with allegations about which the Rigsbys had direct and independent knowledge. The Rigsbys allege in the final pretrial order, for example, that: 1) State Farm told adjusters to use Xactotal to “hit the limits” of flood policies; 2) adjuster Cody P ause their contributions put the government “on the trail of fraud” that “might otherwise [have gone] unnoticed.” Reagan, 384 F.3d at 179. Even the most zealous government investigator would not likely have been able to pinpoint the McIntosh claim — which was the basis of the trial — from the Cox/Comer Complaint and the Hunter testimony. Thus, the Rigsbys are original sources. It is plausible that § 3730(e)(4) might come into play again as the district court proceeds with this litigation. See Rockwell, 549 U.S. at 473, 476, 127 S.Ct. 1397 (<HOLDING>). We emphasize that there has been no finding
holding that unlike subject matter jurisdiction personal jurisdiction may be waived holding standing cannot be waived and may thus be raised at any time holding issues related to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time holding that jurisdiction of the subject matter  in either a civil or criminal action may be raised at any stage of the proceedings even after a plea of guilty and for the first time in the appellate court recognizing that subject matter jurisdiction can be questioned at any time and with respect to any claim