Replies

What is the “federal interpleader act” and how was it used in the Hollister case?

My trouble is that I haven’t followed the cases very well because I’ve been doing my own research, and the legal language drives me nuts. I hate that stuff. I hate the legal motions and don’t understand what any of it means. If I apply myself to it I can generally figure it out but I’d rather swallow a bucket of nails. lol.

The websites which discuss the cases necessarily use so much of the legal language so unless I’m willing to jump all the way in and invest the time it takes to bring myself up to speed on all the terminology and procedures, it may as well be written in ancient Aramaic.

Are you saying that Hollister’s standing is based on the corruption of Robertson in the initial decision rather than on the eligibility issue itself? And if that is the case, then could anybody whose case was compromised by ethics and/or procedural errors would likewise have standing? Would it be standing on the original issue (eligibility), or just on the legitimacy of the decision itself? Would the appeals judge have to decide the case the way that the original judge failed to do?

Did Robertson deny Hollister standing initially? What was the legal point of his claim that the case had already been Twittered?

I think this is super-cute... notice the difference in RESPONDANTS!

----
SCOTUS Docket No. 10-446
Title: Charles Kerchner, Jr., et al., Petitioners
v.
Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.

----
SCOTUS Docket No. 10-678
Title: Gregory S. Hollister, Petitioner
v.
Barry Soetoro, et al.

----
...and the 2nd one does not refer to Barry as the POTUS! :-)

I hope the judges are reminded that Barry swore under oath he has never used any other aliases!

The federal interpleader statute is codified at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1335. There is also a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 33, which enables interpleader apart from the statute. The statute allows suits also "in the nature of interpleader." Interpleader as a device is rooted in centuries of common law in here and England as a device by which if a party has a stake of some sort, or, in the language of the statute, an "obligation," and that party has reason to believe that there may be two or more persons or entities that could lay claim to that same stake or obligation, then the initial party can in essence place his stake or obligation under the jurisdiction of the court and ask the court to decide which claim is valid. All parties who have the claims which may conflict are interpleader defendants.

In Hollister both Obama and Biden were interpleader defendants and the complaint alleged facts that would indicate that Obama could not lawfully call up the plaintiff from the Individual Ready Reserve so that there could well be a coflict in that case between Obama, should he elect to try and give the order despite not being lawfully eligible to do so and Biden who, under the constitutional line of sucession would be obliged to give the order.

Robertson dismissed the case below on a dismissal motion which Bauer, as counsel for both interpleader defendants filed. There were no hearings and it was the first and only dismissal opinion in which Robertson held that he had jurisdiction of the case because of the statute but then found, under the part of the dismissal rule that applies when a cause of action is held not to have been stated. There was no legal basis for the bias; it was entirely gratuitious.