[jbjd]

When a Defendant asks to Dismiss based on several reasons, any one of which is sufficient to get the case dismissed, the bench may dismiss on any one of these bases without implicating denial of any other basis. (I previously mentioned the problem with ‘standing’ because this is the category about which most people complained, in relation to the numerous dismissals of cases related to ‘outing’ BO’s Constitutional qualifications. Their rationale generally went something like, ‘How can the courts say a citizen has no standing to challenge BO’s eligibility?’)

[AmericanVictory]

Yes, but in the Hollister case Judge Robertson specifically denied the attempt to dismiss based on Rule 12(b)(1) and specifically found that he had "jurisdiction" because of the federal interpleader act and then dismissed based on Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Already in the appellate briefing Bauer has admitted that Robertson "assumed" standing, which is accurate. A finding of subject mattter jurisdiction does indeed assume standing. We will see the issue again it is certain because a Court of Appeals may bring it up even though there was no cross appeal, as noted in appellants' opening brief. Nonetheless the Hollister at this point is the only case in which standing was raised and to this point, it has been denied as grounds for dismissal and that decision stands unappealed from.