i'm sorry my mistake we're going to hear from mr jones st i get so confused because i thought why are all those people on that side of the table where you're not the appellant so my mistake i apologize opposite in the other circuits right that's correct how can that be how could a law passed by congress have different legal effect in one circuit and differ on the other circuit requestion and you know i think part of the issue with that is argue with some force their letters were almost verbatim from they just you know turned it into the nd person you have these rights and they're getting in our court they're getting done by the lie bil tracking the words of the statute you're out of that that's not completely accurate because they're not tracking the words exactly and merely even if they did even if they just cut and paste the words in the statute and stuck it into a letter that in up a self is it not the letter has to be read in ok we're going to have some specific arguments about madonna and robinson's letters but what's talking work st about the broader issue here about you know christiane no one you know what you're you're saying that the letter didn't put an obligation on the debtors to to contest this in writing and you think we can't read it together with the other sentences that followed a kind of collect that you know i think we have to read the letter in its entirety the front and yeah i'm trying to get it your are you i want to be wonder stan the implications of your argument as i understand it if they cut and paste the statute identically where from where they still are in the soup they're still liable source of confusion if if if if the letters out i understand there are differences but let's talk about perfect letter writing a perfect letter right  step in tell tell us what the perfect letter would be i would do that i think that's a different question and what judge heart beat it out well that's why i didn't say usually isn't just with the word writing the confusion is whether or not the consumer believed that they have an option more than one method of disputing today in the rd circuit you can only dispute it obviously in writing ok but when you when you pick  statute and you put it in a letter and then you put a lot of were words around the letter and you put boxes and symbols and other language around it believes the fist a kid a consumer reads that and they can they can finish the letter or leave it in unsure what they must do to actually debt for example it is mrs ricky oh mrs rick you know comes home from work she opens a letter from a company she never heard of before she has no private no prior relationship with this company she reads this letter and it says that she owes a certain amount of money and it our convenient options write any given address call would have told three number or go online this is ricky the least sophisticated consumer why in the world which is not used to eight hundred number and call if they give me different methods i have to call these people and tell him i dispute the debt so they don't believe that it's valid how do i do that apollo there are instructions in the letter and they say contact us and they give me an option of writing which means they got to write a letter get a stamp go to the post office because they're requiring me to put it in writing i could guarantee you dollars to donuts every one of my colleagues here would stand up waved a letter and say no no it says wait here in a big box call well and and it says if use of submitter writing known that that's only substance and for close quote of the debt collectors letter quote overshadowed and contradicted the validation notice i don't care which one you choose but choose one and tell me how it overshadowed and contradicted the very start it's all it overshadows it because it leaves at both of those cases also had it ten violation added at least at least sophisticated consumer on sure what they must do to actually dispute debt ok cappy or was it was a ga three violation as well as any ten violation when the when the consumer finish finishes reading this letter they initiate it and they're confused as any anything in any words that are in the the paragraph that's above that because the one sentence in a paragraph to the st and this in a paragraph doesn't say in writing it just does it so when you look at this why wouldn't the boxes supersede what's in there in addition to that form and substance boxes are quite large and recchi ok's ok why would a consumer look at this and not look at the boxes rate below where it says to contact us and when above back the debt collectors validation notice itself is insufficient to convey to consumers don't rights was never argued by the appellant at at the district court level and so therefore should be waived even if this court were to consider it going to talk to you about that but i don't know how you how you could say that this isn't confusing when there's not an explicit statement you must respond to us in writing it's gress would do that but there's a very legitimate reason why they would do it because under if it consumer disputes in writing there's a much more since substantive impact on the debt collector meaning the debt collector has to cease calling until they provide validation and they have to go through the task of providing validation of the debt ok will that help us on this there are three and you see there's a reason for it tell me again sir you're saying that you don't have to attack grassi i want to get around so i'm wondering if you think there's a statutory basis to say the difference yes i think the hot water hearse was getting at is if you're going to impose a legal obligation on the debt collector to stop stop calling and if you're going