be under any standard we sophisticated consumer to reality it's false under the statute the statute says the dissemination of any document in connection with the collection of it that is go i think it all goes to the very nature of the the practice your time is always up and we are really having argue in this case because so many other courts have adopted a materiality requirement and so we are obviously considering come in the context of the statutes was and what's wrong with it is that the false statements at issue in this statute were not the definitions were not bloated nobody has way we don't mean technicalities you don't mean you know things that really don't matter to that consumer and had no connection whatsoever to that they said it sixty ninety two k the nature wages they can do whatever just not get get get get out of bed card she is she is simply saying that this document is false and under federal law that is actionable if it's not intentional or if it's a mistake maybe they ha stands exactly this is this is the roulette wheel but that doesn't matter that the subject of knowledge isn't the test it's a less of a sophisticated so the fact that this person knew doesn't have anything to do with it and this really it is false right didn't say this but common sense dictates that we do this to know we usually look to the statutory language and here and when we talk about the statute we talk about it should be broadly construed and when we look at the statute we see that the talking about the high case for a second where there was a strict violation that was when the clerk suggested they were going to send something on t v and paper and they sent it on a different collar that was a misrepresentation i'll think anybody could deny that w same time it might not be and this is an instance where really it makes no it makes no sense it makes no difference at the same effective in this particular case by way of example is it to say that congress made no sense when you documents themselves and everything in the document correct now there was a violation it was potentially why lation an ethical violation the potentially a violation of court rules but under the f t did it had any effect on the debt or the debtors ability to respond to the in connection with the collection of the debt that we're due do we draw the line what if it has the wrong court what if it wrong about you know where do we draw that line if it had the wrong amount if it had the world court name that aside only ten percent of the information straight persons up thousands of these and your basis only ten percent actually get retired it's not a document that they don't pay attention to them i don't know i don't want to believe it nobody has ever noticed other than the fact that she knew mr lay this would never have been and and that well that's not an excuse it is a point that that's not i found a lesson forcible correct it was that i so was it was racist and this was not something that we greet this was since it wasn't directly on point in terms of materiality but that's the perfection and not surrender irrelevant immaterial statements actionable and as such the f t c ph inherently recognizes that there is in fact a line between statements that matter and statements that do not materiality as an interpretive tool just as the many interpretive tools that courts use when they determine whether a statement or representation is actionable as a matter of law for example how many phone calls in a week constitute minute what type of representations or means that don't appear in the not exhaustive list at section sixty ninety two up constitute unconscionable behavior by that collector clerks employed these tools in actually don't think you need to leave the f t c p a a in order to do that because if you look at your lower district courts and the ways in which they have reached out into the sky they are lower district court we correct you obviously have a decision here and i would think it would be analogous you know it leads to an absurd result and maybe that would apply here it does and i think that it would be just a sound for the court to determine that this will frustrate the purpose and the intensity of the c p a which is not just to protect consumers that's certainly its primary aim it's turn the real thing is it doesn't that he issued by the court issued by an attorney that's correct and i think i think that to the extent that's problematic that's a problem for the new jersey rules committee to touch on or perhaps the new jersey judiciary to touch on but i don't believe that it creates an act was passed because debt collectors were misleading consumers they were saying you know you're going to be arrested in thirty days and somebody's going to come and harass you with respect to this debt they didn't say all you know we should protect people from from not realizing the name of the clar issue whatever our own private thoughts are about the wisdom of that i think is is is is is a secondary to the very nature of the statute they thought about it they added to the findings and they wrote as the broadest possible prohibition against their statements made in connection with the corruption of the debt which this clearly is they that the most important piece of information o