I am also puzzled, since the Supreme Court has repeatedly set out that Rule 11 focuses on pre-filing inquiry that you should assert that that is not the case. Do you think that your predictions about what a judge who, after all, served extensively in the same organization that Obama served on a key board of, override what the Supreme Court holds?
As to the famous statement by Holmes from the Common Law opening that the life of the law has not been logic but experience and his reference to the law as being what judges decide: I will not be surprised if in the Hollister case or some others we begin to see the law again reflect the felt morality of our people and move away from the type of "progressive" bias shared by Judge Robertson and Obama in which it is the allegiance of judges to an elitist view of what the law should be according to dictates not found in the Constitution.
Perhaps you could elucidate, for those not as experienced, all-wise and brilliant as yourself, just what in the Hollister case had no warrant in law or a good faith extension of that law nor any grounding in fact so as to justify Rule 11 sanctions under the clear language of the rule, specifically that is. That should be a cinch for you.
I made no misrepresentation. The interpleader statute requires conflicting claims (actual, or reasonably anticipated) to tangible property or to monetary obligations. If I am wrong, surely you can find one case in the history of the interpleader statute where it was applied to someone's "loyalty" to the President (or, for that matter, "loyalty" to anyone).
I am also puzzled, since the Supreme Court has repeatedly set out that Rule 11 focuses on pre-filing inquiry that you should assert that that is not the case.
You are again misstating my position. I never said it didn't focus on pre-filing inquiry; I said that, where the frivolity consists of asserting an absurd legal position, rather than a false factual claim, courts can (and most often do) adjudicate sanctions motions without holding an evidentiary hearing into the lawyer's inquiry.
Perhaps you could elucidate, for those not as experienced, all-wise and brilliant as yourself, just what in the Hollister case had no warrant in law or a good faith extension of that law nor any grounding in fact so as to justify Rule 11 sanctions under the clear language of the rule, specifically that is. That should be a cinch for you.
No need to get snarky. I never said I was all-wise or brilliant. I do have 32 years of experience litigating in federal court. Any lawyer could tell you-- and a great many did, as soon as the Hollister case was filed-- that this was not an interpleader case. Interpleader is designed to protect someone from multiple liability when they face competing demands for payment. The prototypical case is the life insurance company whose policyholder dies leaving behing two women each claiming to be his lawful spouse. The insurance company pays the policy amount into court and lets the two wives fight over who gets the money. In this case, Hollister claimed that, even though he was retired from the military, he might get recalled to active duty (highly unlikely at his age), and that, if he did so, Obama and Biden might each claim to be the Commander-in-Chief and would give him conflicting orders. This was a ridiculous legal position because his duty to obey orders is not a "property" or "obligation" that he could pay into the registry of the court; he was not in active duty so the likelihood of his facing competing demands was pure speculation; and even if he were recalled, there is zero possibility of conflicting orders, because, the last time I checked, Biden was not saying that Obama is ineligible and the military should be obeying Biden. Lots of people who are not Obama supporters, including many people who dispute Obama's eligibility, knew (and said publicly from Day 1), that Hollister was the weakest of all the eligibility lawsuits.
I'm signing off for the night; have a happy and healthy New Year!