congress passed the act almost forty years ago or actually over forty years ago now that collectors have been trying to contradict overshadow the validation over this all to must be clearly communicated and cannot be obscured for example by contradictory information misleading information about how the consumer would go about getting that  that going on to the second page was deception yes i had there our position is that it is deceptive but it should also be noted that in fact first page that the consumer should see the back of the page so that in your class position would be a misdirection away from the key language at the top of the certain page  second physical piece of paper that that's right particularly hot in light of the fact that there is a whole slew of state related disclosures on the back of that second  basically when the courts were still trying to figure out how how this notice must be provided obert really all of these cases fall into one of two types in the first type of case the dunning letter first collectors telephone number if you read the validation notice closely you'll see that it in order to dispute it that effectively and require the other tech collector to provide verification of the debt you must do so in writing and sell a consumer who didn't see the validation notice or didn't pay the attention to do important information like she would the important information that's expressly paula where attention on the reverse side of the letter validation notice is is clearly in conspicuously printed on the front side of the second page of that letter the consecutive pagination is important because it the consumer that the letter consists of two pages and page number two necessarily follows and i think it's a matter of law even the  ed consumer should be expected to read the second page and not simply ignore it because the first page indicates that there's information on the back side of the the first page and it think the obvious reason that a consumer should be alerted when there's information printed on the back side of the page is because many if not most written communications are one sided and we don't want t the validation notice is printed on the back side of this importance to alert the consumer to that fact but that is not to case here here's the validation notice even an unsophisticated consumer who took the time to read both pages would see the validation notice in this clearly isn't a case where the debt collector made a read on the second page the fact that the first page letter refers to important information on the back side and it should never leave the consumer or commonsense obligation to read both the second page or two page letter merely because the first page alerts the consumer that there's information on the reverse side of it in that result would be entirely at odds with the  letter with with added care that necessarily presumes that the consumer is going to read the pages of a two page letter that is clearly passionate it as such let me move you to the amendment issue yes i think it could be fair to characterize our case law usually allowing for amendment that didn't happen here what your position  receive the demented pleading and that process begin all over again and so i think after those reasons judge it a little is certainly within his his discretion to deny that the fact that district court needs to offer an opinion and they and the defendant needs to author bruce is not that's not sufficiently prejudicial for denial the letter itself and the underlying account information that demonstrate that the account information that the letter provided is in fact wrong ott and would be further confusing  as as to whether an unsophisticated consumer reads an entire letter that simply is not that's not the case that's not the standard if the if the consumer i