Vogt and Qui Tam Action?

He can’t sue on his own behalf, but he CAN exercise the right of coming in as a Private Attorney General approved by Act of Congress by bringing a criminal suit on behalf of the People.

In order to prosecute as a Private Attorney General the complaint must first be filed “In Camera” where it remains under seal for 60 days. During this 60 days the U.S. Attorney General has the option to pick up the case and prosecute it. If the U.S. Attorney General declines picking up the case to prosecute it, then the Private Attorney General is allowed to prosecute the case and the case is unsealed.

Source: Dinar Vets

This Qui Tam proceeding, which proceeds under the False Claims Act provides some obstacles.

1. The government may decide to take the case and proceed to dismiss

2. The court is barred from jurisdiction

A) No court shall have jurisdiction over an action brought under subsection (b) against a Member of Congress, a member of the judiciary, or a senior executive branch official if the action is based on evidence or information known to the Government when the action was brought.

While Vogt has filed some claims under seal, the substantial nature of the accusations have been shared with the government, used in civil actions and made public through news postings.

Read the Government’s motion to dismiss Berg’s Qui Tam filing and the court’s ruling

The False Claims Act provides that “[t]he Government may dismiss [a qui tam] action notwithstanding the objections of the [relator] if the [relator] has been notified by the Government of the filing of the motion and the court has provided the person with an opportunity for a hearing on the motion.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A). The “function of a hearing when the relator requests one is simply to give the relator a formal opportunity to convince the government not to end the case.” Swift v. United States, 318 F.3d 250, 253 (D.C.Cir.2003). In this circuit, the Government has, essentially, “an unfettered right to dismiss a qui tam action,” based upon (1) separation of powers, (2) “the Government’s broad discretion in initiating or continuing a criminal prosecution,” (3) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i), which allows a plaintiff to dismiss a civil action “without order of the court,” and (4) the fact that section § 3730(c)(2)(A) grants “[t]he Government,” not the court, unilateral authority to “dismiss the action notwithstanding the objections of the person initiating the action.”1 See Hoyte ex rel. United States v. Am. Nat’l Red Cross, 518 F.3d 61, 64-65 (D.C.Cir.2008) (citing Swift, 318 F.3d at 252).


2 thoughts on “Vogt and Qui Tam Action?

Comments are closed.