Procurement and contract law

Procurement and Contract Law

In your opinion, does Stone qualify as an original source for purposes of the FCA? Why or why not? Which side is most convincing: the majority of the court or the dissenters? If this case was heard by the current Supreme Court of the United States, do you think the outcome would be the same or different? Why? Use information in the briefs for the petitioner and the respondent to support your position along with the decision of the United States Supreme Court.

I believe Stone did not quality as an original source because he predicted the fraudulent activities of Rockwell and did not actually witness it firsthand. He could have easily made up everything and the court would choose in favor of the company. Since FCA wants it as someone who is an "original source," he does not meet their expectations. A person who would better fit this scenario is those that actually work in management, such as a manager or supervisor. Furthermore, Stone was not in this type of position, so it is hard to prove what it is he is actually trying to prove to the federal and state judges.

The side that is most convincing is that of the court. This is because they frequently refer back to the law and provide much argument on why Stone was not an original source despite him attempting to get justice at his workplace. In fact, when much investigation was done to find out what was going on within the organization and to find out if Stone's accusations were true. They stressed that his words were forecasted. Anyone could conclude that what he said could have easily become made up in order to win some money from the Rockwell. I think that despite the fact that he was a year away from retiring, he chose to take management to court. He should have waited until he was in retirement, so that he would not lose any of his benefits, and this was a poor choice on his part despite the court's decision.

The current Supreme Court would agree with the findings in this particular case. Most of the time when anything transfers from a district court to the next one in that is higher up, they usually agree with each other's evidence that was found. On a few occasions, justices will decide otherwise. According to the reading material, the Supreme Court had a 6-2 vote, and believed that Stone was not the originator of the information that he accused Rockwell of when taking legal action. However, since the district court said that with Stone's predictions his words were enough to make him the original source of authentication. Ultimately, the choice is up to the individual on whom to take sides with in regards to this scenario.

Did you enjoy listening to the oral arguments and the opinion announcement of the court? Why or why not? Did anything about the oral arguments surprise you, such as the questions raised by the justices or the dialogue back and forth? Did you feel either party was more persuasive with its oral argument?

I did enjoy listening to the oral arguments and the opinion announcement of the court. This is because a person is able to understand the history of Rockwell much better, and the opportunity to understand both sides of the case. An individual is able to grasp the account of the drama that took place during that time clear up until the present. Anyone who hears the conversation quickly learns that Rockwell purposefully chose to have products on the market to harm consumers. When in reality, this should not appear as the case for anybody to endure because someone could get hurt, and the company is more likely to face a larger law suit that could make the business go bankrupt. Upon seeking to identify with both sides, a person has to consider every argument before making a decision because there really are two sides to every story, which is where the justices were divided in the federal and state level.

The dialogue through the conversations was not shocking to me at all because they are typical in a court case because both sides are attempting to prove and win their case with the judge. I would approach it the same as the justices due to needing to make a decision where everyone is satisfied with the outcome. In the end, Rockwell won their case and so did Stone. All the questions raised were thought provoking. Anyone who was trying to make their point did an excellent job. If I were the lawyer, I would do everything possible to attempt to understand the problem in order to come up with a solution. With this case, many issues are present, such as laws that are broken and who has the original information. Much contemplation would occur, and a decision would take time.