Rep. King: ACORN ‘Bigger Than Watergate’Rep. Steve King says the ACORN saga is “the largest corruption crisis in the history of America” yet he predicts Congress and the Obama administration won’t take action against the scandal-plagued community organizing group."It's thousands of times bigger than Watergate because Watergate was only a little break-in by a couple of guys," the Iowa Republican said in an interview with The American Spectator."By the time we pull ACORN out by its roots, America's going to understand just how big this is."Hidden camera videos emerged in September showing ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) employees advising a couple posing as a pimp and prostitute how to establish a brothel and finance it with government grants.But it also is accused of political corruption, election fraud, racketeering, money laundering, and countless other violations of the law, according to the American Spectator article written by Matthew Vadum, senior editor at Capital Research Center, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.Rep. King, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said Committee Chairman John Conyers will not investigate ACORN and a probe of the group is “not going to come out of” Chairman Charles Rangel’s Ways and Means Committee or Chairman Barney Frank’s House Financial Services Committee “or from anybody in the Senate. They're going to protect ACORN.“Congress is deliberately dragging its heels on ACORN,” and Democrats in Congress are “using everything to protect ACORN because that's the machine that keeps them in office,” said King.The congressman is especially angry over U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon's ruling in favor of ACORN on Dec. 11.Gershon issued a temporary injunction prohibiting Congress from cutting off funding for ACORN, ruling that the funding ban ordered by Congress was unconstitutional in that it singled out ACORN for punishment without trial. The Department of Justice has reluctantly filed an appeal.Gershon's ruling is "sweeping and far-reaching, and she even opined that ACORN has some kind of an implicit right to future contracts because they've succeeded in bidding on contracts that were similarly competitive," King said in the interview.He added that he doesn't hold out much hope that the Obama administration or Congress will decide to investigate ACORN, saying: "This is one-party gangster government and they know what they're doing.”
Views: 0
You need to be a member of The Patriots For America to add comments!
Since Congress apparently will do nothing substantial to address ACORN’s alleged violations, it may be possible for U.S. Taxpayers to file Qui Tam Lawsuits against ACORN Organizations.
Qui Tam lawsuits are filed on behalf of the government by private Citizens for false claims or fraud. Qui Tam suits are brought under the False Claims Act. A Citizen filing a Qui Tam lawsuit is referred to as a “relator.” The “relator” need not personally be injured by a defendant’s behavior. Importantly, the initial information used by the “relator” to file a Qui Tam law suit cannot be public knowledge. So it is important the “relator” locate specific facts that the public does not have before filing a Qui Tam lawsuit. Usually such information is provided by whistle blowers. A “relator” might recover up to 30% of the government’s total recovery in addition to civil penalties: that can amount to millions of dollars because past Qui Tam verdicts and settlements have been for hundreds of millions of dollars.
Your right Ross "Qui Tam" latin for "For the King" is mostlikely the only way to go. As you know however this investigation will go directly back to the White House and it's current occupant. The Dem-Left gangsters will block every move to investigate this case. DOJ will be little if any help and mostlikely try to block any Federal Grand Jury inquiry. Still it would be worth it to put the baster's in prision where they belong.
1ff439bs2h4a1 > John Henry MooreDecember 28, 2009 at 3:38pm
John
It might be possible to secure information for initiating a Qui Tam lawsuit by offering different types of rewards, for example persons having lawful knowledge of or legal possession of documented information, might be permitted under laws to participate in a court settlement should a court so rule. All information would have to be true and secured appropriately within the law. That is probably why most successful Qui Tam actions have emanated from whistle blowers.
your right we could start building a war chest to buy information. However to start with I think i will send out some FEIA requests to the current OIG fokes and see what if anything is currently under investigation. I just got the investigation report that was given to congress. If you want to see it I can send it to you.
