Main Menu

Birth certificates appear in court

In what I believe is a first, copies of Barack Obama’s long and short form birth certificates have been submitted by Defendants in an Obama eligibility lawsuit, here in the case of Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi where the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee has filed a “Motion to Dismiss based on the pleadings” and included the Certificates as exhibits attached to the Motion.

The Motion seems pretty straightforward. It states that the original challenge was procedurally flawed, a challenge to a future inclusion of Obama in the general election is not ripe, the Plaintiffs have no standing, the two-citizen parent eligibility claim has no basis in law, the Constitution doesn’t require “identity papers,” the RICO statute is hopelessly inapplicable, and that Obama was born in Hawaii anyway.

Also included in the exhibits is the Hawaii Department of Health web page detailing information about the President’s birth in Hawaii and the Department’s preparation of the long form certificate, and a report on the history of vital statistics from the CDC.

The Memorandum (link below) has an encyclopedic list of precedents against Taitz’s position and makes good reading. My favorite bit, which is now the quote of the day, is where in defense of the Racketeering claim, the Defense notes that all the Democratic Party did was to ignore an email from Orly Taitz where she claimed Obama was ineligible. They said:

ignoring Orly Taitz is not among the crimes listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1962

Read more:

, , , ,

40 Responses to Birth certificates appear in court

  1. avatar
    john May 5, 2012 at 9:21 am #

    Quite interesting. They submitted the PDF which we know is a forgery as shown by Sheriff Joe. They also show the COLB but that no good as it lacks a Certificate #. Again, they shown nothing that has not already been seen and has been tested and proven to be a forgery.

  2. avatar
    Sam the Centipede May 5, 2012 at 9:46 am #

    This is an interesting change! The defense is primarily the legal equivalent of “the plaintiffs are idiots, and more stupid than you can believe”.

    But including the birth certificates is a novelty. As they would win the case without, are Team Obama trying to get a specific ruling of “look you dumb Taitzoids, the President is the President, even though he’s intelligent and black”? Which might be useful for kicking out any further cases elsewhere, perhaps with the threat of serious sanctions on those who are trying to undermine the US’s legal and political system.

    I guess it’s quite difficult for the defense. There are three main grounds on which the Taitz cases are dismissed on: invalid, stupid, and wrong. Usually they get dismissed on the first ground: because they are invalid due to being late, badly drafted, with clients who have no standing, in the wrong court, not ripe, moot, etc.

    This one would clearly fail on that ground, as have many others.

    So the defense often doesn’t have to move to the second ground, that the plaintiffs’ arguments are stupid. But then the “no, we are applying US Law and the US Constitution, not Orlylaw and the musings of an ancient Swiss guy” argument wins.

    So it’s rare for any court to even think of needing to issue a ruling that the plaintiffs are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. It’s quite tricky for the defense to say to the court “look, we know, you can see, that Orly and her flying monkeys are morons, and their case is fuller of holes than a bucketful of nothing, but can you please rule anyway that they would be wrong, even without kicking the case out for invalidity and stupidity?”

    While it’s probably generally a good principle that courts (except SCOTUS perhaps) tend to rule only on the case in front of them, and only to the extent necessary to make a decision, that approach doesn’t take into account the scattergun insanity of Orly’s Army of Insanity.

    And where is the California Bar’s disciplinary committee?

  3. avatar
    bovril May 5, 2012 at 10:01 am #

    John my dear dolt,

    Take it from an actual professional in the field of information security who has actually had to stand up in court, under oath and explain in excruciating detail matters e-discovery and document forensics.

    For your education, I penned a short and by no means exhaustive breakdown on the multiple failures by these sads, racist bigots.

    http://www.thefogbow.com/arpaio-report/document-forensics/

    Do feel free to rebut any of the points raised

  4. avatar
    ASK Esq May 5, 2012 at 10:12 am #

    john: Quite interesting. They submitted the PDF which we know is a forgery as shown by Sheriff Joe.

    Oh, John. You and your ilk “knew” it was a forgery even before it was released. Let’s face it, you’d “know” it was a forgery if the Supreme Court, after reviewing it and having officials from the HDOH and the nation’s top forensic document experts provide sworn testimony, confirmed it was real. Facts and reality have no interest to you. You simply know what you want to know, and ignore the rest. As long as something agrees with what you believe to be true, you accept it.

