requirement i as an element of the rico and then as plaintiff one would be required to pleaded and also to avert summary judgment to i i do something on  yours didn't you have the opportunity discovery to develop facts about knowledge and intent i didn't i didn't develop it at the time because i didn't know that was the intercede when it seems under pennsylvania law your client had a remedy but your client could say i hate the most i'm supposed a is six percent that you know whatever the principle is six percent here five hundred ninety six dollars something like that that dollar amount that nine dollars turns on your recalculation with a number of assumptions when it comes to the question of materiality the test in pennsylvania is a monthly factor three times there's been no he meant and the bank account in question was restrained so that there couldn't be further pain and how it was that not a material default because it's only nine dollars and forty cents how can they get i mean you can't you can't tell him he doesn't live or for he's very essential to make sure if you argument is that's the only interest i owed then why wouldn't that be material if i had a lo and and i didn't pay the only thing i was supposed to pay why would that be a material default mostly because i think it's turned out and there was a problem with communication and it's the it's a do you see the argument that it's too low  they have expenses and it's amazing when you think of that they can run it twenty five percent legally if they want to get a license but only for something yeah if they want to get a license they don't want to get a license and now the court asked us to address obviously whether or not there are strict liability for the collection of unlawful debt in the context of civil rico or whether there is a mens rea requirement not prepared to talk on that but briefly i just want to correct a few  thoroughly researched the issue i never saw found a case where a collection of unlawful that in the civil context case made it to a summary judgment motion everything else that i was able to find dealt with motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim or motions awful nature of the debt and that law has been cited with approval by this circuit and in fact is now incorporated into the criminal jury charges that are published on the court's website i was reviewing these last night and defendant be associated with the enterprise the fourth is that he knowingly conducted the enterprises affairs or knowingly participated directly or indirectly in the conduct of that enterprises affairs and on the third page fifth that the in be a sushi and certainly given that this is activity that occurs all the time in a commercial context there are present warranties under the u c c there there's commercial reasonable conduct and in this case my client repossess ors my co counsel there mr kirk and represented premier's well as his brother my client accepted this job in extreme for a representation from our us financial who was a loan servicer that your response to well that's an interesting question because the issues were all briefed and as i said judge gardner granted the summary judgment motion of the very narrow ground that recovery of collateral is not tantamount to collection of debt certainly enterprise in existence because there was no association in fact that would qualify as such under rico because there was no shared intent no conspiracy in effect between the different now as far as whether this issue can be so rich so help me know so having raised enterprise that in your mind preserves knowledge a to the collection of debt where is there any argument about c enter or even enterprise there there's not your honor of now that you have read it certainly that refreshes my recollection and i apologize right in in that district court decision where he looked at those things as merely a distinction without a difference in either case one is looking to collect on the debt well essentially the hundred ninety eight lincoln towncar and i believe that the kelley blue book value for that is less than the amount of interest that he ended up paying but then we look at this from the perspective of the collector what constitutes correction of the debt i mean  the collateral recovery specialist in this case is not the same person who liquidates the collateral and that is one beat that itself is actually collected and transmitted the recovery of collateral is only the first step on on essentially what is a long road because it has to be posted for sale it has to be auctioned off the proceeds of the action have to actually go to satisfy that debt so the repossession of collateral in an instance like this where there is an option to redeem it is not tan hundred ninety one that if it's involves inducing in any way any person to make repayment congress to find collect any related context are very broadly and  qualifications on the collection of that it has to be debt that is known to at twice the legal rate and has to be incurred in that in connection with the business of lending money in a situation like this i think that congress was speaking specifically one but we're looking at the term collection which is different than the unlawful that term in the statutes collection of unlawful that that is correct certainly i would concede that point but the fact remains that no quarter has you are correct your honor it is steps towards that the process of collection but it's a step that can be reversed it's a step that does not have to be taken any further because in this case as i said the plaintiff could have abandoned his interest in the car the lender in still collecting it it's that is correct your honor i concede the point that i'm walking a fine line here certainly and that i would encourage the court to take a literal reading of the statute as opposed to a broader reading of statute now it do we even get to reach that question because this may be steps toward the collection of the debt but wasn't that consummated here at the end of the transaction there was a collection of the full amount two thousand plus which was the principal and interest that was  d so how do we hear or not have a collection of unlawful that by any standard well certainly you have the payment of the interest and we contend that this matter is actually tried you'll see that the reason the interest was paid directly to us financial and not to create here and not to repossess ors so in this case the repossession companies were merely acting as unwitting agents of the loan service as well as the lander and given the purposes of rico in order to weed out organized crime and to prevent racketeering activity i think it would be anomalous and unfair to all to repossession company liable  do in fact try to protect themselves and this is not a case of well for blindness this is a case where it is commercially acceptable and reasonable for collateral recover specialists to accept a my present right of possession is more than that right i mean as long as it is the default as a present right position but there's more to the transaction or are you saying that that's the only representation being made so as long as that reputations being made it's irrelevant whether appended to that is as you usually use rate of interest that is the result that was certainly reached here in this case is as the panel recognised the plane took was three months behind on his payments he had made absolutely no payment for that time period and he had paid only four hundred dollars at that point he was any knowledge with regard to the user is rate of interest therefore fraud by the by the fact that there is a warranty that there is a present right to possession that's given by the loan servicer in this case the information that repossessed years obtain from morris financial before it engaged premier to re to recover plaintiff's vehicle was the amount that was outstanding on the loan and a description of the collateral and account number as well  as i believe the number of days that were that the loan was overdue and in this case they knew that there had been no payment made for approximately ninety days at the time that in the criminal context willful blindness could get there but when you're talking about the civil context which one would think would be a lesser standard i would not think that actually because the same conduct that is prescribed by nine hundred sixty two can give rise to criminal penalties as well as to severe penalties i could not find any case law that suggested that there was a lesser standard of proof of her up there were no there is nothing that says there is a lessening of the elements that analysis in the civil context or is the criminal caught and i thought that was fairly straightforward question but apparently not ok right why isn't it i launched into too long of an answer and i apologize for that the only difference between civil rico and criminal rico is this burden of proof to a preponderance person is beyond a reasonable doubt everything else remains the same and if this court says that in order to commit a criminal rico offense it has to be done so knowingly as opposed to well for blindly willfully blind it follows that the same the same showing must be made in the civil context as well