Well, like your buddy Rosie, you have taken that fatal step into being a babling idiot. Spin? Nope, not at all. Intervention is a legal term of art. So, don't look to the common definition in your Funk and Wagnalls, it won't give you the legal definition. It means that the third party, in this case the US Government, was made a party to the civil suit. Under the statute covering reimbursement to whistleblowers, the government cannot pay the whistleblower anything unless they are party to the suit. It does not speak to the issue of merit at all. The government had no choice, the whistleblower brought them in his attempt to get rich. As it turned out, the whistleblower got nothing at all.
It is completely wrong to assume that any case in which the government is included means that the government thinks that there is merit. Any case where the government has even a remote interest, they are a named party. For example, if you try to get your student loan discharged in a bankruptcy, the government is a party. not because you should or should not get the relief you want, but because they have to be since they are the ultimate guarrantor of the loan. Same with HUD as a guarrantor. They have to be in there. Merit? That is for the jury and in this case, the government lost.
Ethics? Get real and get some legal advice before you purport to know the law or how it is applied. |