    Try looking at both sides. You’d be surprised what you’d find.

  5. avatar
    RuhRoh May 5, 2012 at 10:30 am #

    The Motion is definitely worth reading! Lots of little gems in there. I’d bet Tepper wrote a great deal of it, as there are repeated references to cases in which Orly’s arguments have already been ruled to be completely without merit.

  6. avatar
    realist May 5, 2012 at 10:33 am #

    Just a nit-picky point.

    I continue to see in comments, since the posting of the recent motion and memo in support, that “Obama’s team” filed this or that (mostly relating to the BCs).

    These documents were filed by Mr. Begley and Mr Tepper, attorneys for the MDEC, NOT Obama, or Obama’s team, nor any of the Obama (not yet served) “defendants”.

    Just wanted to make that clarification and note the distinction.

  7. avatar
    realist May 5, 2012 at 10:45 am #

    john:
    Quite interesting.They submitted the PDF which we know is a forgery as shown by Sheriff Joe. They also show the COLB but that no good as it lacks a Certificate #. Again, they shown nothing that has not already been seen and has been tested and proven to be a forgery.

    LOL… I love what birthers “know”.

    All birthers have done is make a bunch of baseless allegations “proven” by people without the requisite expertise to do so, and “confirmed” it among themselves.

    No “proof” of anything exists. Heck, no evidence of any wrongdoing has been produced by birthers… merely blather.

    Oh, and just so you know, real experts offer opinions, not conclusions such as “this is a forgery”. Conclusions, based on those opinions are in the purview of the trier of fact, i.e., judge or jury.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2012 at 10:50 am #

    I agree with you that this case can be dismissed on the “invalid” defense. From what I read, standing is a criterion that must be satisfied first, before others are considered. However, this defense which claims, as you say, “invalid, stupid and wrong” has several possible advantages:

    1) it makes the Obots feel better to vicariously vent their frustration
    2) insofar as at the court notes and affirms any of the defenses, they become even more precedent for the next lawsuit
    3) the sheer size of the precedent list in the Memorandum could be demoralizing to the birthers and discourage future lawsuits (one can dream, can’t they?)
    4) the legal legwork done here becomes available to the defense in other cases.

    Sam the Centipede: There are three main grounds on which the Taitz cases are dismissed on: invalid, stupid, and wrong. Usually they get dismissed on the first ground: because they are invalid due to being late, badly drafted, with clients who have no standing, in the wrong court, not ripe, moot, etc.

  9. avatar
    Jim May 5, 2012 at 10:56 am #

    Let’s see, the case is now in Federal Court until and if remanded.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/92496878/2012-05-04-MS-SCOMS-Order-by-the-Chief-Justice-to-Stay-State-Action

    Especially entertaining in the MDEC MJ

    37.

    Setting aside the fact that Plaintiffs have not alleged any actionable predicate acts (ignoring Orly Taitzis not among the crimes listed in 18 U.S.C. 1962), two additional and fatal infirmities in the RICOpleading are these:

    It might be further noted that ignoring birthers is not a crime either!!! 😀

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2012 at 10:57 am #

    I agree that it’s important to keep track of who the defendants are in these cases. This harkens back to the claims that Obama had spent millions in legal fees for cases where he didn’t even appear.

    This is also a good time to point out a division in strategy. In New Jersey, Obama’s attorney did not submit a birth certificate and made a big deal of the fact that there was no birth certificate before the court. In Mississippi, the Democrat’s attorneys submitted not one but two birth certificates and supporting documentation from the State of Hawaii.

    realist: These documents were filed by Mr. Begley and Mr Tepper, attorneys for the MDEC, NOT Obama, or Obama’s team, nor any of the Obama (not yet served) “defendants”.

  11. avatar
    Atticus Finch May 5, 2012 at 11:07 am #

    “ignoring Orly Taitz is not among the crimes listed in 18 U.S.C. 1962”

    Wrong. Don’t you know that the greatest crime ever committed against O.T. is to ignore her?. If she were ignore by the courts she would have to crawl back under the rock she came from.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2012 at 11:12 am #

    That’s true, except on this blog.

    Jim: It might be further noted that ignoring birthers is not a crime either!!!

  13. avatar
    Sam the Centipede May 5, 2012 at 11:17 am #

    realist:
    Just a nit-picky point.

