[ Reply ]
From: Marty Lawyer
email: mailto:CMLawyer3@aol.com
link: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1828.ZS.html
date: 7/12/0 12:05
Date: 12/21/00
Time: 11:48:56 AM
Remote Name: 207.251.188.199
1. I agree that the Sec. 8 participant is the victim. You might consider suing if U.S. Dist. Ct. for declaratory and injunctive relief.
2. Additionally, your client has a qui tam action against the landlord in the name of HUD (technically, ex relatio) for the amount of the tenant's side payments for which HUD over-subsidized the landlord.
In this regard, please take a close look at the very excellent U.S. Supreme Court case just decided May 26, 2000. Justice Scalia gives a great exposition of the law, then holds that such actions are proper, that the plaintiff therein had standing, but that the 11th Amendment protected a State from being sued.
Here are the style of the case and the website address of the opinion:
VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES v.UNITED STATES ex rel. STEVENS
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1828.ZS.html
A qui tam action under the Federal False Claims Act does have stringent notice requirements, so please make yourself aware of these.
Marty Lawyer