Dr. Orly Taitz, the spirited and unstoppable activist who is counsel for the Plaintiffs (one of whom is Gail Lightfoot, Libertarian vice presidential candidate) in Lightfoot v. Bowen, reportedly had a conversation with US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Linda Starr shared the following commentary on Phil Berg’s web site (via the RovingPatrol blog):

“She called me this evening to give me reports on some interesting things I suggested to her when we spoke yesterday. She told me about her visit with Fitz. She said he seemed interested in what she had to say to him.

Based on several conversations I’ve had with different people, I’m feeling good. And nervous, but good nervous. SCOTUS has handled Phil’s case differently than anyone else’s case. Also, I remind you that Phil is the only one who was a former Deputy AG who prosecuted criminal cases. He looks at this case in ways a prosecutor looks at getting convictions. The other cases which came before the SCOTUS have all been thrown out quickly. Phil cited precedent setting cases that would give him standing.

I believe the SCOTUS will not punt this case. It’s too important to upholding our Constitution. It’s hard for me to believe they would allow the Constitution to be destroyed on their watch. Especially after 2000. It’s hard for me to believe they will ignore it just to put a Black man in office. It’s hard for me to believe they will punt this case because of fear of Blacks threatening to start race riots. We cannot submit to blackmail or threats. We can not allow this country to be held hostage by race. I think it is clearly obvious too many people in DC know Barry is not eligible, and that is why Biden & Clinton have not resigned their Senate seats. I think it is proof they believe the SCOTUS will handle this issue and deal with it. I think Howard Dean wanting to get out supports my beliefs.”

Dr. Taitz also went on to further comment about the state of her case at the Supreme Court…

I would like to explain that we didn’t win the war yet. This is only a battle, but it is important. A number of people asked to explain, how is it different from previous cases. As you know, I referred the case to Chief Justice Roberts and he had two options: to deny or to distribute it to be heard by all 9 judges in a conference. He has chosen to refer the case to be heard at a conference of all 9 judges. Decision of the Chief Justice is important, as it is believed that a number of justices on the court follow his lead, media and legislature listen to what he has to say. 
What about the date? From what I understand the conferences are scheduled every week once a week. Berg’s case is scheduled for 9Th and 16s. The next available date was a week later, the 23rd and that’s when the case was scheduled. I will see what happens tomorrow with the certification of the electoral vote. If one congressman and one senator objects, then both Berg’s and my cases will become moot and the issue will be probably resolved in Congress and Senate. In case the electoral vote is confirmed, then I will send another letter to the Supreme Court, asking to move my case to an earlier conference on the 16Th. I need to explain that even if I am successful in moving it to the 16Th, it is not the final disposition of the case. After the case is heard at the conference by all 9 Justices, they vote. If 4 out of 9 vote for the case, they schedule the next step, the oral argument. If 5 out of 9 vote for the case at the oral argument, the case is won. The court needs to give the other party notice to prepare for the oral argument, which means that most likely even Berg’s case that was scheduled for the 9Th and 16Th will not be heard before the inauguration. Even if it is heard before the inauguration, probably there will not be a final decision by the court before the inauguration. Most likely the case will be decided after the inauguration. Keep in mind Nixon was involved in Watergate before the election, however the decision of the Supreme Court to hand over the tapes came down after the election and Nixon was forced to resign. We have to look positively, we have to start with the premise that we have to win and work as hard as possible to achieve this goal. Fraud cannot prevail. We hope the decision will come before the inauguration, but if not, we will keep fighting until we win.

She finishes out the posting with what she believes the timing of her and Phil Berg’s case (Berg v. Obama) being heard at the Supreme Court means. The entire posting is not long and is, in my opinion, a definite improvement over her earlier press release about her case.

It is also to be noted that a military case could very well be forthcoming:

[I]n re. to military case. We were planning to file today in GA. A local attorney that was supposed to co-sign the papers has some personal problems. We need a local attorney in GA. Please contact me if you know of a GA attorney that can co-sign simply for the purpose of receipt of the documents from the court.

Of course, The Right Side of Life will stay on top of these developments and report when credible information is in hand.

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

-Phil