TheUnitedStatesmayelecttointerveneintheactionandassumeprimaryresponsibilityforthelitigation,oritmaydeclinetointervene,whichallowstherelatortopursuetheactionontheUnitedStates'behalf.
31
U.S.C.
§§
3730(b)(2),(c).TheUnitedStatesalsoretainstheauthoritytodismissanactionwhendismissalisintheinterests
of
theUnitedStates.
Id.
§3730(c)(2)(A)("TheGovernmentmaydismisstheactionnotwithstandingtheobjections
of
thepersoninitiatingtheaction
if
thepersonhasbeennotifiedbytheGovernment
of
thefiling
of
themotionandthecourthasprovidedthepersonwithanopportunityforahearingonthemotion.")Mr.BergallegesinhislawsuitthatPresidentBarackObamadefraudedtheUnitedStatesbytakinghisSenatesalarywhenhedidnotmeetthecitizenshiprequirementstoholdaSenateseat.Hehasmadesimilar·allegationsinotherproceedings.
See,e.g.,
Berg
v.
Obama,
574
F.
Supp.2d509(E.D.Pa.2008).TheDepartment
of
Justicehasreviewedtherelator'sallegations,determinedthattheylackmerit,andconcludedthattheythereforeshouldnotbepursuedontheUnitedStates'behalfagainstitssittingPresident.
Seegenerally
MemorandumRuling,
Hollister
v.
Soetoro,
Civ.No.08-2254(JR),slipop.atI(D.D.C.Mar.
5,2009)
(attachedheretoasExhibitA)(concludingwithrespecttoanotherlawsuitbyastrawplaintiffforMr.Bergwithsubstantiallythesameallegations:"Thiscase,
if
itwereallowedtoproceed,woulddeservementioninone
of
thosebooksthatseektoprovethatthelawisfoolishorthatAmericahastoomanylawyerswithoutenoughtodo.Eveninitsrelativelyshortlifethecasehasexcitedtheblogosphereandtheconspiracytheorists.Therightthingtodoistobringittoanearlyend.").ARGUMENTTheCourt
of
Appealshasrecognizedthat
31
U.S.C.§3730(c)(2)(A)givestheUnitedStates"virtually'unfettered'discretion"todismissa
quitam
suit,including,ashere,beforethe
-2-
Leave a Comment