Originally Posted by ChewbaccaD
If you don't want to be called out on your BS, don't post BS. It will save me the trouble of responding to your BS.
This isn't about the marketing exposure (consideration). This is about fraudulent procurement of government funds. You may not like that fact, but that does not alter the fact that you and mountainrman are barking up the wrong tree, and seem to be doing so for reasons other than presentation of legitimate argument IMO.
Chewbacca. So far your only apparent skill is rudeness.
If it was a slamdunk , they would have dunked it by now.
And i think that tells us something.
The false claims act is used when the government buys goods and services, primarily aimed at people who shaft it, so that the government does not get value for money as a result of deliberate misrepresentation. And that in my view is why they have so far not acted on this.
They are trying to work out whether they can use a hammer to turn a screw.
The point is - In as far as I can tell the key of the false claims act, is not only that a claim must be false it must also have been intended to defraud the government. And I think that is where the problem lies.
Fraud has to result in a loss or damages to the party defrauded or it simply is not fraud The fact of something being knowingly false is not necessarily fraudulent even if it is a term of a contract.
You show me a case of the false claims act used where the government did not suffer loss, where the government got what it thought it was buying, where there was no fraud, only a false claim, and I will revise that opinion. And until someone shows a loss arising that is where we are.
If the government bought a building which was fraudulently misrepresented by statements as worth many times what it actually is, the government has been defrauded by that because the building they were entitled to is worth far less than they could have expected. Notice the issue is the building, not the value for money that some idiot civil servant decided to spend on it, had it all been as scheduled and claimed - it is not fraud however lamentable the value for money.
The mere fact it is bad value for money does not make it fraudulent. It is whether the statements made mean the thing the government bought is worth less than they could have expected as a result of the statements - ie the false claims.
The government for whatever wacky reason decided to exchange a large sum of money for promotion for USPS Who knows why.
I think they were barking, to put money into a sport in which history says most doped - but hey someone in USPS decided promotion was worth money even in a sport with a dubious history: the tour was interrupted the previous year because of it!
In the UK our own government did similar with the "Milk race" to promote for the milk marketing board until it was shown to be ultra vires. Government departments I think they decided should not do that kind of thing!! I digress..
Now if our man made knowingly false statements which appeared to make what the government was getting for its money worth a lot less - like if the TDF was not televised, when they had knowingly falsely claimed it was, then he would be guilty of false claims. He made a statement intended to defraud in that case.
But he didnt.
And without the loss even if he lied it is hard to show it was fraudulent.
And in as far as I can tell, the issue is defrauding, and the act is a hammer with which they are trying to turn a screw, it is not set up for this kind of case, nor has been used this way before.
So I think they have to show it was intend to defraud, and to do that they have to show some kind of loss. And I think because it is a bag of worms with no clear precedent is the reason they have done nothing so far.
So let us see what happens... Nothing would surprise me in governments wasting money, including wasting even more money on trials of others about wasting money, that waste even more money only to prove that they were just wasting money, not were defrauded out of it!!
It begs another question of course.
If they go at armstrong for tens millions - who thinks it is fair that landis gets a quarter of it?