simple straight issue is whether or not the name credit protection association used by a company which is the true name even this trees in and of itself carries the implication that the the word credit i would say credit protection association the combination of credit protection the glean from the consumer and i've passed this letter to numerous people and if you ask them the one question  review of the letter asking the simple question if you don't play the system in a mist that would there be any ramifications and based upon the name credit protection association from a twelve judgment on the pleading that's correct and this letter has no threat explicit threat level so you've got to infer it entirely correct you've got to imply the threat and the implication of the threat is good a mountain in south dakota you look at something and you call it as you say clearly even industries why don't you send a letter under the name eaton industries why because you want to have credit protection association i want to relied upon federal trade commission holdings and rulings and recognize that the collection people are described themselves quite differently and your credit bureau or something of that sort which did imply fact those folks were reporting agency and credit would be damaged by them i mean it's just the word credit right no credit protection credit protection association protect your credit and pay the well yeah cell but still it's true well it's not true absolutely true no it's not true because the the amount of the debt would not be reported if this was the five hundred dollars that i would say ye that would be reported to a creditor if you're a report of your a number standing here because of the mounts of the debt the de minimis amount that would not be reported to the credit reporting agency that's the argument if there was truth there would be reported so those words might bring up lots of things to mind but one thing which does not come to mind is that this is a debt collector which is going to report it so its opponents position that they use the word credit  understand and i think his argument is that there must be some reason for using a d b a name meth collection agency or blockbuster and you gena up a name called credit protection association it must be for some purpose and that consider home protection to imply are i would soon that whole protection would be something which is going to protect my home right so how do you protect your credit protection association does not say they were going to report it to the credit reporting bureaus that's the leap this cannot be made it was not made at the district court level i don't believe it can be made here my point was i don't think i m credit protection association one and suddenly one next to leave this is going to be reported well why i guess i find myself i simply don't make i'm unaware of any a router rather than just the name and you've got to look and see whether it's whole right or makes it clear that it's just a collection agency over the whole letter includes an explicit threat which in combination  means pay your bill but you don't want to make the leap to reporting to somebody well protect credit by paying your bill to blockbuster make protect your future credit with blockbuster  implied some notion that your credit record is out there and that if you don't pay this bill your record generally not just as to blockbuster movie of the damage consumers perspective like present to the theory i presented an argument they've already been held liable for doing it before another court on the facts and fact the footnote in that case that no data specifically rejects the argument you're trying to make in which case  itself violates the c p a and we find that the name credit protection agency when used in conjunction with the disclaimer that it is seeking to collect a debt and that it information obtained will be used for that purpose and when used in a