Obama "Vault" Birth Certificate (Original Long Form) Court-Battle Rages On. FEC Files Motion to Dismiss after Obama Gets Diane Feinstein's Assistance

Here is where he officially adds Di-Fi (fellow Senator Diane Feinstein) to his team on Oct. 20th, 2008. No conflict of interest here at all, right? Just a clean-as-a-whistle operation going on at Capitol Hill. (See page 2)
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/20/

Plaintiff has added four new defendants: the Pennsylvania Bureau of
Commissions, Elections and Legislation; Pedro Cortes, the Secretary of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the United States Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration; and Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Chair of the U.S. Senate
Commission on Rules and Administration.

And here is where the FEC (Federal Elections Commission) filed a motion the next day, Oct 21st, 2008 to try to get the court to dismiss (throw out) the case based on procedural rules.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/24/

Defendant Federal Election Commission ("FEC" or "Commission") moves to dismiss
the Complaint in this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s Complaint does not
present an Article III case or controversy because plaintiff lacks standing to
raise the issue of a candidate’s constitutional eligibility. Moreover, even if
Berg had standing to raise the constitutional eligibility issue, the Commission
should be dismissed as a party to this case because it has no oversight over the
Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause.

What they are referring to is this:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule12.htm

(b) How to Present Defenses.
Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required. But a party may assert the following defenses by motion:
(1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;
(2) lack of personal jurisdiction;
(3) improper venue;
(4) insufficient process;
(5) insufficient service of process;
(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and
(7) failure to join a party under Rule 19.

We can all follow (pretty much) the entire thing, as it unfolds, right here: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573/
(See: "Available Case Documents") Have fun E-mailing this to all of your friends...you can use the convenient "envelope" icon below to do that. It should be interesting to see how it all turns out.