    I continue to see in comments, since the posting of the recent motion and memo in support, that “Obama’s team” filed this or that (mostly relating to the BCs).

    These documents were filed byMr. Begley and Mr Tepper, attorneys for the MDEC, NOT Obama, or Obama’s team, nor any of the Obama (not yet served) “defendants”.

    Correction noted, my mistake, thank you.

    I wrote Team Obama because I didn’t know whether it might look rude to call them Obots. I just meant pro-Obama. Team Democracy? Team Constitution? Team Sanity?

    The distinction you make does have some weight when one remembers the lie (I am sure the racist John troll can give us the number) about how many gazillions of dollars the President is supposed to have spent defending himself, when it’s never got that far.

    So thanks for the correction.

  14. avatar
    Jim May 5, 2012 at 11:23 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I agree that it’s important to keep track of who the defendants are in these cases. This harkens back to the claims that Obama had spent millions in legal fees for cases where he didn’t even appear.

    This is also a good time to point out a division in strategy. In New Jersey, Obama’s attorney did not submit a birth certificate and made a big deal of the fact that there was no birth certificate before the court. In Mississippi, the Democrat’s attorneys submitted not one but two birth certificates and supporting documentation from the State of Hawaii.

    Actually, they didn’t submit them. Orly did. They just provided clearer copies for the Judge…which also allowed them to add the statements from Hawaii. And, because of Orly, they are now able to be noted.

    “Although Plaintiffs do attach a couple copies of the LFBC to their FAC, it – like many of Plaintiffs exhibits – is barely legible. While Plaintiffs reference the COLB in their Complaint (at page 36 b), the MDEC was unable to find a copy of that document contained in Plaintiffs voluminous and disorganized exhibits. =)) Therefore, the MDEC has attached to its Motion a legible a copy of the LFBC (Motion Exhibit 1) and COLB (Motion Exhibit 2).”

  15. avatar
    Reality Check May 5, 2012 at 11:35 am #

    Correct realist and to add that the stated reason for including them is because the plaintiffs submitted them as exhibits and the copies were illegible.

    realist:
    Just a nit-picky point.

    I continue to see in comments, since the posting of the recent motion and memo in support, that “Obama’s team” filed this or that (mostly relating to the BCs).

    These documents were filed byMr. Begley and Mr Tepper, attorneys for the MDEC, NOT Obama, or Obama’s team, nor any of the Obama (not yet served) “defendants”.

    Just wanted to make that clarification and note the distinction.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2012 at 11:46 am #

    That might be the stated reason, but those exhibits are followed by other exhibits from the State of Hawaii supporting the the certificates’ authenticity and accuracy. The statement is made in the Memorandum:

    the Court may take judicial notice of the fact that the Hawai’i Department of Health has verified the authenticity of the LFBC published by the White House in 2011.

    Reality Check: Correct realist and to add that the stated reason for including them is because the plaintiffs submitted them as exhibits and the copies were illegible.

  17. avatar
    Northland10 May 5, 2012 at 12:39 pm #

    In a nitpicky, legal way, I see them not as providing proof the Obama is eligible (as that is a generally accepted fact), but proving, by way of the memorandum and clearer copies, that Orly is wrong. Since, as they mention in the brief, Obama is not required to provide “identification papers” that acceptable to Orly’s standard (which means, nothing is acceptable), she has to prove that Obama is not eligible (darn burden of proof thing). They simply widened the gaping whole in her “evidence.”

    What I was really pleased to see was the following:

    In short, President Obama was born in the United States of America. Plaintiffs have neither claimed he was born anywhere else nor provided any factual allegations to support such a claim.

    Though it is obvious to most, this is the elephant in many the birther rooms.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    That might be the stated reason, but those exhibits are followed by other exhibits from the State of Hawaii supporting the the certificates’ authenticity and accuracy. The statement is made in the Memorandum:

  18. avatar
    Northland10 May 5, 2012 at 12:40 pm #

    john: They submitted the PDF which we know is a forgery as shown by Sheriff Joe.

    So, Joe is going to show up and testify and let his Posse testify? Oh, right, they’re not. Why is that John?

  19. avatar
    Thrifty May 5, 2012 at 12:58 pm #

    LOL

    john:
    Quite interesting.They submitted the PDF which we know is a forgery as shown by Sheriff Joe. They also show the COLB but that no good as it lacks a Certificate #. Again, they shown nothing that has not already been seen and has been tested and proven to be a forgery.

