one such if they had the information it was at the heart of the complaint and the complaint was not based on essentially public disclosure commission things that were reported in the news government reports  even to the point where we talk about your original source of information so for his purposes there is no complaint there isn't even no evidence of the complaint at all without his information did he gain by his own personal knowledge which was that confirm so for the for the scope of the first section that due diligence i think should be required and not something that would preclude any kind of complaint because otherwise you would just encourage those people to not search at all for any relation but if you was well within the scope of the context and the intent of the statute and as such i think that those are facts that are genuine facts material facts it issues that would preclude summary judgment on the issues far is it being granted by the court the prevailing wage at violation had been committed i believe through the testimony of mr allen he admitted his duty was again was to basically deliver materials and supplies anything that anybody needed on the job site which were prevailing wage act public works projects he was called by foreman he was directed by anybody to go and get any sort of material supplies there's pictures that were submitted at the time it would show what he was doing on those job again even further in his testimony i think also admitted by the other parties that mr allen would pick up and do whatever was around to do is farmers work tiriel any kind of things on the job site if he was around help people out i don't think independent benefit his work without them except in the liability that meaning if he was on a public works project is performing work whether even directly instructed to do so or taken up by his own force he was on there he should have been then reported with the verified payrolls by the foreman because the foreman should know the other projects so if he's on those jobs whether he socialising voluntarily they're receiving the benefit of him being there for the work he's been doing let it be very substantial or very minor and still the fact that he's on the job site he should be paid for that work it should be reported in the search by documents it never was which was the heart of this so to say that there was never any evidence of that i think was in error because i think mr allen admitted that pictures i think that the complaint that was made in the format that was made would also be inherent that there was an allegation that was not a knighthood that that work was performed that he was the creator of that because without his information even striking the pictures there would be no he there's the knowing requirement in the statute and in that statue in the text no requirement does not require a specific intent i think for the simple fact that mr allen was employed by the defendants he was performing work for the defendants the defendant should believe is whether it be deliberate indifference whether if you reckless disregard could not find really guidance as far as how we determine that but as far as there being no specific intent the employer i think knowingly should be responsible for what the actions of their employees are at all times while the working at the benefit of it on behalf of that employee in his directions was to do whatever he was told to do with it he delivered material supplies etc it was types of things i don't think now they can hide behind the back t it not make it to their date and time specifically require them to do x y and z duty but now they're trying to say that what we should be able to we shouldn't be able to have be responsible for that for what you did because we need to do that too i don't believe that that's that would preclude summary judgment of the final issue to leave the trial court had aired on it was whether or not the complaint could be moved on because of damage to the state may not be completely shown as far as a to protect so to say that it's exclusively a matter of whether you can put dollars and cents on the amount the state was defrauded within say that well it's proper then to underpay employees because then the state has to pay less or it's proper than to not say how many employees on the job because the state will actually get a better deal because they weren't paying for so many employees so i don't believe that that requirement is one in which you have to show that the state was defrauded of a specific amount of money but that just that was their purpose and intent was to try to recover money in that instance they may not recover very much but i think the intent this act is to try to to root out fraud where everybody works recognized and to be able to move forward with that where there is damage to the state whether that be specifically payroll is available on the website goes to the question of whether or not shaw was in the original source the target case which i cite first thing it says said here is that the federal her claims act the illinois act they're virtually identical and what i'm saying that a public disclosure bother unless the person bringing the accordingly the court said once there is a public disclosure next step for the court to do is to determine whether the relator is in the original source the target held that the relator there was not original source because the complaints were supported by information which were available in congressional transcripts mr sh sql aim is expressed in the same manner as in that case the should were u s supreme court case i think is really important the holding in that is due diligence of picking on those saves the day i suggest to the court i bet that's not the standard the standard here is that if there is he became suspicious from his own experiences working for should anyone could have filed the same poor requests and then filed the same suit similarly anyone could identify a few regulatory filing and certification requirements so many poor requests and totally discoverers a federal contractor is out of compliance the court concluded that that's not what the statute was intended that that would be to whether or not helen was there i'm under these circumstances the realtor here simply had no direct knowledge he did not do with from his own effort and it was as a result of the intervening agencies i doubt you know simple government and county government  i think the judge adrian and the trial court correctly concluded that the state suffered no damage and the intent of the false claim act is that to recoup any damage that the state all or the federal government would have had and the judge correctly concluded that there are no damages not familiar with the scene none of the elements were met even if those documents were missing poles those photos do not show anything correct tools the main job of allen was the delivery of fuel alan testified in his deposition that approximately three or so hours a day when he was not working in the shop was delivery of fuel the trial court correctly concluded that the delivery of fuel is not covered under the prevailing wage bill i think the purpose provisions of the prevailing wage act are sections two and three and they must be read together not independently i'm heard section construction and all work and public works involving laborers there was a case of a third circuit which i cited the hope crapper case which is really important and hope after interpreted section three of the prevailing wage  claimant in the whole kraftwerk case how it worked in the shop he constructed items in the shop he packed and he delivered those materials that he made to the job site court concluded in that case that section three of the pre pay lean way jack only applies to those workers who were directly employed by contractors and since the plaintiff there was not directly on the job site he falls into the same category as does mr allen now we need to look at what allan actually  boast of his day was socializing it was not during wor stature and written plaintiffs asking that the court insert term fuel in the meaning of the prevailing wage act and under the cases there is impermissible knowledge of calls to the form of a regarding called by the foreman to ellen that simple fact is not right for the level of breathless this regard for truth or was improper labeling of prescriptions which may be the liberal ignorance stand in addition a person really if a person reasonably relies on a statute to mean that his internet sales were not subject to texas record risk concluded that reasonable interpretation of a statute was not enough to raise the level of knowing ronald brink testified that he reasonably believed that the fuel was excluded from the is simply not an original source under the act playing the show failed to show a violation of the illinois prevailing one an act the delivery of fuel is clearly excluded from the coverage there is no evidence that defendant warrants present they knowingly violated the false claim the act and knowledge of whether our was there or not and what did whether or not he was actually listed on the search by parables without shaw's personal knowledge even excluding the photographs here again there is no complaint here and there is no public disclosure  information that confirms his actual knowledge of who was on the job site what these times by his own personal view we know that by his own knowledge of so that i think is the genesis of the point is the original source without his difficult if not impossible to do heavy highway construction without fuel so to say that that's not part of the construction project because it's not a corporate into it so you can probably say that it is because the equipment is performing that work is actually doing that you need