Indeed, when asked to summarize his theory of how the McIntosh home was destroyed, Dr. Sinno stated: “I agree fully with the first conclusion of the first inspector from State Farm,” that is, Ford. The Rigsbys are the “paradigmatic ... whistleblowing insider[s].” U.S. ex rel. Lam v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 287 Fed.Appx. 396, 401 (5th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Sylvia, Fraud Against the Government § 11:62; John T. Boese, Civil False Claims and Qui Tam Actions § 4.02[D][3][a] (4th ed. 2014) (“[Kjknow-ledge acquired and witnessed during the course of employment or professional work is direct knowledge.”). Their direct knowledge surpasses that presented by other would-be relators in our original source case law. Compare Jamison, 649 F.3d at 331-32 (<HOLDING>); U.S. ex rel. Fried v. West Indep. Sch. Dist.,
holding relator satisfied rule 9b by alleging the basic framework procedures the nature of fraudulent scheme and the financial arrangements and inducements among the parties and physicians that give rise to relators belief that fraud has occurred holding that plaintiffs statistics did not shed any light on the legally relevant issue because they did not indicate the group of applicants who were interviewed or even the group of applicants found qualified or the group of all applicants holding that preservation of government resources cannot as a matter of law justify barring some arbitrarily chosen group from a government program holding that relator who described a general scheme of fraud and then listed arbitrarily a large group of possible perpetrators was not an original source holding that under the pre1986 jurisdictional limitation a claim by the state which discovered the fraud investigated the fraud disclosed the fraud to the federal government and which was the original source of the information was jurisdictionally barred