who just briefly like to talk about some of them first of all is this court is away or even made here in versus credit bureaus placer county the ninth circuit itself indicated the express in writing and i think that's the crux of i mean i think the crux is the presumption or assumption if i may inherent in the way that you asked the question and that is that the statute provides limited protections if there is anything that says that there are limited protections or that this raises a red flag or that there is some sort of duty on the part of a debt collector to go forward into any sort of investigation or verification or validation based upon an oral dispute i have yet to see it and you know we point to case after case to you from across the country where in fact debt collectors in looking at this saying well  guess i'd better go back and know that is an adjustment because if it was a judgment you'd be limited to what you can add on and here we started that with a debt of how much it was i think the face amount of the chat like forty two dollars  that collect provide the data with verification of the death or a copy of the judgment against the debtor to provide the debtor with the name and address if the original creditor different from the current creditor in three states collection of the debt until such information is given right two yes me and that's exactly right but that's an entirely different section and that doesn't apply that is not limited in any way shape or form to the validation process it doesn't relate to the first thirty days it doesn't relate to whiting or orally if you want to say them then yes me thank you if i could just finish there's this one for using your time now all right this case is not simply this asking this court to disregard the plain language of the statute is written by congress and what's remarkable about this argument is not simply that they would ask to make this extraordinary request for the prohibit attempting to improve the purposes in serving the purposes of this law what is remarkable is that applying this argument actually defeats the purposes of the sloth and this gets down to the different reason congress imposed the different requirements in the statutes there are there is in section sixteen ninety two g b a procedure for disputing in writing and what a debt collector must do if a dispute is received in writing but the remainder of the statute with the exception of the h which is the application of multiple deaths that your honor mentioned put the rest of the statute notification are only or by any other means is entirely effective entirely refuted i was surprised i thought the advantage of the argument given their reply brief but he stood up and started with that is that it is pure dicta as not only according to the authorities of the argument we made in our brief but there have been what is this court and every other court that's ever looked at in the public situation is seen as as dicta it's not binding it is not presidential and certainly i can't one can read the opinion and see that there is no intention when the part of the authors of that he what he said if you listen carefully he said it was he said it was ambiguous and then went on to point the sixteen one to g v there is no requirement in this law to abandon congressional enactment because you don't like the structure within the section in the subsection that last term the supreme court decided the coon's view a case which both sides rely on and the very beginning of that section of that art of that case talks about ambiguity within the context of the statute if this court or any court started looking for ambiguity merely by looking at the section in which something appears will be disregarding congressional enactment still left or right you're saying to legislate even if we that in about so in years later in the set the first circuit decided the brady case and showed that a oral dispute doesn't fact create rights and remedies and duties the debt collector in that case under e ight sixty nine to eighty eight was required to inform the credit bureau that the debt is disputed which is an interface with the fair credit reporting act which we haven't really discussed in the briefs but again when you start tinkering with the handiwork of congress and owe these ad words this is not my debts i thought bankruptcy last week they do this orally the deck lector has to respond the randolph case from the seventh circuit which we cited is exactly that case there was no written communication and collection that's their obligation there is efficacy in an oral dispute totally and i think that this well i don't have i don't doubt that congress can do whatever congress wants to do that can make  make written here and it seems to me within the statutory scheme with oral in some part of this with part written in some part especially for him so is it just so that i correctly understand your position is that either would over the meaning miranda warning this is an attempt to collect that no information obtained was the purpose of another initial disclosure and there was a debate and congress amended that section they did exactly judge tell her what their role is in this constitutional system to amend if there is a mistake it's brought to their attention now this alleged mistake has been brought to congress attention many times there's been no attempt to amend it in this way the federal trade commission this is totally outside the briefs mr ellis and i both work in this area irrational indeed the federal courts are obligated or off the rise to disregard the plain language and to not apply an irrational result that is not what we have here and the reason is so clear because here  i believe you'll see your honor that no court has ever followed was yano ross ya know has not been followed by any court that has examined it in the since brady was decided congress might have said that but they haven't said that these are either but the failure to comments to counsel and that is well if we just don't know what congress intended does the tie go to the athlete respectfully my response to that is no we do know what congress you don't find anywhere that's not an exact response to my question because you're saying we do know and i'm saying if i don't know what they're going to tyco but but life mot i guess my point is this my point is that by looking at the structure of the section overall and looking at how it functions with the intent that there needs to be a written dispute mechanism is clear on the face of the statute when it is viewed holistically as this court has said in the united states supreme court and you know there are many many cases where a literal interpretation of one subsection the coon's case is a perfect example from the two thousand and four term of the united states supreme court where they say that's not playing on it