7 Jul 2008
The Past is a Foreign Country:Old Rules+New Technologies = Surprising Risks
L.P. Hartley, the English author, once memorably wrote that “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”
I am not yet old enough to collect Social Security retirement benefits. When I attended law school and entered into the practice of law, people appearing to talk to themselves as they walked down the street were considered deranged; Bluetooth was a temporary dental problem resulting from eating fruit; Blackberries were a fruit; Google was the misspelling of a very high number; cells were places in jails where criminal clients were detained; Shepardizing a case involved red paperback books; and Spam was a canned pink gelatinous substance that pretended to be meat.
L.P. Hartley, the English author, once memorably wrote that “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”
I am not yet old enough to collect Social Security retirement benefits. When I attended law school and entered into the practice of law, people appearing to talk to themselves as they walked down the street were considered deranged; Bluetooth was a temporary dental problem resulting from eating fruit; Blackberries were a fruit; Google was the misspelling of a very high number; cells were places in jails where criminal clients were detained; Shepardizing a case involved red paperback books; and Spam was a canned pink gelatinous substance that pretended to be meat.
categories: Information Integrity, Legal Perspective
14 Jun 2008
Not long ago, I responded to a comment about fraud and misconduct not being reported, with reflections on the history of the defense industry and the Qui Tam amendments to the 1986 U.S. False Claims Act. This week, in ALLISON ENGINE COMPANY, INC., et al., PETITIONERS v. UNITED STATES ex rel. ROGER L. SANDERS and ROGER L. THACKER, the U.S. Supreme Court made news when it voted unanimously in favor of restricting the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act. The bottom-line appears to be that whistleblowers will not be rewarded, if they cannot prove the false claim was a key factor in the Government's decision to make payment.
Probably good law, but not good sense.
Probably good law, but not good sense.
categories: Legal Perspective