to impose the obligation on the back  lector to delegate the debt congress decided that the consumer has to go through the extra step of putting that request in writing so there's no mistake about the dispute of putting  but that's the nub of the issue right because we understand you want to get rid of graziano but the point is what is congress getting at by leading the writing out of eighty three dollars how is a three distinct far as i understand it three causes the debt collector wants the phone calls made to have to do some things that benefit the debt or the trade or the period of debtor but they don't have to go to the same extent and trouble to do the kinds of things they need to do if it's in a four or a five communication of the trade generalize i don't know if you have an empirical basis for this but ballpark arguably large majority of debtors disputing by phone or fax or e mail are most of these coming in and writing i mean i would think the majority of the disputes come in orally and debt collectors are happy to take them orally you know   let's talk some about the point you made earlier we said this issue wasn't this wasn't already in this court said it was wait i think maybe you mean forfeited but isn't this just an argument in support of the claim that the notice was violated the lease is the editor standard is not a distinct claim here so i'm not sure that it's forfeited or what weight we should give that i mean i think there's difference i don't think  congress has language in your in your recollection letter then the only issue that that was raised was whether there were language which is what the wilson wilson case options before we get to the writing i mean some of the other letters here had the this dead sure notice up front to phase in other stuff your letter doesn't have any of that and so even if the others might be read as holistically requiring writing it's kind of hard us which we went through the argument on that the the rd paragraph is simply asks asking the consumer inviting the consumer at you call they have any questions and if you look at the morning of may may it please ok carl gordon and reese on behalf of century credit by a matter of seven minutes i'd like to give you a minute of this letter and six minutes of a bit of a sales pitch for being reconsidered on wagner and accordingly she did voc review here's the letter they did not dispute the validation notice front and center they did not dispute the little bit of letterhead contact information they only said that these three boxes overshadow i think that the that position is foreclosed by wilson it's foreclosed by caprio wilson and caprio are both   with one of our convenient options close quote dries to a level of caprio what does i'm saying caprio distinguish tara and caprio said that the collection letter did more than merely ask caprio to call the see if we can answer any question that says please if you do feel you do not over this amount call ok and that put it squarely at odds with the graz iana holding that was the problem that this court had with that letter not that it included with no further comment the idea that the telephone number now my colleague has has explaining these three boxes are consonant with caprio know as i said only been rejected by three sisters circuits and the c f p but i would suggest to you it's more along the lines of a friend now friend bill was a wonderful case the rd circuit every other circuit disagreed this case with by judge pollock a wonderful jurist rd circuit went st it is a counter text you'll interpretation of the statute it imports let words it simply are not there it is an important issue in a federal scheme that is constantly litigated and there is a need for uniformity because as good hearted men you pointed out you end up with absurd results with the person that lives in brooklyn who has his mail forwarded to new jersey circuit came out with a case tomorrow would you make the same argument i would argue that it's wrong and i would argue that you have l they don't take it and then we then you're wondering what's happening in the other seven circuits i think that with the guidance of four circuits and pretty much all the district courts elsewhere that unanimously reject this view that i think that the problem taken care of itself especially with the executive guides of the c f p be couple questions about that one of them are there any reliance interests on the other side reasons why people might have built business models obviously we might want some briefing before that but when your friend on the other side say there you know lawyer such as he who are filing suits and there's a there's there's a lot some kind of reliance on graziano well i mean yes these lawsuits are springing up like they had the lions across the district courts of the rd circuit and yes there is a business model on that side of that whatever is written is not good enough course you know th in the other circuits but frankly one important legislative goal of the f t c p s a is to reward good debt collectors and not punish them is to punish the bad debt collectors even the field not to inhibit fair debt collection activity and i submit that our letter is a pretty milquetoast letter that really goes to debt collection letters as a matter of fairness defended should not be subjected to statutory liability in this context when it reasonably relied on the very statute to craft the notice it issue does i do not deem the length language of the letter to be and it busa of debt collection practice whether our court order addressed this or leave it to the supreme court is this the kind of thing that's going to keep bubbling up or to these cases ultimately it will go away pretty quickly and while there are a