« Morning Smoke: Clapper Tells Intelligence Community to Play Nice with GAO Auditors | Main | Morning Smoke: New Questions about Safety of U.S. Nuclear Plants »

May 17, 2011



What can Obama do about it??? The Supreme Court is its own entity, and checks and balances have been gone for a long time. Obama or Congress can not over-ride Supreme Court decisions. I havent went to look at the case, but I bet the knuckleheads that voted for this were appointed by Republican Presidents as it is a very conservative decision, protecting the conservative political money machine...I had a friend who worked for Brown & Root (Haliburton) in Afghanistan who told me they billed for the same materials more times than they even got supply's if they even got them....our tax dollars at work...but for who??

kay sieverding

I've been pursuing an income tax whistleblower claim against Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency for 5 years. I began my interaction with CIRSA because they sold local government errors and omissions insurance to the City of Steamboat Springs Colorado. I sued the City of Steamboat. I got CIRSA's financial statements originally through a state open records request and noticed they didn't list income taxes as an expense. The State of Colorado does not list CIRSA on its list of local governments. The Colorado Secretary of State has no listings for CIRSA and lists "Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency" as an "available" name. They aren't listed on GuideStar.org as filing IRS 990 nonprofit forms. I attempted to sue CIRSA in Denver County court, # 05-cv-5485, and the assistant AG filed "The Colorado Supreme Court has described CIRSA as a 'self-insurance pool' for public entities, but not a State agency'

I wrote again to CIRSA by priority mail # 9405 5036 9930 0087 1047 37, delivered 5/2/11 and requested copies of their 990 nonprofit reports or current financial statements showing they pay income taxes but they didn't respond. All non profits are required to file a 990 form of some sort and make it available to the public. The last time I looked CIRSA had cash of more than $12 Million and was selling insurance to almost 200 organizations.

kay sieverding

This article doesn't discuss Whisteblower income tax rewards

Patrick Carmody

It seems to me that Justice Thomas decision has very narrow application. As I read it, the point of the decision is that "anyone" could file suit by obtaining the information, the essence of a parasitic lawsuit. However, where the "insider" has the information regarding the fraud, but merely uses the documentation to corroborate his allegations for transactions (ie, where the specific allegations of fraud are not disclosed in the government "report" obtained), the Supreme Court decision would seem inapplicable.

Of course, the decision leaves a huge hole in the FCA: wilery malefactors will disclose enormous amounts of material, most of which will be benign, just to disclose the bad stuff and prevent FCA litigation. This is a classic Wall Street disclosure trick and will be used in the most eggregious cases.

How could the Supreme Court be so naive?


So wait... You can file a FOIA, discover wrong doing, but can't do a damn thing about it? Isn't the whole point of FOIA?? Being able to locate the fraud and prove it? I thought we WANTED people to discover these things and blow the whistle on these people.

Why would the Justice dept, find it sensible to make it harder to hold those breaking the law, and intentionally defrauding the small businesses out there trying to legitimately gain that business, accountable for their actions? I don't get it. Oh wait, I forgot.... It hides their own secrets


oh goody.. a law gets passed to make it harder to hold the law breakers accountable... how convenient for the law breakers.

our government is pathetic. Obama, please open your eyes.

The comments to this entry are closed.