First Question
Can an illegal decision be upheld that granted a nonparty ' motion to dismiss
after it refused to intervene in a False Claims Act lawsuit filed by a private citizen
under Qui Tam legal provisions; especially since the Original Complaint et al., pled
specific, affirmed and admitted evidence of frauds that took place under the Higher
Education Act of 1965, et al., that defrauded both the government and relator?

Second Question
When the FCA prohibits retaliation against Relator engaged in protected
activities, 31 USC [2006 E]§3730(h), and lower court issued a Standing Protective
Order, is it proper for reviewing and lower courts to disregard the False Claims Act
Anti-Retaliation law, its own Order and Relator 's pleas filed requesting enforcement
of the law, relief and to stop retaliation of named defendants who continued to call,
collect fraudulent payments, garnish Relator ' income and offset federal tax refunds?

Can an illegal decision be upheld that granted a nonparty' motion to dismiss after it refused to intervene in a False Claims Act lawsuit filed by a private citizen under Qui Tam legal provisions