In the case of Mr. Tommie Perris Crawford, however, I'll make the effort, largely because he makes the effort so easy. I am not summarizing here: this is the entire "Petition and Satisfaction of Judgement" that he filed in Kansas state court (despite being a federal prisoner).
IN LEAVENWORTH DISTRICT COURT
LEAVENWORTH COUNTY, KANSAS
CRAWFORD TOMMIE PERRIS, ex rel., Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendant.
PETITION
I, Mr. Tommie Perris Crawford, a natural person and a real party in interest, hereby petition this Court to proceed in rem and enforce the Satisfaction of Judgment herewith registered in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
Mr. Tommie Perris Crawford
Temp. c/o UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY
#06613-041
P.O. BOX 1000
LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS 66048
That's it. No attachments, no affidavits, no postage stamps, just the facts.IN LEAVENWORTH DISTRICT COURT
LEAVENWORTH COUNTY, KANSAS
CRAWFORD TOMMIE PERRIS, ex rel., Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendant.
SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT
I, the distinguished Plaintiff, a foreign state and international organization, as legal owner, surety, employer, lender, obligee and Principal, hereby on my own Authority, Privilege, exemption and Immunity, guarantee, register and enter the Satisfaction of Judgment against the property, and rights to property, of:
Case No.: 05-CR-294(JRT-AJB)
Name: TOMMIE PERRIS CRAWFORD
Reg. No: 06613-041
Address: 1300 METROPOLITAN
LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS 66048
This non-negotiable document was signed this 11th day of August, 2015 in Leavenworth County, Kansas.
CRAWFORD TOMMIE PERRIS
BY:
Mr. Tommie Perris Crawford, Attorney-in-fact
Temp. c/o UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY
#06613-041
P.O. BOX 1000
LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS 66048
Since the state court was understandably reluctant to order the state police to mount a raid on Leavenworth, this was duly removed to federal district court, at which point the feds unleashed their dastardly plot and claimed that it was meritless. A Mr. Barry R. Grissom got the dubious pleasure of authoring the motion to dismiss, which was just snarky enough to share.
As it turns out, this is not Mr. Crawford's first battle with the dastardly feds. In fact, it's at least his sixth, as Mr. Grissom helpfully points out in a footnote:
Mr. Grissom also includes a section entitled "Crawford vs. Crawford", pointing out that Crawford has, at some point, named himself as a defendant.See Crawford v. United States, Case No. 14-3184-RDR (dismissing Crawford’s petition for habeas corpus seeking “immediate nonnegotiable release and delivery of Crawford to an unnamed attorney-in-fact in Columbia Heights, Minnesota); Crawford v. United States, Case No. 14-CV-2024-CM-TJJ (based upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James, Judge Murguia dismisses Crawford’s “Satisfaction of Judgment” claims as frivolous), Crawford v. United States, No. 09-cv-3078-RDR, 2009 WL 1657546, at *1 (D. Kan. June 12, 2009) (Judge Rogers concludes that Crawford was not entitled to relief from his conviction and sentence on his claims arising from a “private bond” as a matter of law and summarily dismissing the action); Crawford v. United States, Case No. 11-3021-RDR (Judge Rogers dismisses as frivolous the “habeas corpus” petition claiming that the indemnity bond that he posted offsets his criminal conviction in the District of Minnesota); Crawford v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, No. 10-3108-RDR, 2010 WL 2671986, at *1 (D. Kan. June 30, 2010) (same).
The district court succumbed to Mr. Grissom's silver tongue, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed, in an opinion that faults the district court only for failing to dismiss the case sooner.
