TAITZ v RUEMMLER - ACT II

bob · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2011 6:10 pm

Plutodog wrote:

Idle question...suppose a Taitz wanted to pursue the crazy birfer crusade and had a filthy rich hubby who wanted nothing to do with it, refused to fund it in any way/shape/form, and said crazy bitch wasn't making any money in her dental torture biz so she can't afford court charges. Would said crazy bitch qualify for IFP under some sort of exception?

Does she have joint title to that multimillion dollar house? The expensive car? Etc. (And nb.: California is a community property state.)

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9710

Plutodog wrote:

Idle question...suppose a Taitz wanted to pursue the crazy birfer crusade and had a filthy rich hubby who wanted nothing to do with it, refused to fund it in any way/shape/form, and said crazy bitch wasn't making any money in her dental torture biz so she can't afford court charges. Would said crazy bitch qualify for IFP under some sort of exception?

I can't (or won't) say. However, she'd first have to file the proper form in the proper place, including the proper information.

I hope nobody feels compelled to help her with that.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23944

Orly's not going to apply to file as a pauper. :roll:

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:46 pm

Taitz will not seek in forma pauperis status for exactly the opposite reason why Donald Drumpf will not run for President. In her case it'll reveal she's riiiiiiiich. In his case it will reveal that his billionaire status is a figment of an overactive imagination (and marketing department).

DaveMuckey · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:08 pm

bob wrote:

Does she have joint title to that multimillion dollar house? The expensive car? Etc. (And nb.: California is a community property state.)

I know enough to be dangerous, but I'd bet the Thai Eats Estate is in some kind of family trust.

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:51 pm

DaveMuckey wrote:

bob wrote:

Does she have joint title to that multimillion dollar house? The expensive car? Etc. (And nb.: California is a community property state.)

I know enough to be dangerous, but I'd bet the Thai Eats Estate is in some kind of family trust.

Doesn't matter. Property held in a revocable family trust is still under the control of the grantor(s), thus the grantor(s) is/are treated as the owner of the trust assets.¹

As bob points out, California is a community property state. That means that 50% of Yosi's earnings is, by law, Orly's. All property acquired with community income is considered community property that is owned equally by husband and wife, and rents and profits from such property are deemed community income.

____________

¹ See, e.g., CA FAMILY CODE section 761:

761. (a) Unless the trust instrument or the instrument of transfer expressly provides otherwise, community property that is transferred in trust remains community property during the marriage, regardless of the identity of the trustee, if the trust, originally or as amended before or after the transfer, provides that the trust is revocable as to that property during the marriage and the power, if any, to modify the trust as to the rights and interests in that property during the marriage may be exercised only with the joinder or consent of both spouses.

Somerset · **Posted:** Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:19 am

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

As bob points out, California is a community property state. That means that 50% of Yosi's earnings is, by law, Orly's. All property acquired with community income is considered community property that is owned equally by husband and wife, and rents and profits from such property are deemed community income.

Or in other words, O'rly ain't gonna do that In Formal Pay-pal-less thing, right?

woodworker · **Joined:** Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm **Posts:** 347

NO NO NO (THE ALL CAPS INDICATE THAT I AM TELLING THE TRUTH AND IT IS IMPORTANT). Under OrlyLaw, it is only community property if she wants a divorce or it is to her benefit, for all other reasons she is a pauper. Sterny, don't you remember this was covered in the first day of Trusts and Estates as applied to Konstitutional Dicident Lawyers? NB: I showed up for the first day of my Trust and Estates class and the final and otherwise never attended - needless to say, I don't practice in that area. I also never took Community Property before studying for the bar. But I did drink a lot of beer and ingest a lot of unusual substances.

bob · **Posted:** Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:01 pm

Taitz should clearly include this in her appeals:

Quote:

Judge Lamberth releases Nixon grand jury testimony, but refuses access to Obama’s original birth certificate and application to fraudulently obtained CT SSN. Lamberth cares about fraud by a dead president, but he is aiding and abetting fraud and forgery of the sitting president

[Taitz links to this article: Nixon's long-secret Watergate testimony coming out]

Quote:

Richard Nixon's grand jury testimony about the Watergate scandal that destroyed his presidency is finally coming to light.

[...]

On the grand jury testimony, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth sided with the historians in his ruling in July. He decided that with the investigation long over, Nixon dead for 17 years and most of the surviving Watergate figures having written or talked about the scandal at length, the historical importance of the transcript outweighed arguments for secrecy. "The court is confident that disclosure will greatly benefit the public and its understanding of Watergate without compromising the tradition and objectives of grand jury secrecy," he wrote.

