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

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

12/05/2011 Open Document NOTICE [1346229] filed from Clerk, District Court for payment of docketing fee [Case Number 11-5306: Fee Paid] [11-5306]

12/09/2011 Open Document CLERK'S ORDER filed [1346757] directing party to file initial submissions: APPELLANT docketing statement due 01/09/2012. APPELLANT certificate as to parties, etc. due 01/09/2012. APPELLANT statement of issues due 01/09/2012. APPELLANT underlying decision due 01/09/2012. APPELLANT deferred appendix statement due 01/09/2012. APPELLANT notice of appearance due 01/09/2012. APPELLANT transcript status report due 01/09/2012. APPELLANT procedural motions due 01/09/2012. APPELLANT dispositive motions due 01/23/2012; directing party to file initial submissions: APPELLEE certificate as to parties, etc. due 01/09/2012. APPELLEE entry of appearance due 01/09/2012. APPELLEE procedural motions due 01/09/2012. APPELLEE dispositive motions due 01/23/2012, Failure to respond shall result in dismissal of the case for lack of prosecution; The Clerk is directed to mail this order to appellant by certified mail, return receipt requested and by 1st class mail. [11-5306]

12/09/2011 FIRST CLASS MAIL SENT [1346762] of order [1346757-2] to appellant [11-5306]

12/09/2011 CERTIFIED MAIL SENT [1346763] with return receipt requested [Receipt No.7007 0710 0004 7191 3337] of order [1346757-2]. Certified Mail Receipt due 01/09/2012 from Orly Taitz. [11-5306]

12/19/2011 Open Document CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT [1348746] RECEIVED from Illegible for order [1346763-2] sent to Appellant Orly Taitz [11-5306]

Orly's bizzy-bizzy... Depo in Hawaii on 1/5 , Hearing in HI on 1/6, filings due in Taitz v Astrue appeal on 1/4, in Ruemmler appeal 1/9, all her ballot challenges, her appeal in Taitz v Dunn, Medical-Legal v Pierson, et al. bankruptcy attempted resurrection, Writ of Mandemus in D.C., run for U.S. Senate and just your basic saving Merkuh from the ebil usurper.

Orly's bizzy-bizzy... Depo in Hawaii on 1/5 , Hearing in HI on 1/6, filings due in Taitz v Astrue appeal on 1/4, in Ruemmler appeal 1/9, all her ballot challenges, her appeal in Taitz v Dunn, Medical-Legal v Pierson, et al. bankruptcy attempted resurrection, Writ of Mandemus in D.C., run for U.S. Senate and just your basic saving Merkuh from the ebil usurper.

Predict: Fail.

One of the above? Some of the above? All of the above?

12/27/2011 Open Document CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS AND RELATED CASES FILED [1350285] by Orly Taitz [Service Date: 12/20/2011 ] [11-5306]

12/27/2011 Open Document TRANSCRIPT STATUS REPORT [1350288] by Orly Taitz [Service Date: 12/20/2011 ]. Status of Transcripts: Final - No transcripts are needed for the appeal. [11-5306]

12/27/2011 Open Document STATEMENT OF ISSUES FILED [1350289] by Orly Taitz [Service Date: 12/20/2011 ] [11-5306]

12/27/2011 Open Document STATEMENT OF INTENT REGARDING APPENDIX DEFERRAL FILED [1350291] by Orly Taitz [Service Date: 12/20/2011 ] Intent: AppxNotDeferred [11-5306]

12/27/2011 Open Document DOCKETING STATEMENT FILED [1350293] by Orly Taitz [Service Date: 12/20/2011 ] [11-5306]

If I were Taitz I'd hire someone to get the proper documents filed in this magnificent case. But WDOD?

Whether there exist any other legal or public policy bases for the Court to order the defendant to respond fully to appellant’s request pursuant to FOIA?

Okay. IANAL and maybe I'm completely off-base with this, but:

Both here and in Astrue, Orly only has two issues to be raised on appeal. One is whether the trial court erred in applying Exception 6. The other thing that she includes as an issue to be raised is:

Am I understanding correctly that Orly is asking the Appeals Court to find, create, or otherwise magick into existence some phantom reason to give her what she wants? And that she considers that the trial court not having done so is an issue for appeal?

Is she trying to recruit the Courts onto the FM Squad?

That would not be out of character.

Am I understanding correctly that Orly is asking the Appeals Court to find, create, or otherwise magick into existence some phantom reason to give her what she wants? And that she considers that the trial court not having done so is an issue for appeal?

YES, BUT YOU FORGOT TO SHOUT.

Nothing says "top-notch attorney" like an entire appellate filing in capital letters. Scares the bejeebers out of judges, ya know.

Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-5306
Docketed: 11/02/2011
Nature of Suit: 2895 Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Orly Taitz v. Kathy Ruemmler
Appeal From: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Fee Status: Fee Paid

01/04/2012 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE filed [1351033] by Helen L. Gilbert and co-counsel Mark B. Stern on behalf of Appellee Kathy Ruemmler. [11-5306] (Gilbert, Helen)

01/04/2012 CORRECTED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE filed [1351034] by Helen L. Gilbert and co-counsel Mark B. Stern on behalf of Appellee Kathy Ruemmler. [11-5306] (Gilbert, Helen)

01/04/2012 CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS AND RELATED CASES FILED [1351035] by Kathy Ruemmler [Service Date: 01/04/2012 ] [11-5306] (Gilbert, Helen)

01/04/2012 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [1351036] to notice [1351034-2], certificate [1351035-2] filed by Kathy Ruemmler. [11-5306] (Gilbert, Helen)

01/23/2012 MOTION filed [1354001] by Kathy Ruemmler for summary affirmance. (Response to Motion served by mail due on 02/06/2012) [Service Date: 01/23/2012 by US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [11-5306] (Gilbert, Helen)