John Moore
1ff439bs2h4a1 > John Henry MooreDecember 29, 2009 at 12:22am
John,
Importantly to initiate a Qui Tam Action the information you might find via rewards and other sources has to be “unknown” to the public. Information you might find in government and other “investigation reports” is probably considered “known to the public” except perhaps information that consists of unsupported allegations, which may be fair game if you locate appropriate facts and evidence. Throughout history Rewards have been used to extract the most important information “unknown” to the public” which can also be a condition precedent before receiving and paying for information, making it possible to reject unimportant information. Prudently before any information is accepted before or after a Reward has been made, an appropriate attorney should be located to stand between the receiver of information and the person offering the information. That way the receiver’s attorney may evaluate the information before committing the receiver to pay for it in some manner. The attorney might also be able to determine if the information, is being legally provided. An attorney may also help negotiate a “written agreement” including the amount of Reward to be paid, e.g., based on the value and use of provided information, before or after a successful Qui Tam action. Sometimes when rewards are offered as described above, people will show up offering false information, to steer potential Qui Tam plaintiffs the wrong direction. That should be expected. That is another reason why potential Qui Tam plaintiffs should in the beginning bring under their wing a sharp attorney who might also be a participant in the lawsuit. Interestingly, in some prior big Qui Tam suits against corporations the best evidence was provided by persons who worked for the corporations being sued. When rewards are offered, you just never know where the most valuable information might come from.
Replies
Qui Tam lawsuits are filed on behalf of the government by private Citizens for false claims or fraud. Qui Tam suits are brought under the False Claims Act. A Citizen filing a Qui Tam lawsuit is referred to as a “relator.” The “relator” need not personally be injured by a defendant’s behavior. Importantly, the initial information used by the “relator” to file a Qui Tam law suit cannot be public knowledge. So it is important the “relator” locate specific facts that the public does not have before filing a Qui Tam lawsuit. Usually such information is provided by whistle blowers. A “relator” might recover up to 30% of the government’s total recovery in addition to civil penalties: that can amount to millions of dollars because past Qui Tam verdicts and settlements have been for hundreds of millions of dollars.
It might be possible to secure information for initiating a Qui Tam lawsuit by offering different types of rewards, for example persons having lawful knowledge of or legal possession of documented information, might be permitted under laws to participate in a court settlement should a court so rule. All information would have to be true and secured appropriately within the law. That is probably why most successful Qui Tam actions have emanated from whistle blowers.
your right we could start building a war chest to buy information. However to start with I think i will send out some FEIA requests to the current OIG fokes and see what if anything is currently under investigation. I just got the investigation report that was given to congress. If you want to see it I can send it to you.
John Moore
Importantly to initiate a Qui Tam Action the information you might find via rewards and other sources has to be “unknown” to the public. Information you might find in government and other “investigation reports” is probably considered “known to the public” except perhaps information that consists of unsupported allegations, which may be fair game if you locate appropriate facts and evidence. Throughout history Rewards have been used to extract the most important information “unknown” to the public” which can also be a condition precedent before receiving and paying for information, making it possible to reject unimportant information. Prudently before any information is accepted before or after a Reward has been made, an appropriate attorney should be located to stand between the receiver of information and the person offering the information. That way the receiver’s attorney may evaluate the information before committing the receiver to pay for it in some manner. The attorney might also be able to determine if the information, is being legally provided. An attorney may also help negotiate a “written agreement” including the amount of Reward to be paid, e.g., based on the value and use of provided information, before or after a successful Qui Tam action. Sometimes when rewards are offered as described above, people will show up offering false information, to steer potential Qui Tam plaintiffs the wrong direction. That should be expected. That is another reason why potential Qui Tam plaintiffs should in the beginning bring under their wing a sharp attorney who might also be a participant in the lawsuit. Interestingly, in some prior big Qui Tam suits against corporations the best evidence was provided by persons who worked for the corporations being sued. When rewards are offered, you just never know where the most valuable information might come from.