Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : PanAmerican BanCorp (PABN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jhild who wrote (22107)	1/5/1999 4:18:00 PM
From: LegalBeast	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 43774

What is the matter? You don't have a copy of Black's Law Dictionary at hand? It is shorthand for qui tam pro dimino rege quam pro si ipso in hac parte sequitur. As for what it means, very simply that some person who claimed to have inside information wanted to get a reward for blowing the whistle. It means nothing else. It does not mean guilt, it does not mean merit. But for this person to get a piece of the action, it requires the government to also be a part of the suit. In layman's terms, the government was brought into the suit by a person who wanted to get rich. They had no choice. Had it not been for the greedy self proclaimed whistle blower, the government would NOT have been in the suit at all. The fact that the government was in the suit says nothing about the merits of the case. And, the US Government DID NOT TAKE IT OVER FROM THE VI PROSECUTOR! The US Government was simply a party to the suit. Now, then, take the real definition of qui tam and see how little sense your question makes. however, if it was your intention to confuse and place some other spin on the whole thing, I think I have completely defused any hope that you may have had in doing that. You said: <<<<< How is it that the US saw enough merit in the case to take it over from the Virgin Island prosecutor? >>>>> The US Government did not say the case had merit, nor did they take over the case. That is not what intervene means. intervene means that they are made a party to the suit. <<<<<It was after all a qui tam action >>>>> exactly ... they had no choice Like your buddy, Totally irresponsible to try to tell us what happened when you did not even understand the terms. THOUGHTS?

To: jhild who wrote (22107)	1/5/1999 4:53:00 PM
From: J T	Respond to of 43774

Sorry I see Legal already corrected the teacher! So Legal, being such a student of the law as you are, maybe you could explain for all of us what a qui tam action is? Is this what you are referring to? The"whistleblower", or qui tam, provisions of the statute permit a private citizen(individual or corporation) with knowledge of fraud against the Federal Government - known as the "relator" - to bring an action on behalf of the United States and to receive, if successful, a percentage of the recovery. PEACE JT