Replies

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?

I was posting from home, without the statute in front of me, and forgot that the jurisdictional amount was $500 rather than $10,000. Mea culpa. But the statute still says "any obligation written or unwritten in the amount of $500 or more," which every single reported case in the history of the interpleader statute has construed to mean a monetary obligation. Neither you nor Hollister has ever shown one case to the contrary. Hence the frivolity of the claim.

As to the second prong of the statute, the fact that there may be conflicting dicta in cases as to what "natural born citizen" means is neither here nor there. For that issue to affect Hollister more than any other citizen, he would have to be facing competing demands. It is clear as day that Biden and Obama are not making any conflicting claims against Hollister. If Hollister actually got recalled to active duty (he wasn't) and actually received conflicting orders (he didn't), we could argue if that prong were satisfied, but as of the day he filed his complaint it was frivolous squared. It would be as if I sued you tomorrow because someday you might run me over in your car. Hence the dismissal, sanctions, and the unanimous affirmance by the Court of Appeals. As I stated above, even if Obama were proven ineligible, Hollister's interpleader claim is still frivolous on multiple grounds.

You are still mistaken. The obligation is from the Colonel to serve if the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve is called up. "Obligation" is a word of plain meaning. He must fulfill that obligation, which is in writing on his discharge as the discharge papers were attached to the complaint. That obligation is worth what he will be paid as a full colonel. A private's obligation is worth more than the statutory amount. There is no question but that the obligation of a colonel is worth far more. There would have been no reason to include the "obligation" clause in the disjunctive if it referred to money or property. They are both covered in phrases that are disjunctive earlier in the subsection. It also should be noted that the federal interpleader statute which caused Robertson to acknowledge that he had jurisdiction, and, therefore, standing, also includes suits "in the nature of interpleader" and so the complaint alleged that the Hollister included included in his claims. And we are talking about an acknowledged equitable remedy by history going back into the common law and by statute. Again, we have never had a completely constitutionally fraudulent candidate in the Oval Office before. There are cases which, it is clear from reading the filings, involving obligations, which cases Hollister and his counsel cited.