Jeff Schreiber updates everyone with the latest in the Sen. Obama birth certificate showdown:

I spoke with Philip Berg this afternoon as he sat in his office, awaiting a crew from Fox News Channel in New York. While interest in his lawsuit among those at Fox has been steadily mounting over the past few days and weeks, Berg does not know exactly in what capacity the end product of the taping will be used.

“At this point,” Berg said, “the nation just needs to know that Mr. Obama is not eligible to serve as president of the United States, that he has so far successfully hidden behind procedure, and that we could very well be headed toward a constitutional crisis unless this is addressed.”

And he is indeed working toward ensuring that the issue is addressed, Berg said, and has been spending the past few days preparing for his appeal to the United States Supreme Court, a move which could happen by the end of the week. This, of course, has caused him to shift other items to the proverbial back burner, including but not limited to the so-called Michelle Obama tapes purportedly possessed by editorial staff at African Press International.

Yes, those tapes that are alleged to exist (though nobody has any direct evidence yet of their existence):

With regard to API, Berg says that he’s not so sure what has come or will come of it. “My name is associated with it,” he said, “but now I see that there’s a Canadian name associated with it too, and that they are claiming to have provided the tapes to Fox News or someone else. I don’t know.”

API has an update on all of this as well:

A final agreement has been reached between African Press International (API) and Fox News Network (USA) on the dates to air the Michelle Obama tape arising from a discussion Mrs Obama had with the API two weeks ago. The show will take place any day/time from now, with a 15 minutes alert on when it is to take place. Other programmes will be interrupted. This is a precaution taken to avoid interference from any quarter.

In the agreement, Fox News Network will broadcast 39 minutes of the  54 minutes long tape. The whole tape cannot be aired unedited due to security reasons and especially due to the explosive political temperature in the country because of the Presidential elections that is just around the corner, November 4th.

The tape will be aired in two portions by two separate units in the Network. API’s representative will appear live in one of the shows.

The parties have agreed that the information to be released to the public on the agreement will not include the naming of the units at Fox News Network that will air the tapes in order to avoid outside pressure and influence of any kind before the show has taken place. Nondisclosure of the name of the shows that will air the tapes has become necessary due to pressure from groups interested to block the release of the contents to the public.

Due to a huge interest in the tapes shown by some private individuals, groups belonging to some political camp(s) and persons connected to a section of an intelligence network, it has been decided that the 54 minutes long unedited tape is to be kept outside the United States in safe custody of one of API’s Lawyers based in Ontario, Canada.

We’ll see. On Berg v. Obama going to the Supremes, Jeff continues the rest of his posting with these two paragraphs:

Still, even with the focus shifting to the Supreme Court appeal, the odds of the highest court in the land actually granting certiorari and hearing Berg’s case are slim. Even though appealing directly to the Supreme Court without first exhausting other options in the Circuit Court level, while a rare move, can be done with regard to substantially urgent matters, the Supreme Court is presented with approximately 8,000 petitions for certiorari each year but only grant about 75 to 120 of those. Personally, if it were me, I’d exhaust my options with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals before going to the Supreme Court — this way, I could avoid a possible procedural error. While that may delay the outcome of the case until after the fourth of November, I’d rather delay it than watch it tossed for an improper appeal.

In the unlikely event, though, that four of the nine Supreme Court Justices decide to hear the case, Berg will first have to establish that, contrary to the arguments put forth by Barack Obama and the DNC and the specifics of the decision rendered by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, he indeed has standing to sue. As I’ve pointed out in these pages before, the standing doctrine as it stands today does not bode well for Philip Berg.

I continue to maintain that the best way to pursue this action — regardless of whether anything happens before or after November 4, but hopefully by December 15 — is by going State by State.

-Phil

---

Update:

 

Jeff further updates the next steps that Mr. Berg is taking in Berg v. Obama:

Today, should everything go according to plan, only five days after his federal lawsuit against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was dismissed for lack of standing from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, attorney Philip Berg will file his appeal in Philadelphia and, once it is docketed with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, will travel to Washington, D.C. to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

There, Berg says, should things progress on schedule, he will be accompanied by a television crew from Fox News Channel.

“Despite the setback we received on Friday,” Berg said, “I feel as though we really do have momentum here. And, while this course of action may not be your standard fare, I think that we’re too close to the election and too close to a constitutional crisis in America to not pursue this to the best of our ability.”

…

“Should my case be heard, and it should,” Berg said, “Barack Obama will need to argue that the American people have no right to challenge whether or not a candidate for president of the United States actually is constitutionally eligible, in the eyes of our founding fathers, to serve in the office of the presidency. That’s not right. That’s not right at all. If the American people are not injured by a fraudulent candidate collecting $600 million while campaigning for an office he cannot constitutionally hold, if the American people do not have standing, then who does?”

Godspeed to Mr. Berg.