tremendous number of them depending if you're talking about these letter cases these letter cases tend to be fired up the plaintiff's counsel tend to appeal every one that that they're not happy with because all they need to do is prevail on the one and it feeds their business model substantially so you have these four you have more behind you have the st case that i'm aware of which is could deal which might my partners here and who represents the debt collector in that case that ones as i said that issue is was not preserved and litigated below and i think we win on that but it is squarely presented by the ones that are coming up next and you know if you if is fixed it fixes the problem globally across the circuits and that you you have a problem you have problems in your former district good greenaway and now if you look at the will twenty eight jail letters that were submitted in my case there are now a couple of cases including could deal where they have found that the validation notice itself which is frankly always been considered a gold standard it's just referred to among all the all the circuits as the validation that can ask about the record in your case so you are co counsel asserted that the challenge to do the developer in general was not argued in his case your position is was it argued in your case is not argued below saying it's been waived in any event those those decisions are wrong and look at all the other decisions that hold that the validation that is passes muster ok thank you mr cole here mr williams they please the court michel williamson with baron a new burger on the national recovery cancer cure last question in terms of litigation like to point out that there is currently twenty three decisions in the last within the last three years case in terms of the genome just is also a considerable amount of cases which have been litigated and there's quite a few more in the pipeline waiting for decisions so the quantity of litigation currently there not being there are very few are being settled they are being litigated and the determining factor is the resources of the defend it so what you have is smaller agencies are are settlements cases because it's economically feasible makes more sense for them to settle they don't have the money to continue and litigate and reach this level and only the bigger players can afford to go this far we've heard arguments that the g the  that was forfeited in the other cases is it a live issue in your case or do you argue it was forfeited as well and i argued that it wasn't litigating it wasn't addressed in the opinion it really was and it was it was kind of a throw well it didn't need to be addressed in the opinion to be preserved  wasn't argued in your case i don't think so i don't believe it was i mean that's your argument or you don't remember i don't believe it was i don't believe it was argued going to review because when i review their brief i don't believe th have to use the word notify i'm not quite sure what other word would fit i do know that there's a case unless we hear from you which is the case in pennsylvania the home or case which the court found a the th paragraph here it gives the safe harbor language in terms of interest in other charges accruing and advices the debtor that if they want a pretty i'm amount because to do that since interest is continued to accrue the amount  will change from day to day that they can call to get that information and lastly there is a consumer feedback where it says civically to submit complaints questions or other concerns and it gives an e mail address of the compliance and national recoveries is the toll free number and it gives also a fax number there is no invitation to call regarding the validity of the debt whether they owe the money whether they are right individual and two to step back a nd i believe that is the point of that st sentence the three is to to ask the question i don't think i owe this amount or i don't think i'm the right person and to put the debt collector on notice the writing requirement requires the day the debt collector to take certain action they have to cease until they respond which is not a requirement under three and i think that's why there is not a recall or writing morning hours i'm peter shapiro counsel for am call i want to make one plimer point about graziano i appreciate why the court would be interested in exploring the reasons why writing would be referenced in one subsection and not in others or vice versa and represent reference into subsections but not in the one that's critical here my point would be that it really doesn't matter what congress was thinking because the cour this process that we would get to the gonna let our language specifically i think are brief articulate why we believe there's no sort of throwing the word call is not in  that in the st sentence unless you notify currently they're arguing let you know to find writing should be said and that was never presented to the court below so we don't think that exceptional circumstances are presented the letter was overshadowing because it provided in the content full content of the letter that you can contact our office with so it's not was it the  rd paragraph this call please call customer service or what part of parts were issue in the district court i think it's that you know please contact our office if which is follows the words of the  however please contact our office where representative is on him to assist you if you need help with the spelling of questions so i think it's very stark and i think judge cooper not right if you need help contact the office if you have questions contact the office if you need to dispute you have to notify the office and the notification is provided for in writing