[metmom]

OK, if the left is up in arms over it and bad mouthing the judge, it must have been a good ruling.

So for us non-legalese savvy FReepers, what’s the Cliff Notes version?

[oldplayer]

The article explains it fairly well. If the government takes no action after receiving information about fraud in one of its programs, the individual citizen/employee that brought the information is allowed to sue on behalf of the feds and himself. If the suit finds that fraud was committed, the individual gets a large portion of the recovery. The procedure is designed to 1) encourage reporting of fraud by individual/employees, and 2) prod the feds into prosecuting the cases.
What happens in many cases, is that the fraud allegation is only partially documented, the feds don’t proceed, and then law firms specializing in these cases pounce like hungry wolves, get complete discovery and fashion huge multi-million dollar cases. It sometimes is almost fraud in itself.

[DiogenesLamp]

OK, if the left is up in arms over it and bad mouthing the judge, it must have been a good ruling.

Exactly my thought.

[af_vet_1981]

OK, if the left is up in arms over it and bad mouthing the judge, it must have been a good ruling

This

In the present distress, as a general rule, if the ABA and legal community are against it, it follows that it is probably a reform ( and vice versa ).