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=27419

bob · **Posted:** Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:06 pm

Quote:

$450 Appeals fee submitted in Taitz v Ruemmler and Additional $450 submitted in Taitz v Astrue. Donations are greatly appreciated to cover $900 appeals fees[*]

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=27431

Oh noes!!! I earmarked all my donations to Taitz** for her senate run!

* Another $900 for those writ petitions you are passing off as motions would be nice, too. Also.

** That is, $0.

ZekeB · **Posted:** Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:16 pm

Easy come, easy go, O'rly. Did Yosi know you would be such high maintenance when he met sent for you?

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23944

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

11/17/2011 NOTICE FILED [1343423] by Orly Taitz fee payment. [Service Date: 11/22/2011 ] [DOCUMENT CONTAINS PRIVATE INFORMATION] [11-5306]

SueDB · **Posted:** Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:53 pm

DaveMuckey wrote:

bob wrote:

Does she have joint title to that multimillion dollar house? The expensive car? Etc. (And nb.: California is a community property state.)

I know enough to be dangerous, but I'd bet the Thai Eats Estate is in some kind of family trust.

Papa had better hope that the trust was done by a real lawyer. -xx

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9710

realist wrote:

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

11/17/2011 NOTICE FILED [1343423] by Orly Taitz fee payment. [Service Date: 11/22/2011 ] [DOCUMENT CONTAINS PRIVATE INFORMATION] [11-5306]

I assume that all-caps text means she filed notice of payment of a fee, perhaps via paper check, but perhaps via some kind of Check 21 thing? That is, it includes bank information?

She actually coughed up dough to file the appeal in this biggest loser dog of a case she ever filed?

Edit: I think her previously biggest loser dog of a case was Brockhausen v. Andrade. Discuss. Or don't.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23944

cross-posted from Taitz v Astrue Act II

More proof of conspiracy, aiding and abetting and complicity in trying to stop political "decedent," in 3...2...1

:evil:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=28484 :evil:

Quote:

Filed

today with the DC circuit court of Appeals on Taitz v Astrue and Taitz v Ruemmler
Posted on | December 1, 2011 | 3 Comments

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita, ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, Ca 92688

12.01.2011

Attn Mark J. Langer
Clerk Court of Appeals

Dear Mr. Langer,

I filed 2 appeals:

District case 11-cv-1421, Court of Appeals case 11-5306 Taitz v Ruemmler, appeal filed 10.31.2011 See attached docket Exhibit 1
District case 11-cv-402, Court of Appeals case 11—05304 Taitz v Astrue FOIA appeal filed on October 25.2011 Exhibit 2
I received a letter from the Court of Appeals, directing me to pay $450 for each Appeal, payment to be forwarded to the District court.
I sent the checks immediately.
About 30 days after I sent the checks, I got a letter from the District Court, stating that the fee should be $455, not $450. My checks were voided. I immediately attached to the letter and to the voided checks two new checks for $455 each and sent to the District court.
I got a certified mail receipt, showing that my letter with the two new checks were received by the District court on November 28th. Exhibit 3
Today, on December first, I got two new letters from the Court of Appeals, regarding the same case, Taitz v Ruemmler, stating that the filing fee is $450, that the fee was not received and a new appeals number 11-5329 assigned to the case 11-cv-1421 Taitz v Ruemmler.

Wherefore

I am respectfully requesting to verify with the District court, that indeed the Appeal fee was received for both cases.
Correct the case number on the Case Taitz v Ruemmler to reflect the originally assigned number 11-5306.

Respectfully,

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

Pretty calm for Orly. :lol:

MsDaisy · **Posted:** Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:58 pm

realist wrote:

Pretty calm for Orly. :lol:

She’s to busy cutting and pasting for all her new cases to be bothered with anything more. :lol:

AnitaMaria · **Joined:** Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm **Posts:** 2244

She should read the Fogbow more carefully. If she did, she would know that case number 11-5329 is her crazy writ of mandamus, a case separate from her Taitz v Ruemmler appeal.

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=6885

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:18 pm

AnitaMaria wrote:

She should read the Fogbow more carefully. If she did, she would know that case number 11-5329 is her crazy writ of mandamus, a case separate from her Taitz v Ruemmler appeal.

