of america and a successor in interest there for a record services the bank in connection with the above in connection with the above referenced account please be advised the bank may invoke its right to file a lawsuit against you it's our contention that th language place the very top of the letter overshadows the greco disclaimer at this time no attorney with this firm has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of your account which is found at the very bottom of the letter that  implication of them only jeffrey has been retained by the bank and the bank has a legal right to bring the lawsuit implies that newly jeffery had conducted the requisite legal analysis to determine that the bank had this legal right with a letter in greco said that if you fail to contact this officer client may consider additional remedies to recover the balance due well a reference to dish and remedy suggest that remedies yes but it also includes doing what and what many if not most law firms do which is just keep sending more letters all containing the record disclaimer if you don't contact us we may invoke a right to send you an envelope that's basically what they're saying people who are not lawyers which debt collectors acting as dekel actors and not tackle it as acting as lawyers can take well they didn't say they would do it they say that if you have the bank may invoke its right to file a lawsuit against advised the bank may invoke its right to file a lawsuit against your certain things or implied by stating the bank has a right to file a lawsuit on the same things implied by saying that there were additional no additional remedies like i said additional remedies could be sending another letter additional remedies could be going to pull a credit report are going to see whether there are assets that might eventually be recovered reco greco letter says in this regard this office represents the above named bank of america whose place this matter in reference to original count for collection and such action is necessary to protect our client yes but your honor they they left out something here which is we have the right to bring a lawsuit when someone when a lawyer makes that representation we a right to bring a lawsuit there's an implication that they've done certain things they've gone in they've looked to see whether there's an agreement they've gone to see whether whether or not there been any amendments to the agreement they've consulted with the client as to whether or not a lawsuit should be brought here there was an assignment purportedly from bank of america excuse me to bank of america from f i a card services presumably before this letter was sen it too much to ask somebody to read a page letter your honor the the g notice has been determined to be a great nineteen reading level you have to go through graduate school to properly parse the language of that note that gene notice people read the first couple of sentences  with this well if you're saying that we have to assume that people more even read a half a page letter then i don't know what kind of debt collection can go off your honor if there's there's the implication in the first couple of sentences of the right to bring a lawsuit whether or not they try and say we didn't really mean it in the very last sentence of the letter i don't think they got the right to make that determination their been there already three cases from outside or be it from outside of the circuit or district courts around the country stating that when you state that there's a right that you should traditional remedies may be brought that overshadows the greco language there are the three cases that i've cited in my briefs it's the means that you could be using your analogy that some lawyers looked at it decided that it's owing and the it's and then it's due past due and requirement to give the amount allegedly to as of the date of the letter period so that that's a requirement actually contained within the f t c p a regardless of whether there's a lawyer involved or not a lawyer this is something beyond that beyond the requirements of six hundred ninety g this is this is an actual statement that there's a right to file a lawsuit presumably one someone if if someone comes to me and says counselor you know i've got this potential case you might have a right to bring a lawsuit i would sit them down for a meeting i would have an interview with them there's something the goes beyond merely merely to fill in the blanks form and then a statement in the very first paragraph of the fill in the blanks form of our client has a right to sue you know you're on a run over time your honor with respect to some of the things that mr bromberg said i don't think anywhere is or case law or statutory law that says that the lease if istic a debtor means somebody who only reads half a letter i think that the implication and since we're dealing with implication upon implication here is that the entire letter is going to be read and rather than  regret statement is buried at the bottom of the letter it's a clear sentence set apart from every other sentence so like his where for clause in his complaint nobody claims that a wherefore clause is buried at client and we will take such actions necessary to protect our client our client may consider additional remedies that there's something different or misleading about saying the bank may invoke its right  that and the reason we're here is because judge kirton disagrees with him completely that these phrases are practically indistinguishable in their meaning and the distinction certainly is so small that how can we expect the least a fist a gated debtor to see that distinction it's it says our client has a right to sit and may invoke their right to sue  every client may invoke every right to sue that is blandness general a statement as you can have the fact of the matter is the greco disclaimers clearing conspicuous in the letter and its  pacifically states that no attorney has reviewed the letter that gives this letter greco protection even though it's on an attorney letterhead maybe he is reviewed letter it's a new the case they stated for greco purposes complied and comport with the greco holding judge curtain agreed that this letter agree was greco compliant the distinction between our client has a right may invoke its right to sue and our client has other remedies is a miniscule distinction that was found to be of no import whatsoever  i just don't i understand and my client understands that the f t c p a was passed to protect consumers but it wasn't created to create such picayune lawsuits about minor issues that are indistinguishable it's creating a situation with my client where they're paying out money for for letter is in incrementally more ominous well i think that's a factual issue that was decided by judge burton that obviously is going to be reviewed by this court but it's clearly a factual issue is as i stated we have a clear and speak use great go statement we have no threat of a lawsuit that rises above the greco threat and it's the disclaimer here if you use this disclaimer we prescribe for you there was no prescription of a form of your honor but when there's no form that you can move the pieces of the problem is they've taken a step further here your honor there's been granted there's been there's been precious little litigation concerning the greco disclaimer within the circuit and i think a large part of that arises from defendants saying you know what let's just stick with the language that the second circuit's ruffner us signed off on and let's just say they gave us they gave us an exception they gave us a disclaimer form albeit they didn't say this is your safe harbor form like they recently did with adopting you know like this court recently did with adopting the miller versus mccalla language from the seventh circuit but they said this is the this language will suffice and really when you when you deviate from that language and you start talking about rights to file a lawsuit it may invoke the right to file a lawsuit against you when you start moving the greco language down to the bottom of the letter and you start playing with the pieces you're skating on thin ice and really i think that this court needs to assess just say two defendants don't play with the greco language if you want the advantage of the greco language don't play around with that otherwise you're putting yourself in the same position as the other cases i talked about no versus legal recovery robertson versus richard boudreau dunn versus derek and mcgavick where the the deck lectures played with the language they talked about legal action they talked about court costs they talked about attorneys fees they talked talked about review will be review will determine whether there was a valid legal dispute regarding the debt they talked about valid legal defenses non litigious resolution  remedies they talked about legal rights to file a lawsuit they talked about and those are the kinds of things that only lawyers acting as lawyers not lawyers disclaiming their involvement and not conducting meaningful review