, vacated, remanded





Current Cases:


Lead Member Start End


Related


11-9501 11-6017 01/19/2011


Panel Assignment: Not available





STEVEN LEE CRAIG


Petitioner Steven Lee Craig


Direct: 405-670-1784


Email: [/break1]com]slcraigre@aol.com


[NTC Pro Se]


1309 Hisel Rd


Del City, OK 73115


v.





ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General


Respondent DOH/EOIR/BIA


Email: [/break1]certmail@usdoj.gov]certification.certmail@usdoj.gov


[NTC Government]


Attn: Certification Unit


P.O. Box 8530


Falls Church, VA 22041





General Counsel


Email: [/break1]Circuit.OIL@usdoj.gov]Tenth.Circuit.OIL@usdoj.gov


[NTC Government]


United States Department of Justice


Office of Immigration Litigation


Firm: 202-616-4900


P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station


Washington, DC 20044





John Longshore, Director


Email: [/break1]Longshore@dhs.gov]John.Longshore@dhs.gov


[NTC Government]


United States Immigration & Custom Enforcement


Firm: 303/371-4711


4730 Paris Street


Denver, CO 80239


STEVEN LEE CRAIG,





Petitioner,





v.





ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General,





Respondent.





01/18/2011 Open Restricted Document


0 pg, 0 KB [9832532] Petition for review filed. Served on 01/13/2011. Manner of Service: US mail - Attorney for Respondent: DOH/EOIR/BIA, General Counsel, Longshore. Copy of petition served on party at address shown in 01/18/2011 letter. Notice of appearance, fee or complete IFP forms due on 02/17/2011 for Steven Lee Craig, and Notice of appearance due on 02/01/2011 for Eric H. Holder Jr.





01/21/2011 Open Document


2 pg, 14.2 KB [9833866] Order filed by Clerk of the Court (CVC) to show cause as to why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Responses due on 02/11/2011 for Steven Lee Craig and Eric H. Holder Jr. Failure to timely respond from the petitioner and this appeal will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See 10th Cir. R. 42.1.





01/21/2011 Open Restricted Document


0 pg, 0 KB [9834120] Notice of appearance filed by Steven Lee Craig. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: n. Served on 01/19/2011. Manner of Service: US mail





01/21/2011 Open Restricted Document


0 pg, 0 KB [9834121] Appellant's motion filed by Steven Lee Craig for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Served on 01/19/2011. Manner of Service: US mail.





01/21/2011 Open Restricted Document


0 pg, 0 KB [9834123] Appellant's motion filed by Steven Lee Craig in 11-9501 and 11-6017 to consolidate appeals ( Cases to be consolidated: 11-6017 and 11-9501 ). Served on 01/19/2011. Manner of Service: US mail.





01/21/2011 Open Restricted Document


0 pg, 0 KB [9834306] Appellant's motion filed by Steven Lee Craig motion for certification question. Served on 01/19/2011. Manner of Service: US mail.





01/21/2011 Open Restricted Document


0 pg, 0 KB [9834315] Appellant's motion filed by Steven Lee Craig motion for de novo judicial notice of adjudicative fact. Served on 01/19/2011. Manner of Service: US mail.





01/24/2011 Open Document


2 pg, 52.07 KB [9834381] Order filed by Clerk of the Court denying appellant's motion for certification of question and motion for de novo judicial notice of adjudicative fact filed by Petitioner Steven Lee Craig in 11-9501 only. Denying appellant's motion to consolidate appeals filed by Petitioner Steven Lee Craig in 11-9501 and 11-6017. See order for additional information. Served on 01/24/2011. [11-9501, 11-6017/mini threadjack





EDITED TO ADD:





01/28/2011 Open Restricted Document [9836145] Appellant's motion filed by Steven Lee Craig for permission to file electronically. Served on 01/26/2011. Manner of Service: US mail.





01/28/2011 Open Document [9836250] Order filed by Clerk of the Court (lss) denying without prejudice to renewal petitioner's motion for permission to file electronically filed by Petitioner Steven Lee Craig. As a reminder, petitioner's response to the court's jurisdictional order to show cause remains due on 2/11/11. Served on 01/28/2011.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34576
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#11

