communication from a debt collector to the lease of this to katie consumer conclude that not only can the consumer suit the entire debt but also only a portion of it here sontag and hymens initial debt collect a written request made within thirty days of receipt of this notice we will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor if different from the current creditor if so if i say you ten dollars and you say and ninety two g there are specific notification no no no no what is that what language does congress used to say that's not enough it says that the least of this the katie consumer is entitled to not only dispute that but also entitled to know that they could dispute a portion of it they're required to know that information you know so you don't you don't think that the least sophisticated consumer reading this language would believe that she could dispute only a portion of  but i don't think so and i think it's because congress has said so the congress use this specific language or on a judge chen and respectfully if if if we think that the any portion thereof is the same as de this circuit there's going to basically be a rewriting of this statute there is a reason that in the house version of this bill in the seventy's the any portion thereof was absent but in the senate version it was put back and remains today that information is essential and notices are of particular importance there are specific information that the lisa is the katie consumer is entitled to under the statute that is vastly different from some of the cases cited by my adversaries which are primarily regarding evacuations which are just a laundry list of things that can be misleading and to settle them so you specifically deny what the district court said was illinois they've all had the same line of reasoning which is that this language the any portion thereof is not superfluous it is important it is critical it is essential to the notice provisions which is radically different from other parts of the diddly that she can dispute a portion of the debt and we know that because from the statute itself and from congress is intense so your honor why is this language even important because regardless of whether the consumer disputes the entire debt or only a portion of it certain statutory obligations by the debt collector and certain statutory protections for the consumer trigger while the text of steps and sixteen i need to do so is proof positive the district court's decision should be reversed as i've talked about in my answers the legislative history of yes the c p a also provides critical support as i said at the time the f t c pay was being as that it can be interpreted the same way that it's supra to plus it and what i'd like to talk about with my real name time is why this court's decision in coal mine and insight into smith versus transworld just doesn't hold up st of all this court's case including mine was about the idea of attorney involvement and how much attorney involvement that type of case where we sophisticated consumer gets a debt collector letter from an attorney and they think oh my god i got it from attorneys are going to pay this one st that's w coleman was about it was not about a section six thousand and ninety two dollars g violation it was about evolution and it only cited to smith versus transworld for the well established standard that your honors agreed to i agreed to and my adversar agrees to that we're going to look at this case from the least sophisticated consumer comint does not talk about the merits of smith versus transworld it just cites to smith versus trans world for the well established lease of this the key to consumer standard and we know that because if we go to other interpretations of the be sophisticated consumer standards so all this court was saying by citing to smith versus transworld is that we're going to look to other circuits that have also done this the sophisticated consumer standard but what we're not going to do is necessarily shape page thirteen of the joint appendix although although in on the jackson for example this court was not facing the same issue as that which in front of the th circuit and smith it's fair to say that if that this court did indorse the holding in smith and so far as it also endorsed asst distinct separate holding and in baker michael which meant chaperoned relies upon extensively the reason why this court as i understand it cited both baker and smith in common be jackson was to show that both of those cases among others are examples of the application of the lisa fifty k to consumer standard so we sophisticated but still reasonable consumer so to answer the question the statute does require know it be given of the right to dispute the debt or any portion thereof and we are not saying that the work as my colleague appears to be saying that the wor the debt and any portion thereof are one and the same there's a reason why of course why congress ultimately ended up including both phrases within the statute however as was recognized and consistent with this court's holding in a manual or observation of the fact in a manual that there is no specific wording requirement within the statute it doesn't make a collection  communication from a debt collector misleading or are involved or in violation of section six thousand and ninety two g for failing to give the required notice if notice of the right to dispute the debt a portion of the debt dispute the debt again described as rent arrears totaling a specific dollar amount that is pretty precisely why judge rakoff consistent with this court's precedent ikeda consumer standard the fact that there is which itself is consistent with the fact that there is no specific wording requirement and in recognition of the job purpose of the statute to protect not only consumers  grand should have been credited to the plaintiff in this case that it was part of her deposit well that she left a month early i don't think that's an idiosyncratic interpretation of debt or part of it and i'm wondering why your client would never included that language i know they're not required to put in the interior statutory amount of statutory language but why wouldn't they especially it seems particularly apt in a red face with a debt is not