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=6885

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9710

AnitaMaria wrote:

She should read the Fogbow more carefully. If she did, she would know that case number 11-5329 is her crazy writ of mandamus, a case separate from her Taitz v Ruemmler appeal.

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=6885

The Mandemus suit is the one where they sent her a clerk's order demanding $450. In both of her appeals, they requested the normal filing fee of $455.

Orly is an idiot and apparently too dumb even to keep her own kook suits straight.

verbalobe · **Posted:** Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:15 pm

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

AnitaMaria wrote:

She should read the Fogbow more carefully. If she did, she would know that case number 11-5329 is her crazy writ of mandamus, a case separate from her Taitz v Ruemmler appeal.

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=6885

The Mandemus suit is the one where they sent her a clerk's order demanding $450. In both of her appeals, they requested the normal filing fee of $455.

Orly is an idiot and apparently too dumb even to keep her own kook suits straight.

Actually... really?

So... Orly crosses payments and correspondence with the court(s), her confusion compounding on her mistaken idea that a $450 fee and a $455 fee must be for the same thing, and the amount has changed or there is some other mix-up (not of her doing).

Doesn't this alogical glitch in her thinking remind you of the way she is with names, SSNs, etc.? $450 and $455 are just too close, is suspicious, can someone see if there is connection? Maybe is same fee for same case? Different case would have more different fee. Just like if someone had no connection to usurper regime, their name wouldn't be Obama. Just like if NH Election Commission removed ineligible Egyptian from ballot, they must be complicit if they don't remove next accused candidate from ballot.

Everything even nominally alike is the same. Except when they are clearly different, like the typefaces on the LFBC, in which case they are the same.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9710

verbalobe wrote:

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

AnitaMaria wrote:

She should read the Fogbow more carefully. If she did, she would know that case number 11-5329 is her crazy writ of mandamus, a case separate from her Taitz v Ruemmler appeal.

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=6885

The Mandemus suit is the one where they sent her a clerk's order demanding $450. In both of her appeals, they requested the normal filing fee of $455.

Orly is an idiot and apparently too dumb even to keep her own kook suits straight.

Actually... really?

So... Orly crosses payments and correspondence with the court(s), her confusion compounding on her mistaken idea that a $450 fee and a $455 fee must be for the same thing, and the amount has changed or there is some other mix-up (not of her doing).

It is a virtual 100% guarantee that any time Orly claims someone at a court screwed up somehow, it is really she who is the total idiot. What's most ridiculous is she would have only received ONE letter demanding a $450 fee, but TWO demanding the standard FRAP appeal fee of $455. Even most stupid people would figure it out at that point. Not Orly, though. Everything is always someone else's fault.

bob · **Posted:** Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:30 pm

A real lawyer would pick up the phone and (politely) ask.

raicha · **Posted:** Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:01 am

Wow. Dumber than a box of rocks.

Whatever4 · **Posted:** Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:16 am

verbalobe wrote:

Doesn't this alogical glitch in her thinking remind you of the way she is with names, SSNs, etc.? $450 and $455 are just too close, is suspicious, can someone see if there is connection? Maybe is same fee for same case? Different case would have more different fee. Just like if someone had no connection to usurper regime, their name wouldn't be Obama. Just like if NH Election Commission removed ineligible Egyptian from ballot, they must be complicit if they don't remove next accused candidate from ballot.

Everything even nominally alike is the same. Except when they are clearly different, like the typefaces on the LFBC, in which case they are the same.

Verbie is getting scarily good at chanelling Orly. Oh Listeme... have you really looked closely at Verbie lately?

listeme · **Posted:** Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:53 am

Whatever4 wrote:

verbalobe wrote:

Doesn't this alogical glitch in her thinking remind you of the way she is with names, SSNs, etc.? $450 and $455 are just too close, is suspicious, can someone see if there is connection? Maybe is same fee for same case? Different case would have more different fee. Just like if someone had no connection to usurper regime, their name wouldn't be Obama. Just like if NH Election Commission removed ineligible Egyptian from ballot, they must be complicit if they don't remove next accused candidate from ballot.

Everything even nominally alike is the same. Except when they are clearly different, like the typefaces on the LFBC, in which case they are the same.

Verbie is getting scarily good at chanelling Orly. Oh Listeme... have you really looked closely at Verbie lately?

Welllll, he DID have to work all night Wednesday night. This just illustrates the dangers of sleep deprivation. :((

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

TAITZ v RUEMMLER - ACT II

Who is online