  20. avatar
    realist May 5, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I agree that it’s important to keep track of who the defendants are in these cases. This harkens back to the claims that Obama had spent millions in legal fees for cases where he didn’t even appear.

    This is also a good time to point out a division in strategy. In New Jersey, Obama’s attorney did not submit a birth certificate and made a big deal of the fact that there was no birth certificate before the court. In Mississippi, the Democrat’s attorneys submitted not one but two birth certificates and supporting documentation from the State of Hawaii.

    Again, another “small bone”.

    If you read the MJP, you will not that the defendants mention that the plaintiffs have attached the BCs to their FAC and mentioned them in their Complaint, they were unable to find them in one and they are illegilbe in the other.

    In Footnote 10 they explain why they are attaching them to their MJP… as a courtesy to the Court.

    “10 See FAC at page 12 1 and page 36 b. Although Plaintiffs do attach a couple copies of the LFBC to their FAC, it – like many of Plaintiffs exhibits – is barely legible. While Plaintiffs reference the COLB in their Complaint (at page 36 b), the
    MDEC was unable to find a copy of that document contained in Plaintiffs voluminous and disorganized exhibits. Therefore, the MDEC has attached to its Motion a legible a copy of the LFBC (Motion Exhibit 1) and COLB (Motion Exhibit 2).”

  21. avatar
    realist May 5, 2012 at 1:13 pm #

    OOPS!! Sorry, Doc. I see this was covered…. except for including Footnote 10.

  22. avatar
    Reality Check May 5, 2012 at 1:33 pm #

    I think we are deep into picking nits. I believe the defense addressed it this way:

    The plaintiffs referenced exhibits of the LFBC and COLB. Since they (she) are (is) so completely inept at everything they (she) do (does) the exhibits are completely illegible so here are legible copies. By the way, take note the State of Hawaii has said several times that they are legitimate. We do not have to submit anything however. There is no Constitutional requirement for a candidate to “submit his papers”.

  23. avatar
    Norbrook May 5, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

    I read the attachment of the LFBC and COLB in the motion as multipurpose attack on the birthers. First, by asking the court for “judicial notice” of this and Hawaii’s certification, it creates a precedent for future cases. Second, it lets them take a backhanded slap at Orly for failing to provide legible copies. Third, by taking that slap at Orly, they’re also laying the groundwork for a request not just costs, but sanctions.

  24. avatar
    Sam the Centipede May 5, 2012 at 1:53 pm #

    Norbrook: Third, by taking that slap at Orly, they’re also laying the groundwork for a request not just costs, but sanctions.

    Possibly… but isn’t it a shame that sanctions would just be a financial penalty? Shouldn’t the court (or defendants) be able to choose more appropriate sanctions? Something humiliating rather than expensive?

    Orly could be instructed to dye her hair blue, the other defendants to have free dental work done by her… but actually I can’t really think of any ways of humiliating Orly when she does such an effective job herself. And her Orlybots might even be more energised by that, curse the flying monkeys!

    One does sense however, that the various defendants are collectively getting annoyed and thinking “right, let’s stop this crap, we have better things to do”.

  25. avatar
    Northland10 May 5, 2012 at 1:58 pm #

    Sam the Centipede: other defendants to have free dental work done by her

    Whose being sanctioned?

  26. avatar
    misha May 5, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

    Sam the Centipede: the other defendants to have free dental work done by her

    Marathon Man is a good film, but it’s fiction. Orly would make fiction into reality. [shudders]

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2012 at 2:44 pm #

    This is curious, that “current” birther cases don’t allege President Obama was born in Kenya. This used to be their bread and butter, for example Berg v. Obama and Kerchner v. Obama both cited the “grandmother tape.” And Orly Taitz submitted two fake Kenyan birth certificates in Keyes.

    Northland10: What I was really pleased to see was the following:

    In short, President Obama was born in the United States of America. Plaintiffs have neither claimed he was born anywhere else nor provided any factual allegations to support such a claim.

    Though it is obvious to most, this is the elephant in many the birther rooms

  28. avatar
    Jim May 5, 2012 at 4:20 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    This is curious, that “current” birther cases don’t allege President Obama was born in Kenya. This used to be their bread and butter, for exampleBerg v. Obama and Kerchner v. Obama both cited the “grandmother tape.” And Orly Taitz submitted two fake Kenyan birth certificates in Keyes.

