government’s subsequent decisionmaking process have no effect on the objective truth or falsity of the claimant’s asserted entitlement, and should thus have no effect on the claimant’s potential liability under the Act. Cf United States v. Krizek, 111 F.3d 934, 939-40 (D.C.Cir.1997) (finding that the question of what constitutes a claim under the False Claims Act “turns[ ] not on how the government chooses to process the claim, but on how many times the defendants made a ‘request or demand’ ” because the “gravamen of these cases is that the focus is on the conduct of the defendant”). This reading of the Act is consistent with this court’s analysis of analogous provisions in the criminal False Claims Act and related statutes. See United States v. Milton, 602 F.2d 231, 233 (9th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added); see also United States v.
holding that plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance on a false statement holding that the government must prove the defendant knew of the features of the firearm that brought it within the scope of the act holding in the context of the criminal false claims act that to prove falsity the government only had to prove that the statement was known to be untrue at the time the defendant made it holding the state must prove that at the time of the homicide the defendant was engaged in the commission of the felony holding that while the government was required to prove that the defendants phone call crossed a state line  the government did not need to prove that the defendant knew of the interstate nexus