between them and the statements were made in order to encourage the government to choose the john's controls product as opposed to other building manufactured products as you know from our briefs once they choose a particular building controls manufacturers believe a rule reason violation of the sufficient to support the false claims that violation and in fact they've relied upon to have a good case which suggests that if there's a regulation with actual discretion within the regulation then that could not result in a false claims act action however the all of the case later said that that was because that was a discretionary a statute that statute actually provided discretion c circuit decisions and i've not found a single place where they have actually addressed section thirty seven thirty efore he and explain how it's consistent with this additional requirement they've placed upon us here perfectly illustrates why the policy actually supports us rather than militates against us here we've already had an arbitration before count all the panel found that there was a first antitrust violation they found there was a little bit of a new scheme and i think regime was targeted both that non government jobs but also government jobs so that decision means that the government here our case because i think it's an excellent example of why the policy is not in favor of pelleas here cut both ways while i think for these purposes you need to assume that there is a valid false claims act action in the for the math for purposes of threaten to follow false claims act so you can never actually file one in order to try to pressure the defendants into providing them with a larger settlement than they normally would have gotten course the laws or extortion should prohibit that already that you could have that and of course that's not what happened underlies the public disclosure barring the original source exception of discouraging opportunistic plaintiffs who are the policy underlying the public disclosure bar and the original source exception is to discourage a cottage industry  its every day and then running to the courthouse to raise the government there to get a piece of the government's recovery without actually providing any benefit to the government and again this case and other cases that would be like this case prove that that policy  only have taken the position that if you satisfy wang you could fall within the original source exception that means that you need to be the original source of the public disclosure that you need to be the property the whistleblower by going public at least you can't have simply been sitting around and doing nothing but the third policy that the appellate have focused on is that dumb once there's been public disclosure a relator simply not necessary at that point because the government can proceed with the action if it chooses to do so combination i think it's hard to think what it's doing there but i think that what's going on is that the first provision you mentioned applies in all cases right the second provision on applies when there's been a public disclosure right so in cases where there's already been a public disclosure it's possible the government already some sort of policy reason out there within the government that would lead them to not want the case to move forward and i would argue that actually the district court's decision makes thirty seven thirty four the redundant because if you re or later serves original source to provide information to the government before the public disclosure then you wouldn't need to require them to provide information to the government before following the action thirty seven thirty four he becomes completely redundant do it twice essentially to make this person the source of the public disclosure and therefore a whistleblower which is what i was trying to make sure and then just say well even if that's the case and even if it's your information and even though the statute says you interest and the reason that's important your honor is because of the critical government interest here this is the government's claim and the government and congress and acting these nine hundred eighty six amendments one of these claims presented in this court has recognized this intervene what they should have done in assuming they had some reason to move their state court case faster as they should have gone the government they could have voluntarily disclosed they could have filed shortly there after the disclose and now you're saying you can't just call when you should you should not disclose the information while this while the government is investigating that's a critical policy and his jacket or his that gives me another problem under the statute you're saying in other words in one scenario you're suggesting as a would be whistleblower learns something he should go to the government tell them then he can file a false claims action submitted to the government and then made k and then when the governor and then later filed his lawsuit or something or one of the unsealed in a book and the government makes its decision about whether whether there's a fraud here whether it wants to intervene whether it needs to disclosure and you're saying you go to the government with a complaint in a lawsuit when there hasn't been a public disclosure at all how can how can anything come into play when you file a lawsuit that's not based on the public the the the where where allegations of of fraud she went to the government with them she did what she was supposed to do she presented them to the government and so no four at the first someone else who also had independent knowledge of the same fraud  government's claim to be presented to the government at the earliest possible time in in under solid person form so that the government can evaluate them so that the government can investigate so the government can see if a crime has been committed that's the in obviously under principles of statutory interpretation the court's job is to make sense of what what congress intended to do here and that the policies we've been discussing are important in evaluating that the structure of the statute the fun act complaint out of a criminal complaint criminal indictment and call it false claims act and get fifty percent of the government's recovery congress reacted to that in one nine hundred forty three with amendment saying you can't be a real later if the information you involve this sort of circumstance but you know if this was a a a potentially broader conspiracy that involved potential a potential criminal investigation that the government might want to undertake their real reasons why and that's section b why the government wants it kept secret you don't want to tip off the defendant to the to the allegation of fraud and i was just going to say your honor the the subsection the hypothetical if the relator is here had filed the exact same complaint that they filed in state court but had title that fast claims act and filed in federal court and did exactly what they did in state court which is serve the defendant there would have been a sealed violation and they would very court any trust case as opposed to a federal false claims act that that the it makes sense in our submission the trouble is you're saying that if they come to the government and  whether that's true your honor may but i think all of us only comes into play when there's no question about it no question about any if yes if you take the chances and don't go to the government promptly when you discover the fraud  and and there is no public disclosure in the meantime this doesn't this doesn't present a problem the problem is will be in this situation and i suspect it's a it's a special problem where the rollator him or herself causes the disclosure theory and otherwise in your theory the only way you can make any sense is if you go to the government and it's just somebody else comes in and makes a public disclosure in the meanwhile and if that happens i'm sure when you're out last well no if you went to the government first you're not i that's not how i read why you know i am going holds this this role later the later and when was not an original source because he just you know he just grabbed something that was already in the public record plank together with you know that's case we don't know exactly how that second false claims that came to be based on the luan opinion that that individual that woman was in fact protected under and would have been under our theory to and i ask choice they would be forced to choose between their own individual action and pursuing a claim on behalf of the government and they seem to assume that these individuals are going to choose the government's action over their own i can tell you that i don't think that's true in our case for just again i think it's a good example our clients were told you can for pursue a claim on behalf of the government after ten chilly it might be as low as a temper shot recovery of the government's damages that would move for their own actions and special occasions as the fence if we had delayed we would have jeopardized our financial coverage so basically the end result of their position is that many related are still going to follow their own action because that's where their self interest is and there's no reason they i understand the fear of a good samaritan and i like that but most people are not going to forego their own rights to pursue or cover on behalf of the government so the end result is going to be they're still going to fall on our behalf and once  they still are issues about preparing when you form a government you're supposed to provide them with substantial amounts of information i know you're not suggesting that they need to follow false claims act claim right away but to sue to encourage the government to get involved and to really provide them with the information they need we need to gather evidence and you need to put the pair presentation to the government's we did here we had our clients will back you five years of files to get more information so they can then get a claim specificity and make a presentation the there might not be an adequate disclosure to the government to protect our client from the public disclosure bar that under their version of that far i think that's correct so that's another issue  there i'd also mention they raised the dean decision and i agree the congress react to the dean decision and amended the boss claims act when it did so whoever didn't limit it specifically to the dean situation if you look at thirty seven thirty four a it specifically envisions disclosure through the media and then thirty seven thirty four b creates an exception which allows an original source to go forward so the dean decision yes involve the situation where response and i give information to the government