    Though it is obvious to most, this is the elephant in many the birther rooms

    OMG, after that argument was so thoroughly and completely taken apart and shown to be so absolutely ridiculous, there’s no way they could use it anymore. As with most of their imaginary ideas, they only have a shelf life of so long before the $$$ quits flowing. We are about at the end of the 2-parent NBC shelf-life, and Sheriff Arpaio is trying to get his cut in on the forgery $$$ before it dries up.

    If you want to make a buck off the rubes, come up with a new idea, plausible on the surface, with lots of commas, and send it out there with a pleading for $$$ in order to “Save the Constitution”. Call the President a few names, invoke God and Country, and make sure your Paypal account is all set up. Remember, the conspiracy idea doesn’t even have to have any basis in law or common sense, just sound good to the simple-minded.

  29. avatar
    misha May 5, 2012 at 5:38 pm #

    Jim: the conspiracy idea doesn’t even have to have any basis in law or common sense, just sound good to the simple-minded.

    Which explains the relentless conservative attacks on public schools.

    Jerry Falwell once said public schools should be under church control. He also called the 1st Amendment “a mistake,” and proposed an amendment to nullify the 1st, “with the Jewish people declared a protected minority.”

  30. avatar
    AlCum May 5, 2012 at 6:07 pm #

    john:
    Quite interesting.They submitted the PDF which we know is a forgery as shown by Sheriff Joe. They also show the COLB but that no good as it lacks a Certificate #. Again, they shown nothing that has not already been seen and has been tested and proven to be a forgery.

    John, you remain incorrect no matter how many times you make this disproven claim. Hawaii has publicly authenticated the birth certificates… Both of them. The COLB most certainly does have a certificate number. All beside the point. No court has never asked for a birth certificate.

  31. avatar
    Northland10 May 5, 2012 at 7:39 pm #

    Jim: If you want to make a buck off the rubes, come up with a new idea, plausible on the surface, with lots of commas, and send it out there with a pleading for $$$ in order to “Save the Constitution”. Call the President a few names, invoke God and Country, and make sure your Paypal account is all set up. Remember, the conspiracy idea doesn’t even have to have any basis in law or common sense, just sound good to the simple-minded.

    But the truthiness will not be there, unless, it has a LIBERAL use of ALL Caps.

  32. avatar
    nbc May 5, 2012 at 8:01 pm #

    john: Quite interesting. They submitted the PDF which we know is a forgery as shown by Sheriff Joe. They also show the COLB but that no good as it lacks a Certificate #. Again, they shown nothing that has not already been seen and has been tested and proven to be a forgery.

    You are confused, they did not submit anything as they could not do so under a motion for judgment on the pleadings. What they did is asked the Court to take notice of the documents Orly had so foolishly attached to her complaint and since her copies were poorly legible, they added better copies… Furthermore, they asked the Court to take judicial notice of the statements by the officials of Hawaii, certifying Obama’s birth on US soil.

    A very clever move, enabled by Orly’s foolish submission of the documents which allowed the defense to ask the judge to take notice of the documents, without being required to submit them themselves…

    Orly is no match for these professionals… But now she is facing responding to at least 3 motions or she may face additional motions for cost and fees and sanctions. Orly has no choice but to fully waste her time responding…

    Hilarious how she has been totally outmaneuvered here.

  33. avatar
    nbc May 5, 2012 at 8:04 pm #

    AlCum: All beside the point. No court has never asked for a birth certificate.

    Because there is no requirement that such a certificate be submitted but for the purpose of judgment on the pleadings, the fact that Orly submitted the documents, helps the Judge establishing the factual nature of President Obama’s birth on US soil, making him a natural born citizen…

    Thanks Orly…
    Of course, the judge will just dismiss the election challenge parts because Orly, in true Orly fashion, failed to follow the statutory rules, stripping the Court of jurisdiction.

    Orly is so predictable… Even an empty chair can beat her…

  34. avatar
    Keith May 5, 2012 at 8:24 pm #

    Sam the Centipede: I wrote Team Obama because I didn’t know whether it might look rude to call them Obots. I just meant pro-Obama. Team Democracy? Team Constitution? Team Sanity?

    “Mississippi Democrats”? “Mississippi Democratic Party”?

