(Supreme) Court Tightens Whistle-Blower Rules

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Court Tightens Whistle-Blower Rules

By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Tuesday, March 27, 2007; 10:49 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court made it harder Tuesday for whistle-
blowers to share in the proceeds from fraud lawsuits against government
contractors.

The court ruled 6-2 that James Stone, an 81-year-old retired engineer, may
not collect a penny for his role in exposing fraud at the now-closed Rocky
Flats nuclear weapons plant northwest of Denver.

Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said Stone was not an original
source of the information that resulted in Rockwell International, now part
of aerospace giant Boeing Co., being ordered to pay the government nearly
$4.2 million for fraud connected with environmental cleanup at the Rocky
Flats plant.

Rockwell must pay the entire penalty anyway. The only question before the
court was whether Stone would get his cut.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032700894.html

[no_hypocrisy]

1. So that means if you are a potential whistleblower, you're doing it

solely for the sake of integrity and principle. Accepting money would make this gesture morally corrupt.

Huh uh. I don't buy it.

[goclark]

2. Bush Court wins again

Mean people

[Bitwit1234]

3. And did you see.....

They have asked for an investigation into the reversal of the guilty verdict of the people who jammed the phones in New Hampshire. The US attorney and the Justice Department are now going to be investigated.

How in the devil did the bush administration think they could get away with this crap they are pulling. I suppose they thought they would steal the last election and the democrats would be silenced and not be able to catch them.

[baby_bear]

11. is there a link for this? n/t

[fasttense]

4. The Dancing Supremes doing the jig for their masters. n/t

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

5. However, you might notice . . .

. . . that the Bush Administration was on the side of the whistle-blower in this particular case.

[Lasher]

7. I noticed that's what they said.

I think that was just for show. Can't run the chance that people might start thinking Junior and his cronies are on the side of rich people and corporations.

:sarcasm:

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

8. How clever of them . . .

I guess I should have thought of that.

[Lasher]

6. Reversed due to lack of "...direct and independent knowledge ..."

The SCOTUS doesn't like having pesky laws like this as a source of annoyance for their bestest pals. From the article linked in the OP:

"The company, backed by defense, energy and pharmaceutical interests, wanted the justices to restrict when an individual can collect for suing on the government's behalf."

And they did exactly that.

So I wonder what kind of legal expenses Smith encumbered. Guess he'll just have to eat them now. Don't look for people to come crawling out of the woodwork to sue companies on the government's behalf from now on. Which is the intended outcome, of course.

[underpants]

9. The False Claim Act?? You've got to be kidding!! IT.... WORKS

Good lord I mean how can you NOT think that that is a good thing? Oh I know you have a couple more bags to load into the van so the SC gives you pre-emptive cover.

[Lasher]

10. Not anymore

Wonder how good the return is on political contributions these days.

[underpants]

12. 386%

at least it was the first 6 months of the Bush administration.

I think it was something I read from Buzzflash-386 was the number but of course that was before 9/11. Everything changed after that I don't mean to imply anything I just wanted to point out that it wasn't 386% anymore.

[Lasher]

13. Yep, it is (or was) a good law

That's why the SCOTUS just did a torpedo job on it. Kinda reminds me of tort 'reform', only sorta stealthy. Priveleges such as corporate personhood and reductions in accountability should be making Publicans very happy these days.

[cosmicone]

14. I don't see anything wrong with the decision...

All the court is saying is that the whistleblower should be the source or originator of the information of fraud and not someone who joins after some aspects of the fraud were already made public.

It doesn't discourage someone who has inside knowledge of fraud and takes the first action with a lawsuit with concrete proof. It only discourages potential abuse where people read something in the public domain and file a lawsuit.