Post by realist » Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:15 am

CRAIG v U.S.A. (TENTH CIRCUIT) - ACT IIUpdated Docket...01/21/2011 Open Restricted Document [9834123] Appellant's motion filed by Steven Lee Craig in 11-9501 and 11-6017 to consolidate appeals ( Cases to be consolidated: 11-6017 and 11-9501 ). Served on 01/19/2011. Manner of Service: US mail.01/24/2011 Open Document [9834381] Order filed by Clerk of the Court denying appellant's motion for certification of question and motion for de novo judicial notice of adjudicative fact filed by Petitioner Steven Lee Craig in 11-9501 only. Denying appellant's motion to consolidate appeals filed by Petitioner Steven Lee Craig in 11-9501 and 11-6017. See order for additional information. Served on 01/24/2011. [11-9501, 11-6017]01/24/2011 Open Restricted Document [9835094] Appellant's motion filed by Steven Lee Craig for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Served on 01/19/2011. Manner of Service: US mail.01/26/2011 Open Document [9835128] Order filed by Clerk of the Court denying without prejudice to renewal, appellant's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Appellant Steven Lee Craig. Fee or ifp forms and appellant's due by 02/28/2011 for Steven Lee Craig. Served on 01/26/2011.01/26/2011 Open Document [9835129] Jurisdictional review complete. Record on appeal due 02/28/2011for Robert Dennis.The docket seems fairly self-explanatory, but if anyone wishes any of these documents, PM me.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15137
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#12

Post by Reality Check » Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:14 pm

Craig posted his response to the OSC on SCRIBD [/break1]scribd.com/doc/48442516/Usca-11-9501response-to-Show-Cause-Order] ... ause-Order Doc C posted it also.This is listed on the Birther Scorecard as Craig v US. Is that correct or is it Craig v Holder? Also, who is maintaining the Birther Scorecard now that Tes has left?


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34576
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#13

Post by realist » Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:25 am

Craig posted his response to the OSC on SCRIBD [/break1]scribd.com/doc/48442516/Usca-11-9501response-to-Show-Cause-Order] ... ause-Order Doc C posted it also.This is listed on the Birther Scorecard as Craig v US. Is that correct or is it Craig v Holder? Also, who is maintaining the Birther Scorecard now that Tes has left?That's in Craig v Holder, et al., a different case than Craig v U.S., et al.11-6017Craig v. United States, et al 01/19/2011 Steven Lee Craig 01/26/2011 10:40:38 5:10-CV-01345-CUnited States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma 11-9501[highlight]Craig v. Holder, Jr[/highlight]. 01/18/2011 Steven Lee Craig 01/31/2011 12:00:08 A087 672 698Board of Immigration Appeals I don't think we ever had a thread on Craig v Holder. I did post the docket at an earlier date, but have not kept up with the case as it was discovered very late.And Tes is maintaining it and updating it. She sent me an update a short while ago and I updated on my Scribd, as usual.[/break1]scribd.com/doc/22707260/Birther-Case-List-0-74-As-of-February-3-2011] ... ary-3-2011The response to the jurisdictional OSC is not on PACER yet.01/21/2011 Open Restricted Document [9834120] Notice of appearance filed by Steven Lee Craig. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: n. Served on 01/19/2011. Manner of Service: US mail01/21/2011 Open Restricted Document [9834121] Appellant's motion filed by Steven Lee Craig for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Served on 01/19/2011. Manner of Service: US mail.01/21/2011 Open Restricted Document [9834123] Appellant's motion filed by Steven Lee Craig in 11-9501 and 11-6017 to consolidate appeals ( Cases to be consolidated: 11-6017 and 11-9501 ). Served on 01/19/2011. Manner of Service: US mail.01/21/2011 Open Restricted Document [9834306] Appellant's motion filed by Steven Lee Craig motion for certification question. Served on 01/19/2011. Manner of Service: US mail.01/21/2011 Open Restricted Document [9834315] Appellant's motion filed by Steven Lee Craig motion for de novo judicial notice of adjudicative fact. Served on 01/19/2011. Manner of Service: US mail.01/24/2011 Open Document [9834381] Order filed by Clerk of the Court denying appellant's motion for certification of question and motion for de novo judicial notice of adjudicative fact filed by Petitioner Steven Lee Craig in 11-9501 only. Denying appellant's motion to consolidate appeals filed by Petitioner Steven Lee Craig in 11-9501 and 11-6017. See order for additional information. Served on 01/24/2011. [11-9501, 11-6017]01/28/2011 Open Restricted Document [9836145] Appellant's motion filed by Steven Lee Craig for permission to file electronically. Served on 01/26/2011. Manner of Service: US mail.01/28/2011 Open Document [9836250] Order filed by Clerk of the Court (lss) denying without prejudice to renewal petitioner's motion for permission to file electronically filed by Petitioner Steven Lee Craig. As a reminder, [highlight]petitioner's response to the court's jurisdictional order to show cause remains due on 2/11/11[/highlight]. Served on 01/28/2011.01/31/2011 [9836554] Notice of appearance submitted by Julie M. Iversen for Respondent Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr.Respondent for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: Yes. Served on 01/31/2011. Manner of Service: US mail.--[Edited 01/31/2011 by SDS to remove pdf from entry as the pleading has been filed]01/31/2011 Open Restricted Document [9836561] Notice of appearance filed by Ms. Julie M. Iversen for Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: y. Served on 01/31/2011. Manner of Service: US mail.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34576
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#14

Post by realist » Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:36 pm

CRAIG v U.S.A. (TENTH CIRCUIT)





New Docket Entries...





