Opinion ID: 3011653
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: R.S. has stolen my money, locked me up in court

Text: battles for a decade, ruined a relationship/marriage 3 engagement, harassed me and filed hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax liens against me. My exwife and her attorneys used perjured testimony and affidavits to induce the government courts to issue restraining orders keeping me away fr om my children. There just is no comparison between these interferences with my money and my kids, and someone propositioning a married woman in the office . . . . After you've read Atlas Shrugged two or three more times (I've read it five times) you may recognize Rand's belief that free men have a moral duty to resist abuses of government and to resist the ef forts of those who misuse government agencies and gover nment power for personal reasons. Her philosophy guides my subtle warfare against tyrants. Its [sic] a great deal more appropriate than blowing up federal buildings . . . . I suppose I would hope that if you learn anything from all of this it would be not to be so quick to rush to judgment about people . . . and that you would be careful about what you say about people. The next time you might injure someone less prepar ed to deal with abuse, or the person you injure just mightfile a defamation/slander lawsuit against you. Haan reported to the firm personnel manager, Anne Riegle, that she was terrified by the letter. Riegle noted that Haan was visibly upset believing that Hutchins might do something to her. On Friday, September 27, 1997, the law firm decided to terminate Hutchins as a result of the culmination of escalating problems with his superiors and with staff. When informed of the decision to terminate Hutchins, Haan asked the law firm to wait until after the weekend to inform him. Because she was taking the law school admission test that weekend, Haan explained that she was afraid Hutchins would attempt to disrupt her . She also asked to be excused from work the following Monday and Tuesday so that she would not be present when Hutchins was discharged. Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer agreed. On Monday, October 2, 1995, Hutchins requestedfiles from the accounting department reflecting the law firm's 4 billing of Westlaw and LEXIS expenses. The accounting department denied him access. Two hours later , Hutchins was informed that he was fired. On October 18, 1995, Hutchins notified the United States Trustee by sworn affidavit that he believed Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer had engaged in fraudulent and unlawful billing practices. He filed a pro se qui tam complaint under S 3729 of the False Claims Act alleging W ilentz, Goldman & Spitzer submitted fraudulent billing statements to the United States Bankruptcy Court and that the lawfirm violated the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. S 3730(h), by terminating his employment because of his investigation into the firm's billing practices. The District Court dismissed Hutchins's qui tam claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(6),1 and granted Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer summary judgment on Hutchins's retaliatory discharge claim.2