report was not decided by showing morality so that's a clear question there is no there is no decision by the u s supreme court on that issue it simply isn't something that they had to address and we think that the circuit courts interpretation of the term sta it doesn't on earth the use of the term throughout statute cases are clear that you have to try to interpret the same term consistently throughout the statute and the supreme court basically said the state is broadly defined as any of these units of government  question but if the records were produced and there wasn't a cover letter because you can't reconcile that with with the reasoning in that it doesn't make sense to say that you're simply because there's a cover letter attached to records that come by from the government that now public streets there's no appreciable difference between those two things numbers makes for that investigation by the way or can be enough to qualify as an original source so even if the public schools are probably otherwise the leader here should qualify as i don't think really really makes sense i'm saying this is a claim based on a contract beat the exception to the community does not say breach of contract claims it's claims based i contract in there's a contract here in the building was pursuing contract relevant information has entered the public domain through certain channels one of those channels is a freedom of information act response and that makes sense when you think about to go at the public disclosure on the case as players we want to encourage insiders with firsthand information to come forward but at the same time we want to discourage opportunistic lawsuits based on public information the government really just has an interest in paying a relator for useful information for example on the employee who works as a defense contractor and runs through his first hand observation scenario that his company has defrauding the government that's useful information and we want to encourage them to come forward on the other hand we don't wa takes government tightened resources to respond to those for the requests of the citizen rights that information to make sure that the ad tax revenue is being spent wisely that splay that's one level of incentive bad the incentive for the temp lawsuit is much greater and much more powerful the citizen in that situation potentially stands to gain thirty percent of what could be a very large amount of money when you consider the treble damages and penalties that may be included so we reserve that much more separately it's important to remember that this is a public disclosure board and not a government knowledge while there is no requirement in the statute that the allegedly defrauded density have actual knowledge of the relevant information in order to trigger the boy media  instead of administrative report i report by the affected entity or by the prosecuting entity and it chose not to do that it said a state report knowing that the definition of state that the statute uses here it's very broad it includes  allegedly affected entity already had the information it turns on whether the relevant information has crossed a threshold into the public domain through certain channels and the raiders a tray is pointed out that you get  potentially in theory some strange results if you applied that brad definition of state throughout the throughout the statute but i think just as a practical matter to address the two examples he gave if an unrelated entity the offense than the amount of money at issue and the unfriended entity certainly would have an incentive to go after the defraud or once that is a public information if the if the amount of money is high enough i think observing the operation of passes on city streets and the court said that would be sufficient to consider him an original source the difference here is he really doesn't read that he personally observed any officer working at night and working in india had he related here based his claims on was given to him by the government entities so i don't think you can claim to be an original source when you receive any of your information from other entities the trade immunity act provides a separate basis to cases such as this one where the rest no inside information it issue but the alleged whistleblower searched about with usenet with a request to attempt to find some instance of friday and i think that's what the public disclosure immunity act provides a separate  bring great claim and the reason that this is important is that asking times the entity to spend a friday it's officials are not particularly interested in broadcasting the fact that they've been defrauded it makes it look as though they were doing their