necessarily whole it several months arrears i'm assuming correct your  what my position is she's in this case we're talking about whether essential information again can be and can be conveyed implicitly and that's not inconsistent with not requiring the be sophisticated consumer to assume something to assume what their rights are she's being informed of her right to dispute the debt or any portion thereof by virtue of being told of her rights are notified  that's not what this case is about stating that this isn't about that she's not complaining of the mere mention of statutory language which has been held to not be a person a person a violation there is no specific wording requirement it's not a violation to omit statutory text and so i would say that no that's not what this case is about but it's not about it's not and i'm not arguing my client is not arguing the sophisticated consumer is to assume that they have the right to dispute the debt or any portion thereof that's why most of that is required however when work when she's given notice of the right to dispute a debt consisting of rent arrears totaling a specific dollar amount and that that's a specific dollar amount that her landlord the creditor claims that she has it's implicit in that well with all due respect your honor i understand your concern but based on the precedent of this court it appears that we expect that we sophisticated consumer that you all ten dollars then and you believe that you owe eight dollars to borrow the example you cite the one of the judges earlier if you're saying that you owe eight dollars and you're being and you're being told you owe ten you're disputing the debt and you could you would be disputing it just as well as if you were saying that you owed nine dollars or six dollars or nothing so respectfully i submit that it is in keeping with the spirit of the act collectors for us for our interpretations readings of letters that are just simply not reasonable it's not reasonable to think i'm being told i can dispute a debt in a specific dollar amount therefore i can only dispute it by saying if i congress could just have used the house version instead of that reconciliation in the seventy's when they were discussing going back and forth with versions of the f t c p s a they could have just adopted congress could have adopted the house version which didn't interpretation everyone should know that that also includes any portion thereof we know that that's not true we know that because congress has told us and respectfully this is a really big problem for sontag in hind and they try to run away from the statute  and even in their own brief a page twelve they actually write the following the anger here is not what words congress used in the statute because the objective is to discern whether the credulous debtor could be deceived that's just wrong  practically they don't it and omission is fine if they don't want to put it in what the statute says that's fine their debt collection law firm they've figured out that they don't have to do it what they do have to do at the very least is effectively tell the least sophisticated can see and do you think that they see ving people by not including the words or portion there is that i sat somehow misrepresentation i do here i do judge chand that's why we also pled a section ten violation which talks about misleading are omitted i think that there is i think it's also what's and what's not included but i think your honor i think that there is nothing in this letter at all that tells the least at this the katie consumer per the notice requirements your argument the logical extension of your argument is if somebody comes up if the firm's writes for you and says you owe our client ten thousand dollars and you don't say but if you dispute that or any portion thereof that doesn't work i mean i just it's inconceivable to me that somebody who is told she owes ten thousand dollars who only owes five thousand dollars isn't going to dispute the fact the question because i mean it's just it's ludicrous frankly you're saying well she didn't dispute it because if she was told she was ten thousand dollars that just goes counter to every intuition that any consumer would have sophisticated or not and by the way nice of is the good consumer in my mind is some poor five year old who doesn't know anything about anything and that's not our standard judge your your opinion is it is similar if not identical to what john drake off said i can certainly appreciate that example it's logical but that's not what the judge that's just not what the statute requires that's not what congress intended and it runs away from the legislative history your honor i understand your example i have i've used it in my in my practice here trying to come up with different questions that you might ask i understand that that's just not what the statute says and we know that we understand why why was it then you know and i don't mean to ask answer you with a question your honor but then why is it in the senate version what why is it in the scenes why isn't the question i ask your adversary i'm not disputing that it's a good question  moves a good question but i think quite frankly i think it's an excellent question and by the way that the th circuit in baker and three different cases that we've cited have been able to answer your question and the answer is and i don't know if you if you with you like this or not it's and any portion thereof and your your example as a great example as it is your honor it doesn't it doesn't hold up because if that were enough then there wouldn't need to be the any portion or of debt would have been sufficient because under your example the five year old of the  sophisticated consumer i'm not sure my three year old is least if this is the it's not easy i know we're not there but but but my but my point is your honor is that is that the any portion there of language is essential congress has said so it's in the notice provision of the f e c p a that's different right from the misleading and deceptive this is the information that the list of the sophisticated consumer needs to know if your example is correct your honor then and theoretically in the nd circuit that collectors can basically rewrite the statu