  35. avatar
    Keith May 5, 2012 at 8:34 pm #

    Sam the Centipede: Orly could be instructed to dye her hair blue, the other defendants to have free dental work done by her…

    I need some dental work done right now, but Orly is the last person on earth that I would trust to do it. Why would a court ordered referral to her dental clinic be humiliating to her? She would undoubtedly take it as a compliment.

    It could, I suppose, get her jail time like this ‘lady’, but that is punishing the defendants and I just don’t think they deserve it.

  36. avatar
    Majority Will May 5, 2012 at 8:45 pm #

    nbc: You are confused, they did not submit anything as they could not do so under a motion for judgment on the pleadings. What they did is asked the Court to take notice of the documents Orly had so foolishly attached to her complaint and since her copies were poorly legible, they added better copies… Furthermore, they asked the Court to take judicial notice of the statements by the officials of Hawaii, certifying Obama’s birth on US soil.

    A very clever move, enabled by Orly’s foolish submission of the documents which allowed the defense to ask the judge to take notice of the documents, without being required to submit them themselves…

    Orly is no match for these professionals… But now she is facing responding to at least 3 motions or she may face additional motions for cost and fees and sanctions. Orly has no choice but to fully waste her time responding…

    Hilarious how she has been totally outmaneuvered here.

    It’s almost like being an attorney is more than taking a correspondence course for passing the California Bar Examination.

  37. avatar
    BillTheCat May 6, 2012 at 6:47 pm #

    john:
    Quite interesting.They submitted the PDF which we know is a forgery as shown by Sheriff Joe. They also show the COLB but that no good as it lacks a Certificate #. Again, they shown nothing that has not already been seen and has been tested and proven to be a forgery.

    Seriously, until you understand the word “certified” as it relates to the law, as well as chain of custody, you shouldn’t even bother commenting.

    You can be certain, or you will learn in due time, that these lawyers are years ahead of Taitz, Kreep, Apuzzo, and the rest. Count on this filing as the basis for all future birther cases being thrown out.

  38. avatar
    The Magic M May 7, 2012 at 4:29 am #

    I still predict the birther reaction will be like this:

    Orly is going to screech “NOW I GET DISCOVERY!” and her flying monkeys are going to claim “brilliant move by Orly, by intentionally submitting illegible documents, she gauded the defendant into submitting the LFBC as evidence, so now Orly can get to see the original”.

    So we’ll have another birther OMG moment that is going to end up in bitter disappointment… Oh the joy! 🙂

  39. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny May 7, 2012 at 5:02 am #

    Keith: It could, I suppose, get her jail time like this lady’, but that is punishing the defendants and I just don’t think they deserve it.

    Ah, the demon dentist from Breslau (it sounds better with the German name of the town, does it not).

    Since this a blog dedicated to the truth, let me be the first to announce to the American public here on this site which is more or less concerned with the mental state of one real demon dentist that this story is a canard. A duck, as they say both in Russian and in Polish. As true as Condoleezza Rice secretly dating the British comedian Jasper Carrott.

    It seems from the Google history that the Daily Mail wrote this story, it was spread on the internet (also on a lot of Polish expatriat blogs, by the way – proving that it was for real, because, he, if there are Internet sources in Polish it must be true), then the Daily Telegraph (who are usually stricter on the quality of their sources) took it over, omitting the fact that it happened (read: did NOT happen) in Wroclaw, Poland. Causing some US news outlets to report it as having happened in London.

    Only now some Polish newspapers caught up with it (when the end of the world is coming, move to Poland, because they are always four years behind and I say that as a Belgian) and found that there is no dentist in Wroclaw called Mackowiak (there is no one as Scottish as Mac Kowiak) and that the police know nothing about a guy called Olszewski who got all his teeth pulled out.

    I was interested in this story merely because soon I will be returning to the old country for ten days and I have problems with my teeth. But no jilted ex in Gdansk or Olsztyn, fortunately.

    http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,119594,title,Demon-Dentist-of-Wroclaw,wid,14458671,wiadomosc.html?ticaid=1e67a

  40. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny May 7, 2012 at 5:17 am #

    And I agree of course that submitting her co-plaintiffs in Mississippi to Taitz’ dental care as a sanction for bringing this suit, would be far more appropriate. Although it could be argued that such would constitute “cruel and unusual punishment”.