i don't see how ever says directly if you dispute this debt you must write to us  not say that but i believe that this court should be guided by the many courts that have helped some our language to this which track a statute and what those are outside our gets the right if you really want to be careful to comply in the rd circuit base the poa crazy anyone care prius says there should be a sense in there that says if you can test this debt you must do so in writing yes my thinking to the other prior get mr jones back up on rebuttal and can we start where we judge beavis just finished sure if there is more counsel's probably aware we do have a vigorous forfeit doctrine in this circuit you're not allowed to raise issues for the st time on appeal we we review decisions made by district courts after the issues are presented joined argued discussed and decided by the district court so with that each and every one of his complaints challenges the gene well the weight of it all but let me let me just slow down a little bit because i think you can have an overshadowing argument with a perhaps not so much mr williamson is that you never told the district court in these cases that the genome has itself the validation notice itself was illegal white when i hear them saying is you argued that there is a validation notice in these letters but it's overshadowed by the please call in the other trappings what each complaints as a little bit more did just that your honor each complained says that that letter older all leads to consumer confused are on sure if exactly what they minds due to dispute did debt they lead the they lead the letter with the impression maybe in correctly but he leave the let of what than oppression that they could call and in order for it to overshadow him in order for that argument to hold that that that they think that they could possibly call it at calling is an option the geno does has to come in to play each and every complaint talks about the geno it is each and every complaint talks about the in tend violation which sentry credit at that toll free telephone number or it could write to them or i could call them were not all three are correct only one is corrected they have to rate so if they give it if they if they choose to use these words and put these options for payment ne options were contact your rather in the letter the burdens on them on the debt collector to qualify it to to consumer sort of consume a note what they can do a what they can't do i find it hard to believe that the consumer would read t each of these is collectively that the issue that the letters to not make clear that the dispute had to be in writing that the  do not make clear that the dispute needs to be given writing if they want to stop the debt collector from assuming a debt is valid ok right so we had this question we could conceptualize this all as a single claim about the writing requirement one of the arguments is confusing or not we also have the ability to affirm on any grounds in the record so what would you say about the representation is three of your your colleagues on the other side said this just was never read the gino this was never raised at all and mr williamson said it was tossed in but it wasn't really argued i don't expect you to have the answer offhand but what do you recall the bit to the best recollection i don't what was mentioned discussed adverted to somewhere in the district court briefing or argument every case has played and in the pleadings gone below talk about the g notice ok that's the essence of it we argue that the geno is g three versus other means i think it should be all along the lines i think the argument and for these cases concerned whether the debtor would be confused into thinking he or she didn't have to right where in fact he had to write or not the dead whether or not whether or not the de believed that they had more than one method to dispute the debt and the bank call him by writing by sending an email that we knew that when every sophisticated consumer finished reading that letter they believe that they could possibly call or they have the option of renting  this the rd circuit has to be in writing there's no reason why they didn't put in writing a letter what's that what give me the best letter and for you in the best argument that it's confusing if there is a writing requirement in place to set them all together tells them right off the bat that they're writing to him about one or two things they're not quite sure either of the four to student loan for a grant overpayment and then he reads the statutory language up and modified to say that unless you notify us within thirty days we're going to assume that that is valid and then he continues to read the rest of the letter when he finishes reading this letter if he wants to stop the debt collector from assuming the debt is valid and get all the protections that go along with that he's got to contact them somehow when you look at the paragraph that says great below the line where gives national recovery it gives its office hours it gives to days a week it's open it tells them that they're in the central time zone then it says you may write as at the address listed below or telephone us at the telephone number below do not send payments to satirise so the question becomes why is this information provided it's not for payment it's to contact them there's nothing here that says that they can't contact them debt you told me early in the letter that unless they notify you you're going to assume this debt is valid well i'm going to call i'm going to go to the nonpayment section of the letter that says don't send payments here if it's got to relate to other items and i'm going to look for my options my options are what i