Replies

And Merry Christmas to you. I believe that the "clear language" reference is to a doctrine developed in case law, including particularly Supreme Court case law, that if the language of a stattute is clear there is no need to look to legislative intent. Since the meaning of "obligation" is common and well known, it's use in the federal interpleader statute is subject to that doctrine. Colonel Hollister's argument is, I believe, that he clearly has an "obligation" as a member of the Individual Ready Reserve. The word "obligation" is used in the statute as one of a list of things that would make one subject to the interpleader statute so as to be able to bring a case under that statute.

What is unique about the Hollister case at this point is that it is the only case about the eligibility of the man occupying the Oval Office in which a court has found that it has subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Robertson, in the District Court, found that he had jurisdiction but then dismissed the case under Rule 12(b)(6) of the federal rules for what he held was a failure to state a claim. A chief element of his finding in this regard was that he found that the obligation of Colonel Hollister to report to duty if called back was not "property." But the interpleader act does not just refer to property. After listing several kinds of property that can create interpleader jurisdiction it then lists an "obligation" in addition to the kinds of property it mentions. This list, in which "obligation" is the last item, is in the disjunctive or alternative, that is, if one item in the list applies then there is jurisdiction.

The point of the sentence seems to be that the lower court only focused on the listings of types of property and on that basis dismissed the claim and thus failed to consider "obligation" as a possibility. Clearly Colonel Hollister made allegations that he had such an "obligation." Hence, if the appellate judges wish to engage in political protection of the man in the Oval Office they will have to find some reason that an "obligation" is not what a member of the Individual Ready Reserve has.

A watching public might find that for appellant judges to hold that the duty to report back to active duty if called is not clearly an "obligation" would be a failure to uphold the Rule of Law.

I apologize for not grasping the point of your confusion.