Replies

As stated, standing was found. You were wrong about that. As stated, Rule 11 deals with pre-filing inquiry, which was not even examined. It is acknowledged in filing for cert the affirmation of Robertson without any further analysis is believed to be an error. It is clear that the appeals panel was successfully intimidated and affirmed clear error. What remains to be seen is whether the intimidation will reach enough justices of the Supreme Court. Only time will tell. You do not deal in reason or the law but rather in the currency of the lickspittle. It is evident that the appeals panel approved the Robertson decision, that does not make their approval free of error, particularly since they adopted without comment or anlsysis his opinion, based as it was on “blogging and twittering.” Obviously you indentify with that reasoning and cannot make an independent analysis of it because of your own bias.

The following is found on page six of the defense’s Motion to Dismiss in Hollister v Soetoro: “Furthermore, plaintiff does not allege that any injury was caused by defendants, or that it can be redressed by a decision from this court. Because plaintiff has not established standing, the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).”
Judge Robertson made no ruling on standing and dismissed the suit on “failure to state a claim.” The absence of a ruling on standing does not mean that standing was granted.

I suggest that you read Judge Robertson’s explanation of why the legal theory being presented by the plaintiff of “interpleader” was flawed and does not pertain to presidential eligibility at all. It’s a claim used in insurance cases.
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv2254-21

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008cv02254/134576/