puzzled about you and your brief your clients were state officials right that is correct and you're asserting that they have immunity because they acted in their official capacity that's correct that they have qualified immunity because they acted in their official capacity that is correct and you assert their official capacity as the basis for your suit five times in your papers in your brief right that's correct ok qualified immunity is a doctrine that only applies to public officials when they are sued in their individual capacity because the theory is that you can't get individual money damages against a public official individual acidy our argument is that all of the actions that are alleged in the complaint are while they are referred to in name as being in their individual acidy are actually sound in official actions of the defen will know because remember we just went through in the very st question five times you say they are being sued in their official capacity that you are defense and your defense that gives you a right to qualified say i believe there is some some miscommunication there misunderstanding it is our position that the allegations that there is no question that the appellee soused my clients in their individual capacity in my in my brief what i'm trying to make  to the court is that the allegations actually sound in actions that are taken in official capacity such as drafting you know an application for a pond or approving in forces for payment processing in government officials for discretionary activities taken in the individual's oficial capacity and that's not the st time you talk about your clients official capacity giving them a right to they're being sued for but the actual allegations in the complaint do not actually mirror what is wearing your brief to say that they're actually being sued in their individual capacity but if we are making a claim of qualified immunity because there you see my problem i do i do your honor i do not make the complement of a more complex if they're suing you in your individual capacity and you should have raised qualified immunity as suits in that individual capacity  sued you under the poor claim false claims i that's correct and to be under the false claims act you have to have criminal ments re a right that's correct if those allegations are sufficient then how can you have immunity to protect yourself from criminal ments re conduct well thank you your honor and that's that's our point is that those allegations are not sufficient there is not a fish allegation in the news let me just assume that the complaint accurately assess then why are we here we are here because the court could not because the allegations do not has the possibility to test the i'll get there's no allegations of self serving there's no gauges of hit backs there's no allegations of the other things in the in the cases  they say that they knowingly misrepresented presented presented invoices and you not have if they knowingly misrepresented which it's if it's true there can't be immunity from that can there there cannot be immunity from that if that is true what i know about we have a complaint to all the sex we take that allegations as true and tested as a matter of law then you're saying that as a matter of law there are your clients are entitled to qualified a transaction and they say knowingly misrepresented this knowingly misrepresented this and how do you handle that there are because there are no actual allegations with any sort of specificity that indicate that there was any sort of wrongdoing self dealing self serving take back any sort of monetary gain as a matter of fact if you look to the pre cursor citizens medical case which is found in my colleagues brief there's a footnote five there the reverse a citizen's medical case is a very different case from ours allegations against the official do not demonstrate personal gain which is never alleged in my colleagues to point this if they do not demonstrate personal gain or care in the suit is against the state itself not against individuals one of the the united states government and then the final problem is you're now apply an immunity which is usually to protect government to deny the federal government of money that it otherwise would be entitled other than the pro to officials for committing fraud i mean the whole part the whole point of the false claims act is to root out fraud in these contractual arrangements and other centric please listen yes judge and so you undermine the entire purpose of the statute by saying the false claims act despite what you may have thought here or provide immunity from for government officials of acting in their official capacity to commit contractual fraud i mean what kind of a ruling is that it is so bizarre i can't believe it and and i understand your logic your honor and that's to be to be certain we're not it you know admitting to any of the allegations in the complaint we haven't reached that stage yet where you have don't you understand for purposes of summary judgment we take the allegations in the complaint as true i do ok so that is the quandary that my honor they did let fraud against the say west virginia was regimes that you can only have qualified immunity against an individual yet now you're saying it's not against them individually i'm saying that they name them individually but if you look to the allegations of the complaint that is not well what are we are nature of complaint of charged with fraud charges them in their official capacity but regardless i'm unity doesn't protect fraud and that's the allegation of the complaint and now you say well the complaint is insufficient under twelve  all right thank you thank you