Craig v US – Cleaning up the Docket

Three summons returned after the Judge had already sua sponte dismissed the case

01/07/2011 10 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Steven Lee Craig. United States of America served on 12/20/2010. (cps) (Entered: 01/10/2011)
01/07/2011 9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Steven Lee Craig. Department of Homeland Security served on 12/30/2010. (cps) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
01/18/2011 14 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to DHS by Steven Lee Craig. (cps) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

And then the Judge denied a motion by Craig to amend Judgment by stating that there is no judicially accepted definition of ‘natural born’

01/14/2011 13 ORDER denying 12 Motion for Amended Judgment and Additional Findings. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 1/14/11. (lg, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)

01/13/2011 12 MOTION for AMENDED Judgment by Steven Lee Craig. (cps) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

Pro se’s in action can be  so fascinating to watch. And guess what, Craig is appealing!!! Because the Judge dismissed before the defendant even had the opportunity to respond

You cannot make this stuff up.

01/19/2011 17 Tenth Circuit USCA Case Number 11-6017 for 15 Notice of Appeal filed by Steven Lee Craig. (cps) (Entered: 01/20/2011)

01/18/2011 16 PRELIMINARY RECORD LETTER – Electronic Transmission of Notice of Appeal with Preliminary Record sent to Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals re 15 Notice of Appeal. (cps) (Entered: 01/19/2011)

01/18/2011 15 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)

Craig v US – Docket – Fail…

Dismissed within 3 weeks… But the most funny entry: Doc 7

Plaintiff is warned that future repetitive filings may lead to sanction.

12/14/2010 1 COMPLAINT against Department of Homeland Security, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States of America filed by Steven Lee Craig. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(kw, ) (Entered: 12/14/2010)

12/14/2010 MOTION for Subpoena Duces Tecum, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, MOTION for Declaratory Judgment by Steven Lee Craig. See document 1 . (kw, ) (Entered: 12/14/2010)

12/14/2010 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Steven Lee Craig. (kw, ) (Entered: 12/14/2010)

12/15/2010 3 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Honorable Robin J. Cauthron for all further proceedings. Honorable David L. Russell no longer assigned to case. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 12/15/10. (ns, ) (Entered: 12/15/2010)

12/16/2010 4 ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell on 12/16/2010. (sr, ) (Entered: 12/16/2010)

12/17/2010 5 PRO SE LITIGANT’S REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF 4 SUMMONS(ES)for US Atty, AG, US, ICE, and Homeland Security over the counter by Steven Lee Craig.Returned to Plaintiff for completion of service. (cps) (Entered: 12/17/2010)

12/17/2010 6 Amended PRO SE LITIGANT’S REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF 5 SUMMONS(ES) for OKWD US Atty, US Atty, USCIS, and Dept of Homeland Security (Napolitano), Dept of Homeland Security (Perry Rhew) by Steven Lee Craig. (cps) (Entered: 12/17/2010)

01/04/2011 7 ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 1/4/11. (lg, ) (Entered: 01/04/2011)

01/04/2011 8 JUDGMENT. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 1/4/11. (lg, ) (Entered: 01/04/2011)

Craig v US – Cert Denied

Today, Craig v US, petition for writ for certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court

Craig v. US:

08-10817
CRAIG, STEVEN L. V. UNITED STATES
The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.

Craig v US – 2nd Amended Complaint

The United States District Court
For Western District of Oklahoma
Steven Lee Craig

Plaintiff

Vs.
The United States of America
C/o U.S. Attorney
Washington, D.C.
Defendant

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

NOW COMES, Steven Lee Craig, Claiming to be of Constitutionally recognized form of Citizenship known as Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America under the definition as found expressed in a published work of general use by the Framers of the Constitution of the United States of America in formulating many of the principles and specific Articles, Sections and Clauses found therein. That publication being Emmerich de Vattel’s,  “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns”, and specifically;

Craig v US – Ruling US Court of Appeals 10th Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN LEE CRAIG,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant – Appellee.
No. 09-6082
(D.C. No. CV-09-343-F)
(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT^*

^* This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.  It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.  After examining the Plaintiff’s brief and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal.  See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-Appellant Steven Lee Craig appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his claims against the United States.  Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affording solicitous consideration to Mr. Craig’s pro se filings, see Van Deelen v. Johnson, 497 F.3d 1151, 1153 n.1 (10th Cir. 2007), we affirm the district court’s order insofar as it dismisses the action, but we remand to the district court to modify the dismissal to be without prejudice.

Craig v United States – Complaint Western District of Oklahoma

The United States District Court
For Western District ofOklahoma

Steven Lee Craig
1309 Hisel Rd.
Del City, Oklahoma 73115
Plaintiff
Vs.
The United States of America
C/o U.S. Attorney
Washington, District of Columbia
Defendant

Complaint

Civil Rights Claim of Violation
Application for Certification ofClass Action
Notice of Constitutional Challenge of Statute
Motion for Writ of Mandamus
{TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21> SUBCHAPTER I> A§ 1983. Civil action for deprivation  of rights}

Enshrined in the Constitution at Article II Section I Clause V is the enunciation of  a ‘Citizen’ that was to be recognized as a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen ofthe United States, atthe time of  the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office ofPresident; neither shall  any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age ofthirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”