auditing was present in this record today so g to inspect for fraud and waste with government contractors that is power to act if if if that's not power to act i don't know what is supplemented by the contract or just the auditing functions the scrutiny of the books and this re to say probably demographics that estates who's getting money what kinds of people ages after it was simply a statistical administering of oversight that is a far cry from what we have instant case access to information it's a very thin record and this is a contrast to a very competent and abundant record very dissimilar from the scant administrative oversight that was that issue in the first group  access to information is really disingenuous we're phrase it because access to information in for cheating was very limited to what the facts the court had which was a very limited access by the federal government to data collected by the state this is not that cases are different this record is much more compelling on that point counsel also her pleadings makes reference to the fact that the whether the the finan knew and various other opinions has some help on that stanford case that is true you don't have to show the person knew that they were defrauding the federal agency they knew they were going to serve in the jurisdiction of the federal government but stanford also is very helpful in laying out that however in a case where the connection to the federal government is overwhelming that can be considered in terms of and wasn't a connectedness of the department of energy and your use of the computer will be monitored for potential criminal prosecution so i would agree with this whilst we're all monitored and we're all monitoring the use of our computers where can we open the that in looking at whether the jurisdictional link is appropriate that the act in question is within the authority of the agency of the final authority to see the funds are postponed answering that legal question which is the proper standard it's not a proper court of stanford also look at the facts of the case in terms of how interconnected the defendant perpetuated fraud was to the agency so it's fairly if this particular employee beginner and what's the difference the difference is that here the issue of payment of monies is a critical part of the contract with the tell and heal the monies are drawn directly from the united states treasury from what i'm estimate in this case to be a very unique financial arrangement the monies are not it's not it's not a compensation after the fact by contract work battell increased fees and then seeks contributions back from the federal government they draw directly from the us treasury through a bank employee timecard procedures of a contractor while the department of energy may be very involved in his contractor of the tel no rules as that with respect to how time is reported with respect to whether or not if someone  they tell you are responsible for managing your employees maintaining standards of conduct we're not going to get involved i think it's particularly important because this is a criminal case that a clear standard has been set is that the government wants t to criminal responsibility receives money from a number of sources and the government's never put him on any information with respect to where his whole strums money came from i think it really is patel in the tri cities their number one source of income that they do receive money from other sources whatever it is in your budget and you can withdraw directly from the federal government for that money instead of the deal we advance in the funds ahead of time or paying after the fact i actually think the government would have a stronger case if this were after the fact because after is overseeing and it sends money directly from the federal government to the national labs why isn't that enough of the connection for when she makes a public statement in her money is coming directly from that relationship it's not the standard it's not the standard it's not the power to act the fact that the money comes from the federal fisc isn't a power to act if do you we can't do anything about the payment of that money and i think it's a that would mean any time there's an inspector general investigation whether or not that investigation had an independent basis there's power to act i don't think that that's enough furthermore an inspection and investigation is accessing information that's what and the courts pointed out that it's usually the case with a government contract that there's oversight financial oversight all the government has plenty to do with respect to power to act is super access to information we can investigate and we can ask questions and we can have government then the power to act is invoked and i think that that is an important way to look at this case in foot the government had access to this information and could oversee the administrative structure of the organ program and through that government's information was enhanced and ability to look at what was going on in oregon with an enhanced by learning that organ system wasn't set up so as to not take care of fraud the very same is true in this case in this case department of energy's authorized functions are to ask questions to see are to report all of that none of that is perverted by this whole strum allegedly submitting false time cards in fact the very purpose of the audit powers is seen through by the fact that the government learned of the false time comes through finding out that they were to tell structure allows for false time hard department of energy's audit structure is enhanced because they've learned more about the tell and have more information with respect to future contracts with the tell they were not but tells procedures for time card administration aren't tight enough perhaps and it may be for tells not operating efficiently but very interestingly in this case where the department heard you would learn is that his holstrom as step forth next of records that actually received outstanding employee reviews she was getting the dock job done and yet the audit showed that she wasn't working full time so the government was able to learn through this investigation that the tells not operating efficiently the tell has full time employees slotted for work that can be done on a part time basis there's no way in which the federal government's ability to learn about how the telus operating i think that the blankenship court spelled out the sort of parade of horribles that could occur if we have a looser standard with respect to what the power to act means the federal government owns computers and inner city schools the federal government talk about contracts there are certain things that the federal government and i think i talk about it in terms of the agency analysis at its contractors to make sure that it's in place in the green case the federal government aske define requirements for nuclear one regulatory area is perverted when false statements are made to fit within that criteria similarly in the european case the applicant lied on his security classification the federal government sets standards for security classifications as a person would have been able to get that federally defined benefit if they have lied and so can the federal government's involvement was perverted by the false statement in this case ha at the federal government contracts set up rules for time cards we might be in a very different situation because then the false statements would go to something the federal government has very specifically delegated to tell to make sure that they comply with  very specific ways but the federal government didn't do that so the federal government authorized functions in this case of financial oversight weren't perverted the amount of money paid to the tell significantly in this was a significant issue  department of energy isn't out any extra money based on the alleged false statements and the federal government very clearly is distancing itself from going to acts of employees of its contractors and that was the purpose of my citing boys are doing what they're doing and i gave a hypothetical to judge sherry at the time this case was heard in the district court of what if miss holstrom that had been inspired and didn't show up and because of her not showing the circumstance of the tell as opposed to actually case we'll take responsibility given the have to do we has delegated to patel the task of making sure that its employees are working when they're supposed to be working following certain etc government distanced itself because it doesn't want to take on that responsibility that micromanaging of employees the fact that the federal government is not micromanaging the employees of its contractors has the reverse the fact of one of the contracts in terms of you know reporting with the nuclear level was a reporting of the existence or nonexistence of certain isotopes at the plant or whatever with that the covered under a thousand one if it's reporting a standard that the contract requires that a regulation requires and mr templeton i think worked out there so i know there's lots of government forms to fill out and if he's reporting just you these safety criteria are met and these are federally regulated safety criteria then yes one thousand one hundred fifteen would apply with pervert the government's interest in making sure the safety criteria are met for someone not to report those truthfully in the fact that those statements are made to a conduit instead of directly to the federal government doesn't take it outside of one thousand one jurisdiction i know for myself as a defense attorney it's very important like i said at the outset for there to be a bright line as i read this court cases in cases where there's not a direct statement to the federal entity there's always been that sort of conduit work agency analysis where the government has any benefits case said we're going to give you money to give to other people in here the rules for that and we're going to give you the responsibility for making government doesn't want to acknowledge the circuits are in conflict i think the circuits are in conflict on this issue in the blankenship case makes that very clear and the blankenship case i think very clearly supports what we're our position is and is the most recent substantive circuit court decision in this area i think that one mistake that the circuit courts have made is on the word on the government's interest in making sure that federal funds are properly spent when the government sets the rules for spending money like this benefits have to be laid out in this way or if the deal we had said you have to use this money to pay your employees this in this way they have to important those ways then the government is that out what is proper and improper and there is the power to act spent i think that's misusing the word proper when the government hasn't clearly set forth the rules about what is proper and what is improper thank you thank you dynamic it's not true in that case time can mean they're there quality assurance person in the street were trying to get the contract they're trying to get onto the on the train and in order to pursue that they sought out to analysis of whether or not under independent contractor law the there is liability for the federal government for the acts of a contractor is a fundamentally different analysis for criminal liability for crimes committed while you are working as employe