“Which of course says nothing about the underlying Constitutional issue.”
The Hollister v Soetoro case was the famous “interpleader” suit where Hollister tried to force Barack Obama and Joe Biden to litigate who was really president so that he (as military officer subject to recall) would know whom he owed his “loyalty” (a “loyalty” valued at $500).
The District Court in DC found the lawsuit to be “frivolous” and reprimanded attorney Hemenway for filing it. United States District Judge Robertson wrote:
“This case, if it were allowed to proceed,
would deserve mention in one of the books
that seek to prove that the law is foolish
or that America has too many lawyers with
not enough to do.”
Robertson's opinion was 'frivolous' and biased:
"We call the Court’s attention to our recently filed Rule 28(j) letter. The fact is that by the appellee/defendant’s own public statements he is not qualified under the Constitution, and he knows it.
Next, at App. 208-209 the lower court judge then engages in what has become and will remain his most infamous indulgence in bias and the appearance of bias from an extrajudicial source. We refer to his statement, which has traveled far and wide and repeatedly on the Internet, that: The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year- campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."
“The fact that a three judge panel at the United States Court of Appeals ... rejected the appeal of the plaintiff and affirmed the decision ... by the DC District Court speaks volumes.”
Why don’t you tell that to the New Haven firemen? The Court of Appeals in NY spoke volumes, too. Then the Supreme Court smacked them down. That’s what happens as cases wind their way up through the courts. 3-judge panels’ opinions are never the final word.