I listened to Berg and what happened is much clearer to me
Quote:
The court stated that since the Federal Court of Appeals had ruled on a similar case, the judge’s hands were tied. Berg was then given the opportunity to convince the DOJ to proceed. If the DOJ asks for dismissal the Court would approve.
I did some digging and found that the Court
likely dismissed under Section 3730(c)(2)(A) which states that the Government may call for a dismissal as long as the plaintiff is given an opportunity to be heard.
Quote:
According to the panel majority, nothing in the language of Section 3730(c)(2)(A) requires the government to intervene in order to move to dismiss the suit. The majority also noted that the D.C. Circuit held in Swift v. United States, 318 F.3d 250, 251 (D.C. Cir.), cert denied, 539 U.S. 944 (2003), that the government was not required to intervene during the seal period before it moved to dismiss an action, based on the finding that intervention was required under Section 3730(b)(2) only in the event that the government proceeds with the action. The Tenth Circuit found that this interpretation applied to intervention after the seal period as well, and noted that other courts had applied this limitation to the intervention requirement. Ridenour, 2005 WL 300248 at *4 (citing Swift, 318 F.3d at 251).
In other words, the Government can ask for the case to be dismissed under 3730(c)(2)(a). Of course according to Sequioa, there are some principles to guide the dismissal, however they appear to be relatively easy to meet.
The case is “Ridenour v. Kaiser-Hill Co., No. 01-1510, 2005 WL 300248 (10th Cir. Feb. 9, 2005), and addresses two important issues regarding the government’s right to dismiss declined qui tam cases over a relator’s objection”
In a side comment, Berg denies having spoken about the sekrit case and yet a journalist reported on
November 2008Quote:
Berg takes this in stride. His writ, he says, requires Obama and the Democratic National Council to respond by December 1. Also, he has another arrow in his quiver. He’s filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., under the False Claims Act, which is often used in Medicaid fraud. “I am basing this on the fact that as a U.S. senator [Obama] is collecting money illegally because he is not a citizen of this country,” he says.
On Chalice, Berg remarks
Quote:
If I had talked about the case, they could have dismissed it.
Seems that the case, if it ever comes back to the lower court is ripe for dismissal on grounds of the plaintiff discussing the case in public during the time it was sealed. Berg is also claiming that the Court forgot to seal it but the rules seem clear that it is up to the plaintiff to make sure the case is sealed and to achieve this the case should be presented
in camera.
See
Berg's comment at nativeborncitizen blogSequoia references the 9th Circuit ruling
Quote:
The court unanimously adopted the Ninth Circuit’s Sequoia Orange holding that the proper standard of review for a government motion to dismiss is the “rational relation” test. Under the “rational relation” test, the government is merely required to demonstrate: (1) a valid governmental purpose for the dismissal, and (2) a rational relation between dismissal and accomplishment of the governmental purpose. Once this showing has been made, “‘the burden switches to the relator to demonstrate that dismissal is fraudulent, arbitrary and capricious, or illegal.’” Id. at *7.
The ball is back in Berg's court, no pun intended.
Login
Register
FAQ
was due yesterday , and there was nothing on the docket when I checked this morning early.
(Except we had wonderful fresh vegetables from the back garden). 
](./images/smilies/brickwall.gif "brickwall")