I beg to differ-- this was an eggregiously silly case, because it attempted to invoke the interpleader statute, when none of the elements of that statute existed here-- no property worth over $10,000; no competing claims to that property; no deposit of the property in the registry of the court; etc. Hollister avoided the standing issue only by invoking a statute that clearly had no application to this case, which is why the court imposed Rule 11 sanctions. Obama could have been born on Mars and this would still not be an interpleader case.
You seem unfamiliar with the statute. It does not require property worth $10,000. As mentioned before, the language in the statute at issue here states explicitly otherwise with regard to the “obligation” that was at issue here, which is clearly worth more than the $500 that the statute requires. A motion to deposit 5 times the required amoung in money into the registry of the court was refused. The statute does not require existing dispute between the interpleader defendants only that there “may” be conflicting claims. Perhaps you are driven by something other than a desire to logically analyze. Either you are not familiar with the statute or you are consciously misrepresenting it. You apparently believe that decisions about frivolousness can be made based on evident reliance upon extrajudicial factors not relevant to the case or the claims of the plaintiff rather than, as Rule 11 requires in all reported cases, an analysis of pre-filing inquiry, of which there was none. Rule 11 is not a license for a judge to decide that a case is “frivolous” without such an inquiry. You never post, I notice, but to seek to justify Obama. Are you instructed to make these misrepresentations or do you come up with them on your own?