practice act applies to debt collectors yes and so then people make the watch the inference that if you are not a debt collector you're something else logically fall in a particular case into either category so you then look to the supreme court case and henson on page seventeen twenty four and it says that we're going to do is definition must include anyone who regularly collects death after the ball read through the lines it's possible you could be for certain circumstances one by definition and for certain circumstances another by definition read yes you could technically also fit within the debt collector because the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts not does so to another an by its express language check investors made a distinction and said you can't be a creditor if you acquiring this that post the fault the very thing that henson said don't pay debt a creditor but we can't do that because we have to pay attention to whether this is a creator post the fall for that and hence it comes once or is stop paying attention to preen post the fact that it's just that isn't the rationale that you're so what we're trying to do so let's start with the tax and we both agree that you may fit within the definition of a creditor and you may fit within the definition of a debt collector you know we don't want the person who's making minimum wage working the phones to be liable for a thousand dollars we want the company that employs them to be liable for th bit that's what we're trying to do with it officially accredited is right and the definition for credit you just read it and you've agreed that that we believe it doesn't exclude the employer doesn't exclude amos financial even if it excludes him is financials employees i'm having a little trouble following the logic you've got for why that kind of an exclusion means that in this financial can't be a creditor could stuart tell us how do you read i realize hasn't deals with the second or what is a debt collector in this case deals with the first sure one could argue at the outset that henson really is off wheat and yet you've heard the panel saying well there are aspects of the russian alibek case that may be helpful in analyzing what we have here how do you go about the analysis i don't ballot by looking right at the say in the definition of what is a debt collector creditors are excluded in fact this panel has discussed with opposing counsel the idea that oh there are is an exclusion for the that's not where it ends you look at what is their principal purpose if it is to collect debts then they have crossed the threshold and become a debt collector and the law find was in this case at all it's only because he's a rose and we did post trial brief on hanssen that this appeal even exists and it's based soley on whether they are dead collected even though is congress intended to say what you are whether to whom and that is owed and you're trying to collect your excluded from this statute you wouldn't even necessarily need to specifically say we're going to exclude the officers all walks of life some who can't take telephone messages like the one we discussed in the prior appeal but in the end of the day if the business model and their business model is this and they don't dispute that they were bad isn't it the case that when the supreme court hands and goes out of its way to say we're not talking about the principle purpose here worse not talking about that why should we say ok well like the district court said the principal purpose prong is unaffected by hansen and if it's unaffected by hansen that means that our case or like tech investors is still in play and you can't be because the construct of the very statute with the very with all of the tests that we're discussing all of briefly when you look at what they say is included as a debt collector and then the way in which they you're trying to do is your primary purpose principal purpose is to collect debts not a bank a traditional bank a traditional bank has a relationship with all of his customers and he doesn't want to necessarily or is incentivized not to have a bad reputation on the street for being overly aggressive in collecting its that's ok it won't see it has a relationship up front that has a relationship on the back end if it goes into fall that's not the business model we're talking about that bothered congress well i mean to but we were through before this summer the analysis that i don't believe the check investors holding was takes a lot the board and we also look at the supreme court's opinion and said at the very end of justice which it says we have no difficulty imagining for example a statute that applies the acts demands to anyone that seems like it lays the groundwork for the next case and maybe what it means is this case in particular you could be a you could buy a de it supports mr jack