appellant in this case appeals the district court's dismissal of its claims under the at ca related to a pelleas conspiracy to violate the vessel documentation act for the purpose of fortunately obtaining united states documentation and fishing licenses for two korean fishing vessels the district court dismissed moore's claims based on the public disclosure bought by its claims have been publicly disclosed in phony documents requested by more and through the news media sources and that's because an essential element of the fraud claimed and alleged by moore was that non citizens do not exercise control over the al aussies who wasn't there wasn't that disclosed in the in the articles there i don't believe it was the articles focus on meet see abuse of the crew and things of that nature it also talked about the captains being paper captains but that goes to control over the vessels so under they united states coast guard rules a united states  do with control over the elsie's that information only came from moore's independent investigation and depositions of joyce cham who was one of the principals of the all cs by jury into byrd who was the managers of the but if we find that these are substantially the same allegations or transactions what about the original source aspect yes we owe more would also come under the original source exception now under the new original source exception the relator only is required to have knowledge that is independent of and materially adds to the public disclosure contention as to what materially adds really would mean in this context well the material of the ads would mean that we provided an essential element here we provided something that the government would have never been aware of before corporation interestingly the grief sites something in our report c n n and says that which somewhat implicates that the owners were the daughters of a korean manager of a fishing company however that information tape they found a relevant portion they had of transcribing a president of the court but under graham and the other presence of this court that we we contend is not reasonably accessible that isn't something that the federal government would look for the federal government  disclosures so what more is done is actually a word of the government the essential element of the fraud here these are in this is information like they don't want control of the elysees only bank account that was learned from the depositions and from nowhere else elysees and also only put in fifty dollars for the aussies even though they only four point four million dollars shipped each reportedly also that juergen were belsky's manager never had access to the bank accounts never had access the counting never read any of those jurisdictional bar and that comes from the fact that congress has actually specifically removed the jurisdictional language and replace it with something very general now these two federal courts of appeals have consider whether the p findings related to things outside the pleadings so you need three men for the for the court to put the burden on the alley here but i think that's one possibility but more importantly i think the the the overarching issue is whether or but the court with then have to reconsider the same exact issues that are already gone through and the court may very well be able to take judicial notice of certain things outside of pleadings like news articles and things of that nature or judicial notice under federal rule i think it's to all one generally requires notice to the parties and allow the parties to be heard and whether or not these are in fact issues which should should be judicially noted by the court outside the statute the public disclosure well in general their honor the congressional intent and amending the statute was to reduce the public disclosure bar to allow more everything in the statutory language and that that congress has done to expand for instance making the federal court litigation no longer come under a ca qualifying disclosure things of that nature if congress had had understood that through it requests would actually be considered as f c a qualifying they would have addressed that issue but the sugar elevator case came out after congress amended so they didn't understand at family request and then that information is not normally generally disseminated to the public at large right no well then the court oh um moved into parts on that certainly did the court did this mess yeah sure on under twelve they want the interesting issue there just a few weeks ago this court issued an opinion jurisdiction over cam actions when a relevant information that's been entered the public the main through certain channels citing supreme court's decision and graham that this court contain this is true both before and after  it because it uses the word shall so it it informs the court that that if the circumstances that is one public disclosure bar are satisfied that the court shall in the disclosures is their reference to the management and ownership control of the l l c yes not really a key distinction but respect to the what was case were publicly disclosed the reason why that's true is the relator relies on two sources of material one is this difficult the documentation with such which makes the representation that the that's one of the key certifications here is the management control of the l l c itself yes so we have a number of documents that get into the control of the l l c one is we had the emails from the coast guard questioning whether deep the ownership and control requirements but a question is not an assertion ok so we have that we also had the news media articles which reference need me those those articles reference mutiny and pollution yes where do they reference the ownership of the l l c i don't even think that reference at all it says that there is ownership by us citizens of the vessel of the substantially the same although you know you look at someone you say to people you say well they are substantially the same as compared to substantially similar which is the prior version i'm not sure exactly how substantially the same is is or isn't thirty seven to thirty nine recounts numerous facts that are brought forth in all these depositions and independently attained by more how did they not materially because  doubt that they're true but here's here's the reason why it doesn't matter for maternally add standpoint your honor one is with respect to what's considered for purposes of the original so sore standard on the false claims act you can take into account all the information that's in the public the main under that standard not just those that are less under efore eight so you can take into account the materials that were disclosed  that court proceeding that the as as material that when you compare does the queen count complaint materially add to what's in the public domain it's identical to what's in the public domain because it's identical to the news fairly this is out of the news media before the wrongful death action started when you look at heathrow would be the second type of list of wars not limited public disclosures that occur and eight or eight as a publicly disclosed allegations are transactions now this court claim under the section unless opposed by the government if substantial the same allegation as alleged were publicly disclosed in a federal criminal civil rights mistreated hearing in which the government or its agents a party yes correct yes right so i'm i'm it it says for purposes of this paragraph original source means an individual who either one prior to the public disclosure under subsection efore a has voluntarily disclosed to the government the and you also look at this court's decision you're saying the publicly disclosed under your original source means something different from publicly disclose it you know as it is you know what i'm saying your honor so congress distinguishe doesn't limit and such a way the reason for that even though congress than had legislative history behind it but understanding the full legislative history behind public disclosure bar is that the type of original source described the need for be one of the true whistleblower who discloses it to the government for just then any public disclosure so really as the whistleblower breaks the conspiracy of silence congress that those people are permitted to proceed notwithstanding the fact that this information is in the public domain unless this narrow category of public disclosures exist it gave less allegations or transactions alm is will bar the relator unless the relator independent of an eternally adds to those allegations makes perfect sense why the government is the type of one hundred percent of the recovery if there's a recovery when it pretend plaintiff as is barred from the action on the qui tam plane of participates in government to shut up the thirty percent congress is trying to figure out what are the right circumstances under which we should take taxpayer money and give it to reason why that's true is under united states that's row x where mr person's house in authority has for it what the court threw judge alito was that oh mom when at the relator cannot have independent knowledge when to relate or paints a critical element that has to be misstated facts from the government itself now that was also where the qualifying public disclosure was for a lawyer long standing information on which the allegations are based there is no limitation there two public disclosures congress amended is that original source will to no require that original source not only have  knowledge that is independent of amateur really adds to the publicly disclosed allegations which transactions now the court interpreted the old statute which didn't specify public disclosure to me that anything that was disclosed out there even if it wasn't at ca qualify might be taken into consideration however the new version of the original source will specifies probably disclose allegations now what the appellee would like the court to say is that using the word publicly disclosed in those defined throughout this statute in a very particular way shouldn't matter and that the court should just go out and just go looking for other non f c a particular public disclosures and making a determination as to original source so you're saying when they use the term publicly disclose allegations  of the district court actually actually does i believe this court actually states on this that there is not a current third circuit ruling on the original source interpretation but it goes by i consent which is the previous holding not taking into account the new language under the statute that the only other issue that i wanted to address was that it was sudden it was raised where the there was a contention that the news have that is publicly disclose is only the false statement of facts here now for instance that articles do say that you need a u s captain to meet the requirements of the law that's a true statement that is that which or any actually you go out and get a u s captain america's talk about the one hundred percent owned by united states citizens they further perpetrate a fraud the government looking at this article says that it's operate vessels are operated by don juan corporation a south korean corporation correct they it does it they are operated by the korean company but it says that they are actually owned by the u s owners and that they quote unquote meet the letter of the law that's a direct quote from one of the articles these articles are saying don long is managing the vessels