Citizens Bring Agnew (and Trump?) to Justice:
In Bag Man (@maddow's outstanding podcast), after Agnew resigned but kept his bribes, we learn that Maryland taxpayers sued & won.
Could you do the same to Trump?
Spoiler: Unlikely.
But research state Qui Tam.
shugerblog.com/2018/12/25/qui…
In Bag Man (@maddow's outstanding podcast), after Agnew resigned but kept his bribes, we learn that Maryland taxpayers sued & won.
Could you do the same to Trump?
Spoiler: Unlikely.
But research state Qui Tam.
shugerblog.com/2018/12/25/qui…
2/ This is the episode of @maddow's Bag Man (Episode 6) telling the inspiring story of GW law professor/activist litigator John Banzhaf's students suing Agnew under what seems to be a state Qui Tam provision to force him to repay $250K in bribes. nbcnews.com/msnbc/maddow-b…
3/ Ok, this is cool. Prof. John Banzhaf publicly commented on my blogpost on the case he and his students won against Agnew: 
4/ Based on Prof Banzhaf’s answer, my question is whether the common law writ of Qui Tam survives separately from the federal False Claims Act and remains broader. My research so far (including modern narrowing of federal Quo Warranto and mandamus) doesn’t make me optimistic...
5/ Aha! @ProfBanzhaf is on Twitter! Thank you for your inspiring and creative litigation against Agnew.
So is there any remaining federal qui tam cause of action by taxpayers against Trump?
So is there any remaining federal qui tam cause of action by taxpayers against Trump?
6/ Some promising signs...
I might be missing something, @NealGoldfarb @ProfBanzhaf, but:
First: The All Writs Act of 1789 seems to be a statutory basis for Qui Tam...
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28…
I might be missing something, @NealGoldfarb @ProfBanzhaf, but:
First: The All Writs Act of 1789 seems to be a statutory basis for Qui Tam...
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28…
7/ Qui tam seems to be covered by All Writs Act, 28 USC 1651:
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue *all writs* necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue *all writs* necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
8/ The next question is whether another federal statute explicitly restricted qui tam. One possibility would be the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which abolished or restricted other writs...
But no mention of qui tam! (That's good).
uscourts.gov/sites/default/….
But no mention of qui tam! (That's good).
uscourts.gov/sites/default/….
9/ And I can't find any language in the False Claims Act, 31 USC 3729-3733 limiting qui tam to its provisions. In light of the All Writs Act, qui tam exists, and is only procedurally re-directed by False Claims Act.
Bottom line: federal qui tam lives?
Bottom line: federal qui tam lives?
10/ I'm not saying that I know a taxpayer could win a qui tam claim against Trump in federal court.
I'm simply suggesting that we can learn from @ProfBanzhaf and his students against Agnew, because there are signs that a similar argument might work here.
I'm simply suggesting that we can learn from @ProfBanzhaf and his students against Agnew, because there are signs that a similar argument might work here.
