RECEIVED Mail Room

USCA Case #11-5306

United Stal~s Court !Jr A.ppcp.ls District of Columbia CII'Clllt

w. co m
FILED

FEB 132012

Document #1358924

Filed: 02/13/2012

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

DR. ORLY TAITZ ,ESQ 29839 SANTAMARGARITAPKWY, STE 100

FEB 13 2012

\'c,v \-\)
\~

CLERK

SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688 PH. 949-683-5411 FAX 949-766-7603 ORLY.TAITZ

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE

of T
v.

APPELLANT,

KATHY RUEMMLER IN HER CAPACITY

ds

ien

AS THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL

he F

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS

Fr

APPELLEE

Taitz v Ruemmler Motion for Extension of Time

og

Bo
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER TO

APPELLEE'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE

No 11-5306

pI

USCA Case #11-5306

Document #1358924

Filed: 02/13/2012

Page 2 of 3

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, (Hereinafter "Taitz") Appellant is respectfully requesting an extension of time of 30 days to answer to an unexpected motion for Summary Affirmance, filed by the appellee.
ARGUMENT

Appellant is a pro se litigant, who does not get automatic notifications from the

court. Appellant resides in the state of California and was traveling out of state. Appellant recently found a motion for Summary Affirmance, filed by the Appellee. Appellant had no knowledge of this motion until February 10, 2012. Appelant is

Additionally, appellant noticed that the Appellant did not cite any authority, that would provide for such Summary Affirmance of the judgment by the District court.

Amendment due process. Appellant is entitled to file her Appellant's brief and respond to the Appellee's brief. Such motion for summary affirmance makes a mockery of the due process rights of the citizens, who are filing freedom of information requests such as the case at hand and are entitled to have their appela

Fr

ien

had on the merits. Appellee is trying to circumvent the appeals process by fiat. Due

to all of the above, the motion for summary Affirmance should be denied outright as not based on law or precedent and violating due process. In the alternative, if

ds

of T

Appellant paid $455 fee for the Appeal's process and is entitled to her 5th and 14th

Taitz v Ruemmler Motion for Extension of Time

he F

respectfully asking for a 30 day extension in order to respond to the motion.

og

Bo

w. co m

p2

'

USCA Case #11-5306

Document #1358924

Filed: 02/13/2012

Page 3 of 3

this court is not willing to deny the motion at hand outright, appellant is respectfully asking for 30 days extension to respond. Respectfully submitted.

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ I, Lila Dubert,

attest~

that I served the Appellee through his attorney, Helen L.

..

Gilbert, US Attorneys' office on February 11,2012 by first class mail

Fr

ien

ds

of T
Taitz v Ruemmler Motion for Extension of Time

he F

/s/ Lila Dubert

og
p3

Bo

w. co m