[AmericanVictory]

You seem to be overlooking the use of interpleader in the Hollister case. The point of interpleader, as specifically stated in the federal interpleader act by the use of the word "may" and similarly in the language of Federal Rule of Procedure 22 is that standing is granted to the interpleader plaintiff to proceed in court in the anticipation of possible future conflicting claims upon, in this case, to use the word of the statute, his "obligation." The whole point of interpleader, tracing back into the common law, is to address what may happen in the future. Thus it is used in Hollister to address an order that may come but has not come yet. That is the difference between the Hollister case and the Rhodes case in Georgia. The interpleader claim gives a member of the Individual Ready Reserve the standing that Judge Robertson conceded in his opinion dismissing the case for a reason other than standing.

[OafOfOffice]

If it works, I will applauding! Thanks for the clarification.

[Canadian Outrage]

Wow, that was a great description of what the Interpleader really means. I’m married to a Lawyer and have worked with him for 23 years but we do business and corporate law, not litigation. He gave up litigation 21 years ago so I didn’t have a lot of experience with it. Just typing some court docs, affidavits, Statements of Claim etc. This is an entirely different area of the law for me. I did get some education however when my daughter got divorced. I hated it.!! That is “stress”. Divorce and custody are horrible. CO