now and i'm not sure what this could possibly have any relevance so let me can let us know why this could be listening to this to show just to show that the congress is a true into the problems of credit reporting agencies and can address them any time they wish to do so well that's going to make the it's not a class action so i don't know how the game will test case because used pretty often especially in the mass tort context opportunities were there for somebody to file a declaration on behalf of your client saying our facts are different but no such declaration was ever filed so it may be and no arguments were made in the briefs so it may be that if you were been involved in the case earlier we'd have a different case today but we've got the case we've got and the only factual development appears to ben the mean that's what the supreme court indicated and all right they are in a consolidated case you're not legally bound by another decision another case isn't yours unless you've agreed to do so which is why i started out by asking if you had agreed and perhaps implicitly agreed by inherent but i'm not i'm a little puzzled by the posture we agreed the judge asked the case and i agree with you how we got from there to a dismissal twenty cases i'm not sure but that's what happened ok so i have to know the facts to address that in the medicare facts because there is no discovery and in warner or any of the other cases nor were there any litigation as to the other cases for some reason the macintyre facts were treated as dispositive of every other case that would be for exactly the issue in this case which was that a request for information was denied because the person making the request was deemed to be a c r or credit repair organization and prior to that case going to the order or anything else from other court i'm not saying it's dispositive i'm just saying that it's authority and a motion for summary judgment was filed in that case and it was denied by judge cornelius so that is the letter and then give it to the attorney who then sent it no i don't think so that's what it says on march thirtieth two thousand and fifteen plaintiff wrote to the three main credit reporting agencies to dispute the p r a debt in his credit reports point of provided his home address and identified the disputed entry plaintiff gave the case number plate provided the name and address of his attorney and then it says the letter was sent by the attorney for the letter certainly came from the attorney's address because that's what the that's  i i can't pull the part all right notice of that well i didn't see it so if you think that he reviewed the letter before it was and approved that signature that would be interesting i'd like to know where that's in the record and i possibly ever seen this letter a for house or saw this yesterday that was the first time question so yesterday in preparation for deposition answer yes question was the first time you've seen this letter answer yes q which i don't know which letter your friend has the letter that is  the issue here about whether it needed to be responded to so he didn't see it but before it was signed if he didn't see it until the day before the deposition he signed it over the internet which is not possible unless you have the doctor in front of you on the internet search question so fair to say you had absolutely the preparation of this letter correct answer yes question that's correct answer that's correct yes and it may be true that he did not prepare the letter but he could not assign the letter without seeing it if you get a document all right and i was going to get to the point where the depositions referred to his his role in reviewing the information he did have a ripple role in reviewing the information  all right i was but i was going to the staff commentary by the f t c as you know that's that's not had the power of law and the f t c has rescinded its commentary so there's no basis whatsoever for their cl it's commentary because the statue was no longer assigned to the f t c for enforcement that's right it was sent over to the so we didn't take it back and say hopes we were wrong and said well that's not our department anymore but that's right and didn't deem it proper to keep it open when when they were not enforcing it case it was a request for a copy of a credit report not a complaint about the item in the credit report do is there any authority on our side other than the case from from alabama there is very good language it says millibar oversteer w page ninety five a construction of the federal and state acts that allow individuals to communicate to dispute through a third party is completely in one and to protect consumers from the dissemination of inaccurate and possibly damaging information see e g port a percentage of it since allowing third parties to assist groups consumers are likely to expedited correction of credit reports or protect credit agencies consumers need help dealing with the credit repair with the credit industry and they need help of agencies like a goal can click go claim credit and other credit repair agencies around the country the industry has been going for a long time and it serves the interest of consumers and it should be protected not destroyed by experience they excluded something as vicious when in fact the person had written the letter himself and and that you know his claim was that it should have been clear from the from what was submitted that it came directly from him so that that complaint based on the facts of some other case i don't know exactly what to make up at and it's hard to glean from what is actually in the record my understanding them because the issue was dispositive in that i think that it was agreed to that all of these cases involve dispute letters that were submitted by the credit repair organization and make a difference i don't know how we rule in a case where we don't have any facts well i'll say two things about that i think that you know that the short answer is the short answer i a long answer i think the short answer for this case is that you know mr warner appeal without raising any contention in the district court or here that his facts are and he different  in any material way that wasn't raised and so you know i think that that alone would be a way to dispose of the case but i think just sort of taking a there was not there wasn't a great just to well that's the problem i can so the agreement fact pattern is implicitly insists identical to back entire or black yeah i mean that that is the problem i wasn't present at court conferences in the district court i don't know how they got to this point of everyone seeming to understand that these are all the same case where it's submitted by go clean credit and not the consumer judgment without the formal motion being made to say these cases are all the same and this should be dismissed on the same basis i think the reason that no one said anything to the that you know submission by a credit repair organization should be enough to trigger the reinvestigation obligation so this admission without any input from the actual consumer because of that that's ensued actor i think well i actually don't think that's a key factor because what the statute says actually is that i mean it's a helpful factor so that if you have a question that would certainly would certainly help but it has to but the the statute says that the obligation exists when it's  that the way the statute is drafted that having something actually come from the attorney's office even if you've looked at it doesn't fall within the  technical requirements as i think it's a matter of practice over the term directly is the one that we need to define and the attorney case is one you know suppose my mother doesn't speak english so i wind up drafting the letter and sending it on her behalf explaining that she doesn't speak english so i'm doing this and some point directly isn't meant i don't think to weed out those kind of communications but it's hard for me to articulate how we should interpret the term and so i seem to be prefacing every answer with this but to thinks about the number  matter of practice i think that the way the procedures work they actually will then reinvestigate those because what they're looking for in the procedures is something that is sort of batches of form challenges that don't show that they don't just look at the envelope that open the envelope look at what's inside and they see whether it's actually a personal dispute or not it's not based on some technical  as as to how exactly you're going to interpret where the line is is going to be crossed from you know directly to an objectively i think that an appropriate case that might be hard but i think that in a case where you have something that is you know all done by the credit reporting excuse me  credit repair organization and you know electronic signature that is submitted from a different address and it is just a generic challenge to a bunch of stuff that's not can of course it's not hard because here you don't even need to get to that since there's no suggestion that the facts in mr warner's case were in any way different from m think you know that the court read some of the exchange from the record i think particularly in the supplemental record that sixty three and sixty four make it one or two more pages in either direction but it actually was quite clear that he hadn't reviewed the letter he hadn't authorized them to i mean you know first of all the idea that this is supposed to accuracy is is also at best ironic because what you have here is the consumer testifying that yeah they were challenging a bunch of stuff that was perfectly accurate which is you know the congressional findings like credit repair organizations is they do that in the hope that something doesn't get verified in thirty days and so the accurate stuff ends up having to be removed so you actually said no i didn't authorize them to challenge all this accurate stuff i didn't see the letter until just before my deposition and then  after experian and send him a letter saying we got something it doesn't look like it's from you if you have a dispute call call us at this toll free number or log on to our website the credit repair organisation sends another letter saying i got this letter from you saying it wasn't for me it was really for me and macintyre testifies well no i didn't see that one either so there's a series of letters here that are not the consumer you know in any way let alone a way that you could call directly there's just you know this is a standard