of getting that information to the department of agriculture and the department of agriculture was looking for the information actually went out conducted this raid in february of two thousand and three of illinois because it would violate state law the sad part of the public policy issue in their first album is whether the kind of contact the defendant engaged in implicates public policy this day in the dust in several different ways number one i think it's pretty clear that the department of agriculture thought this was pretty important when they stop the sales see you can't have mislabeled seed going out there to the farmers there's a very big risk for economic concern for the farmers because with the farmers do is they put the b c put them in their planter and they spread it around thinking that there's going to be a certain number of seeds and they're going to have a certain population of soybeans growing and then when they get to the end what's in their seed or they find out they don't have enough and it's too late to go and shop it's not like going to the grocery store it's hundred incidents that the company was cited for so it certainly would be a crime it's also just plain old fact if you get money from people the end users for a pound of something in your only selling by one of the managers where there's actually two typewritten memo one where he figures out right away that this information had to come from the inside neither a current performer employing and then possible connection not a situation where they were trying to deliberately revenge money off were stealing anything in fact that completely misunderstands their their business model how they work there would be no incentive to do that there would be no benefit to doing that did it on their own investigation they could go in and but what if somebody reported that to them don't they have the responsibility as a dead here to go forward i don't know what their responsibility is but nonetheless that's not the issue the issue is whether what each individual did maybe have a what not all these protect but still feel things where they say going to your coworker giving somebody else the information is protected activity does it make any difference if they gave a good knowing he was going to give it to be of the policy of the state and there was no how the information guy then was clear in the case how the information got there but you think that turner just because it's restrictive overall would be restrictive on this point that's right that's right client is in control of the means by which they can ascertain if these bags are filled properly they have temp to put them in the stream of commerce they may or may not be  noticed that they are underweight and by your own admission in your oral argument by the time and the unsuspecting farmer has used the seeds planted them and winds up with an underpopulation in a given age group it's too late for any type of remedy you don't think prevention of that might come under the umbrella of an important public policy  there has to be some evidence from which motive can be discerned against and if you look at the adams case for instance work or you will see that in those cases the work down your favor based on something that he determined was a factual question also that's right  but the articulation of their reasons the reason doesn't have to be believed in the case law says it has to be a valid not protect rule reason and that it's up to the trial back to decide whether their reasoning is valid and