When the Lincoln Law was passed in 1863, there were no jurisdictional bars. Yet, in 1986, jurisdictional bars were prevalent, as they were first put in the qui tam statute in the mid 1940′s, and continue is some form even today. Jurisdictional bars effectively bar a court from looking at the merits, and bar the courts jurisdiction from a qui tam plaintiff–the relator. Most qui tam actions filed on the Dept of Justice are not ultimately pursued on the merits, and there are many misconceptions about how the qui tam statute works, and thus this is a matter to be explored. Jurisdictional bars have been treated as technical defenses by some to assist the defendants in qui tam actions.
It is odd that some would want that, when the purposes of a qui tam statute is to protect the United States, and its accounts from fraud, and schemes to bilk the U. S. In 2009, a bill is pending in the U S Senate, and it still has jurisdictional bars. The Senate bill 458 is not a real Lincoln law, it is being pushed by Senator Grassley. He is a pusher of jurisdictional bars. Lincoln, who was a real attorney would be rolling over in his grave. Senator Grassley knows very few jury trials have been conducted in qui tam actions, when the DOJ does not intervene. Others in Congress should confront him on that Chuck Grassley is not a trial attorney, never once stood up in court for some ordinary citizen. Less than 1 % of the fraud perpetrated against USA accounts is rectified . Now, in times of troubled assets, jurisdictional bars are not in the best public interest. It is not cost free for a citizen to bring a qui tam action, the DOJ never funds them(as it issues its declination notices), when they are being pursued by a citizen, and deter those who might consider doing so from ever being made whole, as it is expensive to pursue a qui tam action
Qui tam has deep roots in America. Abe Lincoln was concerned about corruption, and so he and his then attorney General implemented it in America. This blog will explore the nature of qui tam in America. And, how the False Claims Act of 1986 is not as effective as it should be due to jurisdictional bars which prevent actions from being pursued, all to protect fraud.