02/10/2011 [link]Open Document,[/link] [9839826] Appellant's motion filed by Steven Lee Craig to dismiss case. Served on 02/08/2011. Manner of Service: email.





02/10/2011 [9839892] Order filed by Clerk of the Court granting Appellant's motion to dismiss case. [Text only entry - see case termination for order]





02/10/2011 [link]Open Document,[/link] [9839893] Frap 42;Procedural termination without judicial action; Clerk of the Court.





02/10/2011 Open Document [9839894] Mandate issued.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34576
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#15

Post by realist » Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:42 pm

CRAIG v HOLDER, et al. (TENTH CIRCUIT)





Not a banner day for Stevie at the Tenth Circuit.





New Docket Entries...





02/10/2011 Open Restricted Document [9839830] Petitioner's motion for certification of question filed by Steven Lee Craig. Served on 02/08/2011. Manner of Service: email.





02/10/2011 Open Restricted Document [9839831] Petitioner's motion for judicial notice of adjudicative fact filed by Steven Lee Craig. Served on 02/08/2011. Manner of Service: email.





02/10/2011 Open Restricted Document [9839836] Petitioner's motion subpoena duces tecum filed by Steven Lee Craig. Served on 02/08/2011. Manner of Service: email.





02/10/2011 Open Restricted Document [9839837] Petitioner's motion subpoena duces tecum filed by Steven Lee Craig. Served on 02/08/2011. Manner of Service: email.





02/10/2011 Open Restricted Document [9839839] Response to show cause order filed by Steven Lee Craig. Served on 02/08/2011. Manner of Service: email.





02/10/2011 [link]Open Document,[/link] [9839905] Order filed by Clerk of the Court (LSS) denying motion for certification of question and denying motion for judicial notice of adjudicative fact filed by Petitioner Steven Lee Craig. Served on 02/10/2011.





02/10/2011 [link]Open Document,[/link] [9839906] Order filed by Clerk of the Court (LSS) denying both motion for subpoena duces tecum filed by Petitioner Steven Lee Craig. Served on 02/10/2011.I have a half hour or so of "real work" to do and I'll be back with links after I finish.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 18098
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#16

Post by RTH10260 » Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:12 pm

CRAIG v HOLDER, et al. (TENTH CIRCUIT)





Not a banner day for Stevie at the Tenth Circuit.





New Docket Entries...


Did this guy file papers after he requested his case to be dismissed, or is this just a cleanup after dismissal was granted ?



User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#17

Post by Piffle » Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Did this guy file papers after he requested his case to be dismissed, or is this just a cleanup after dismissal was granted ?Two different cases. The cleanup for Craig v. USA can be viewed [link]here,http://www.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2 ... 090802.JPG[/link]





In Craig v. Holder, it would appear that he is attempting to get his lawsuit certified as a superfund site.



User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8511
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#18

Post by verbalobe » Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:37 pm

In Craig v. Holder, it would appear that he is attempting to get his lawsuit certified as a superfund site. =)) =)) =)) =)) =))



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34576
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#19

Post by realist » Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:44 am

CRAIG v HOLDER (TENTH CIRCUIT)





New Docket Entry...





02/11/2011 Open Restricted Document [9840278] Motion filed by Respondent Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr. to dismiss case. Served on: 02/11/2011. Manner of service: US mail.







ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

twinx
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:45 am

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#20

Post by twinx » Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:48 pm

I just came acroos this via CW's. It's a birfer forum, and Craig is an administrator there.Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:45 amSo this remains the STATUS with the responses timely filed. Three weeks of active court days says little as to which way the court is leaning until a new Order is made. However, I have concluded that regardless of what the next Order might say, I have already WON this round and am convinced I have the argument down in in such a manner consistent with the Constitution and the Rule of Law that the SCOTUS will have no choice but to take Jurisdiction and comply to a Writ of Mandamus to answer the "Question".[/break1]nbcfund.com/chatforum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1018&start=20]http://www.nbcfund.com/chatforum/viewto ... 8&start=20



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34576
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#21

