Next week, I will be traveling to Washington DC. To hear oral arguments in a case before the United States Supreme Court involving the False Claims Act. Now, I've never been to the Supreme Court, I've never been anywhere near it. But in going here, I wanted to take the Swell community with me because I think it is an opportunity that you may want to ride along for. This is a case that I've been personally in in because it is a whistleblower case
phil spade
@Phil · 2:41
This is filed on the behalf of 33 state attorneys generals and one of their main points is that if this is not overturned, this could potentially bankrupt Medicaid in their states. Now, you can read through the 33 states that actually put their name on this. This includes both red and blue states. So this is not a left versus right issue here. This is about fraud and capturing fraud for the United States government
phil spade
@Phil · 2:21
And in fact, Charles Grassley led authored a bill in 1987 to further really kind of redefined and make sure that there were no ambiguities in the definition of fraud itself. Whether somebody was knowingly or unknowingly committing fraud, it really sought to strengthen that language. And that language is exactly what is under fire in this case. But the history here is something that I found super interesting. A lot of things that I was not aware of that I did not know
Swell Team
@Swell · 0:15
phil spade
@Phil · 4:30
And he is a Christian who observes the Sabbath being a holy day and a day of rest. He does not work on Sundays. They started requiring him to work on Sundays, so he had to make a decision between his religion and his work. Now, the courts so far have been on the side of the US Postal Service
phil spade
@Phil · 1:03
However, as people move out of the first case, hopefully we can get in and be in there for the second case here. So rather quiet here today. There's a line to get in, but there's really no protesters. There's nobody really making any noise. It's a rather quiet day and just to a long line here for people waiting to get in
phil spade
@Phil · 2:41
Clarence Thomas had a few questions. I think I know where he's going here. But if anybody else listened to it, I would be more than curious on what you thought and what you're thinking is going to be the ruling coming June. But for all the pomp and circumstance, it really wasn't all that long. It was only about an hour, and it was over before I even knew it. So it was kind of anticlimactic in that regard
phil spade
@Phil · 2:20
Clarence Thomas was the author of this, and he systematically destroyed every single argument that Safeway and Safeco had brought up. And I think common sense tells you that that is the right interpretation of the law here. It just makes so much sense, and it really does say a lot in my eyes just how convoluted the system is underneath the Supreme Court