because the administrative judge in fact had jurisdiction over his guns claims because she made non frivolous whistleblowing allegation i think with the ministry to the judge did make whistleblowing allegations they're entitled to a hearing and the court federal circuit would you have to make a protected disclosure that's correct rather under be eight you have to make a protected disclosure which is the disclosure of some alleged violation of law rule regulation one allegation specific or substantial state safety violation among other things so there are several categories and once you make a regulation i think both of those are covered on the board said this wasn't a government building and so there was no impact on the government is up well there was a it's not owned by the government of iran but there is evidence in the record i think that the fact is it was leased by the government was leased by the department of labor my client who worked for the mine safety and health administration was in the building and in our i guess and pages twenty three twenty four the appendix a cover that the government employee is dead but we are going to do that was a government least building there's evidence record when that was just a check or it was this but i wasn't clear to me and straighten me out on this was the space in which the hallways were stairways in which the smoking was occurring within that space at that time at least to the government or was that space which was anticipated to was under renovation such that it is it's paid for in twenty three that it is contracted space that was contracted for at least to the government and that there were solicitor's office  least on the state one second for another witness on a related floor not in the hallways not in the elevators but on the floor and some of the space there were already department of labor is working at that time they were she was there looking at space that she was about to move into which my my client didn't even to a couple of weeks later now i mean that request she did not have access to the lease itself at that time on the record without below but there are she has made those allegations and her evidence in the fine office of special counsel this space to be conscious space in its determination so i think that arlington county are ok but if she had gone next door to a rickety building that was a fire trap and had reported to the arlington fire department that this is a fire trap and what's more this fire trap is likely to go catch on fire and and injure the the people in the government buildings including me she says that wouldn't be a predicate disclosure but i wouldn't be here you wouldn't believe because because i wouldn't be she wouldn't be have in fact i mean smoking was pointed out reply being there is an executive order that prohibits smoking in all government buildings including buildings leased by the government and that's a very bring us back to the question removed anyway per unprofessional conduct to the architect well this is a word that well she's certainly the government's claim that below they've made the argument but there wasn't a patient of the decision below that what happens is that over time in the school case the court ruled that essentially here that they're if they make a well pleading complaint kind of allegation analogous to what we use in the district courts that their title to ford the administrative judge has developed a procedure where they would have jurisdictional hearings to weed out what they considered the non frivolous cases that the federal circuit and that eunice case to have the jurisdictional hearing separate since then the jurisdictional merits hearings by the district judges have been sort of merged into one century there are no separate jurisdictional hearings the more so i think what's happening some of the judges like the judge here instead of because they want to weed out your client but instead of having the merits hearing and the jurisdictional hearing together a set forth eunice they've decided sort of make some the corroborative evidence of supporting the jurisdictional last may well that's true and we look at it also because there was no citation cited well i think your art from this perspective i respectfully disagree because i think that is that is a merits decision if we had to actually prove the side prove the violation every time or show that there was a such violation every time you make it was a boy allegation it would require experience to show that and determine whether you have jurisdiction in the first place so that you would in effect have to have the merits hearing to show whether there was a violation or not i understand your honor's point that certainly the hearing and being having the right to a hearing here because i think the test is whether she simply made non frivolous allegations not whether there was a violation she prevailed on the merits now i see are cutting into my  reported that this is a government building let's say and she reported that there were drug dealers congregating in the parking area of the building on a regular basis and she noticed that they were armed and it looked like a dangerous situation she reported that and was told that just ignore it forget it you know this is your concern wouldn't that be a disclosure in effect of a lack of supervision by the government employees who are responsible for maintaining a safe premises and therefore the fact that the people the drug dealers and sells are not government government well they are implicitly what we've got here is a problem she's saying this is a problem that needs to be addressed by the government because this is a government space either now or in the that but again that's not well but wasn't she instructed to bring such complaints through channels not to take them to the fire department it would be irresponsible of our employer not to have been through it right but what i mean if if she was complaining for example that her next door neighbor at home was smoking and making a dangerous fire hazard in his house they wouldn't ask that the report through channels right and the reason that was going through channels is because it's a matter of potential government concern you know i think in this case reason this is the chance that this particular disclosure was going through the reason the government i traps right because that's not the case in the distant hover up is not an indication there's no that's not the question is is that an indication that there is a this is a matter of government concern that live have to be a direct impact on their mission yes i think it does and i think that's that's the or us versus department justice case that's what it is that it has to implicate the programs and pasty there has to be some indication that the governments encouraging this are benefiting the courts decided it doesn't pay you interest of the government don't have to be directly affected obviously i think if the building burned down and the agency responsible for mine safety was in the building it would be it would government's mission but they would potentially be whistleblowing a valid it was a war plan yet and a political report that it was going on because it was a fact and could the fact adversely the government's interest but what would be improper actions by the time trial it was didn't have anything to do with the government supervision or control that probably were in the reach on some cases another kid's side where there was a third party acting as a government  gratian so the fact that they were acting sort of not the government wasn't directly facilitated what they were doing but they were doing it pursuant to a government contract and the government could sort of de with what they were doing out there or feel as a government contractor i'm not even sure that people were aware this third party was a government contractor but in fact it work here i think everybody's aware it's public knowledge of this high rise building process is released in large part by the government and westfield realty the third party contractors were basically the landlord management company whose of what is worth continued to smoke in the building in may two let me let me see by understand how broad your or your submission is here because what i understand is would you just to be saying was that as long as you were a government contractor and and somebody reports misconduct by the contractor that that constitutes a disclosure for purposes of us blow well isn't that is that your submission not to what i think the government's interest and reputation have to be a fact well i thought you were arguing that the government identified with its contractors to an extent sufficient to in effect render the contractors agents for the government for purposes of a disclosure in which case you wouldn't need to have space that was rented by the by the government you could have a contractor in nevada in its own building having activities that would be unlawful and then the the person would say there's and that that provides that nexus with the government that could