Post by realist » Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:58 pm

No idea what SL is babbling about. Here's the current docket for the case...01/31/2011 [9836554] Notice of appearance submitted by Julie M. Iversen for Respondent Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr.Respondent for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: Yes. Served on 01/31/2011. Manner of Service: US mail.--[Edited 01/31/2011 by SDS to remove pdf from entry as the pleading has been filed]01/31/2011 Open Restricted Document [9836561] Notice of appearance filed by Ms. Julie M. Iversen for Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: y. Served on 01/31/2011. Manner of Service: US mail.02/10/2011 Open Restricted Document [9839830] Petitioner's motion for certification of question filed by Steven Lee Craig. Served on 02/08/2011. Manner of Service: email.02/10/2011 Open Restricted Document [9839831] Petitioner's motion for judicial notice of adjudicative fact filed by Steven Lee Craig. Served on 02/08/2011. Manner of Service: email.02/10/2011 Open Restricted Document [9839836] Petitioner's motion subpoena duces tecum filed by Steven Lee Craig. Served on 02/08/2011. Manner of Service: email.02/10/2011 Open Restricted Document [9839837] Petitioner's motion subpoena duces tecum filed by Steven Lee Craig. Served on 02/08/2011. Manner of Service: email.02/10/2011 Open Restricted Document [9839839] Response to show cause order filed by Steven Lee Craig. Served on 02/08/2011. Manner of Service: email.02/10/2011 Open Document [9839905] Order filed by Clerk of the Court (LSS) denying motion for certification of question and denying motion for judicial notice of adjudicative fact filed by Petitioner Steven Lee Craig. Served on 02/10/2011.02/10/2011 Open Document [9839906] Order filed by Clerk of the Court (LSS) denying both motion for subpoena duces tecum filed by Petitioner Steven Lee Craig. Served on 02/10/2011.02/11/2011 Open Restricted Document [9840278] Motion filed by Respondent Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr. to dismiss case. Served on: 02/11/2011. Manner of service: US mail.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#22

Post by Piffle » Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:53 pm

No idea what SL is babbling about.The Craig suits are fine examples of how the role of village idiot has evolved in just a few short decades.





It wasn't that long ago that the village idiot's lectures, visions, sermons, eureka moments, indictments and self-proclaimed accomplishments suffered from poor distribution. In the case of my town, the entire broadcast area was limited to roughly that stretch of Main Street running from the First Baptist Church to the second gas pump. Moreover, since it didn't take long for a newcomer to conclude that the village idiot was, well, the village idiot, no one actually listened to him.





It wasn't that we didn't care. We did. Among other things, we sincerely hoped that he would avoid getting run over by a pulp truck (no one wanted to see that) and that he would refrain from scaring children and pissing on the sidewalk. Sure, a few mean-spirited people mocked him or gave him a hard time, but it was mostly a matter of live and let live. The poor fellow just wasn't right in the head, if you know what I mean.





Who knew that there would one day be blogs, web sites and social media where people would gather from far and wide to listen to -- and even believe -- village idiots from across the country?



User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#23

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:10 pm

No idea what SL is babbling about.The Craig suits are fine examples of how the role of village idiot has evolved in just a few short decades.





It wasn't that long ago that the village idiot's lectures, visions, sermons, eureka moments, indictments and self-proclaimed accomplishments suffered from poor distribution. In the case of my town, the entire broadcast area was limited to roughly that stretch of Main Street running from the First Baptist Church to the second gas pump. Moreover, since it didn't take long for a newcomer to conclude that the village idiot was, well, the village idiot, no one actually listened to him.





It wasn't that we didn't care. We did. Among other things, we sincerely hoped that he would avoid getting run over by a pulp truck (no one wanted to see that) and that he would refrain from scaring children and pissing on the sidewalk. Sure, a few mean-spirited people mocked him or gave him a hard time, but it was mostly a matter of live and let live. The poor fellow just wasn't right in the head, if you know what I mean.





Who knew that there would one day be blogs, web sites and social media where people would gather from far and wide to listen to -- and even believe -- village idiots from across the country?He was over on Dr C's site a few weeks back. I thought having to listen to Strunk yammer on was bad enough. This guy I think was a lot worse. He believed in the fallacy of making long arguments with misunderstood legal jargon. He ran off pretty quickly



User avatar
bob
Posts: 25301
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#24

Post by bob » Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:14 pm

He was over on Dr C's site a few weeks back. I thought having to listen to Strunk yammer on was bad enough. This guy I think was a lot worse. He believed in the fallacy of making long arguments with misunderstood legal jargon. He ran off pretty quicklyAnd now that Donofrio has reopened comments, he posts and posts and posts....


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 7234
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

CRAIG v U.S.A. (Tenth Circuit) - ACT II

#25

Post by Northland10 » Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:16 pm

It appears they have denied the petition in Craig v. HolderThe government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the petition for review is DISMISSED. Mr. Craig’s request for certification to the United StatesSupreme Court is DENIED.PETITION DISMISSED.[/break1]scribd.com/doc/51116974/3-17-orderTransportRoom] ... nsportRoom
Edit: The dismissal is for 11-9501 since 11-6017 was already dismissed in February.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”