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!
Thus you began by asserting that the interpleader statute requires "property" that is worth over $10,000." Here, by contrast, is what the section of the statute that Colonel Hollister insists on pointing out says, disjunctively, at 28 U.S.C. Sec.1355(a) at the end of that subsection: ...,or being under any obligation written or unwritten in the amount of $500 or more, if ...
This is in fact the part of the statute that Colonel Hollister has repeatedly insisted was not examined by the judge below in holding as he did. You have thus made a substantial misrepresentation. You may have done so initially because you did not read the statute carefully before responding out of your presumed knowledge or thought that your memory was all-encompassing and reliable, but your persistence, when your error was pointed out, in insisting that you made no misrepresentation indicates that either your ego is such that you will not check accuracy when it is pointed out to you or you are willing to continue to misrepresent matters. Plainly the obligation of Colonel Hollister as a member of the Individual Ready Reserve is such an "obligation" as the statute refers to in plain language. Just as clearly by the plain language of the statute that obligation need be worth only $500 not in excess of $10,000.
Further, since we have never before elected someone so willing to engage in constitutional fraud to the Oval Office there can have been no prior case. Your insistence that one be shown is an illogical request relying upon the lack of such an individual prior to this time at such a high level in our national life as "proof" that Colonel Hollister can have no case. It is not a sensible argument.
Moreover, you admit that under the interpleader statute if Colonel Hollister had reason to believe that there might be a difference between Obama and Biden over who could command the calling up of the Individual Ready Reserve (to include Colonel Hollister) there might be an interpleader case. It is a matter of historical record that the opinons in the 19th century of Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, of Justice Story in Shanks v. Dupont and Chief Justice John Marshall (joined by Justice Livingston) in The Venus indicate that Colonel Hollister had every reason to believe that, from his perspective a conflict "may" arise betweeen Obama and Biden as interpleader defendants. You have not in fact deminstrated any specific lack of warrant in law or grounding in fact for the filing of the suit. You have merely repeated the unsupported and biased accusation of friviolity that the district court judge engaged in. You have not shown any justification for rule 11 sanctions under such Supreme Court cases as Chromatic Communications.
A further point exposing your misrepresentations, despite your claimed great experience is that Rule 11 law overwhelmingly requires a hearing where one is requested as it was in the Hollister case and one was not granted here though requested. Such as hearing allows the presentation of pre-filing inquiry which is why the case law demands that it be granted. Robertson's refusal of such a hearing was such a violation of established law that it indicated he was relying upon his evident bias based on extrajudicial sources not the law. Further still, there are many cases, also invoked by Colonel Hollister and his counsel that require discovery in such situations. Again, this was refused. Leave alone the issue of where Obama was born according to the allegations of the Hollister complaint, your opinion on Rule 11 ia nor based on the law but on an unsupported ratification of the Robertson evident bias. Perhaps you are not an Obama supporter but one could scarcely tell, for your misrepresentations to support his positions are scarcely distinguishable from those who are his supporters who engage in misrepresentation.
At this point, for those who follow these matters here, it is important that your misrepresentations stand corrected. If you are not an Obama supporter you must surely agree that such misrepresentation as you have engagedin about the interpleader statute should not go unchallenged. Do you still want to insist that the interpleader statute says only that there must be "property" involved worth "more than $10,000?" Or will you agree that that is not what it says based on what it actually does say as set out in the United States Code? Do you still insist that a plaintiff such as Colonel Hollister had no business relying upon such jurisprudential giants as Waite, Story and Marshall and that relying upon them was egregiously silly?