two different cases we have a yes genoese no in smith and we argue this is a maybe i don't think this case is a slam dunk for either side if evidence was allowed to be presented i think this case teaches us or follows in the warning from over twenty years ago of johnson versus revenue management what may be clear to a federal judge may not be so clear to a consumer judge refused we more flowery language than that but i really can't pronounce polluted that well in this case and i think if he'd gone to discovery on that matter it would have been the client if you look at two prior stuff district court decisions one by judge parker and one by the late judge brady if you look at those collection letters that tells you the client is acting on behalf of l v and if the walls case judge grady had a lot of clients researching capital current owner of a and b farming in the original creditor was credit one bank he said well we need some testimony on that to see do people understand with all these v specific letter and the experts that we've talked to think it's very amenable to surveys now what the result would be i don't know i think that the wealth of decisions going both ways by district court judges tells us that if district court judges are split sophisticated readers of letters because for example judge parker in the case that we cited part o what i'm missing well because then they refer to the original creditor which the statute doesn't require them to say and then to this unnamed client i don't believe it's enough just to say current credit and that when you add to my problem my problem with this is the statute does not require a full exposition in the letter of the string of transactions that have led up to the letter that's correct it requires identification clear identif current creditor and i frankly have trouble imagining a clearer identification than well if you're a clear identification just said current creditor be funny so you're here saying they provided too much information because that is why there's sixty nine she says you have the right to ask for the name of the original creditor next members your information while there get more information that for unspecific consumers would cause confusion to and they're getting too much information that doesn't have enough explanation it they've got this client name the name client they've got current original and the original credit in this case is a bank that failed during the financial crisis in two thousand and eight and was taken over this these are very old debts and providing this additional information could have been done in a way that would have been useful and we provided some examples of that which the district court judge said yes that probably would help but it's not required i think it is required and i think that this is in the middle category of the f t c p a a claims clearly it's not enough under any case law on any of the circuit courts to just provide statutorily required information if you don't provide effectively for instance if you provide that geno to us and then you defense it has to be effectively conveyed and this does not affect to convey that information to unsophisticated consumers now we may lose but i think we had a right to provid to do a survey on the limited time letters i do recall that we had to give up because when trying to serve it against a template that the court came up with in the every hour g m cases it didn't  survey this one i think we can survey and it may be my loss maybe my fifty thousand dollars loss it you remember those were very expensive surveys but i think this is one that could be survey just providing a simple transitional phrase this court is frequently said in cases like bartlett versus heibel you know they have a transitional phrase there were judge posner wrote a collection letter for the collection history  experience made the assumption and that that's where i think it went wrong that l v nv was the client and i think discovery was show that obviously was not in fact the client i think that for those reasons we asked that this court quote the current creditor close quote the phrase current creditor was used by this court sixteen times and the geneticist decision to explain what is required by sixt eight to which uses the phrase creditor to whom the a debt is of it in the present tense who the debt is owed here this court understands the current  b use the phrases current creditor and original creditor here there's no logical deduction that can be made to infer that the client retaining niagra is anyone other than the current creditor to assume that someone else is not logical it would prove i couldn't be a subcontractor there's nothing from the letter that would be given and  from ation to draw that inference you know it but it's it also isn't for close tried and may or may not be required to be disclosed but it's not foreclosed here in this case discovery was had on that issue and the discovery verified response it beneficial to one or both parties in a collection exercise efforts to identify the original creditor in you know in the dunning letter congress thought it was useful to the debtor the original creditor that correct congress thought it was helpful and that's why it put the requirement that if the debtor requests that it must be provided so it is a useful piece of information sure don't have that information if i got a collection letter out of the blue which does happen now and then and it and i have no idea who the original creditor was and i have no idea about the validity of the claim and you may not that maybe that may be true correct so at least the name of the original creditor gives me some clue as to what to try to dredge up from my memory or my old files and see what might of what might be a misunderstanding where it might have come from correct and so in that instance i think i may think providing more information to the consumer might help the exchange between the consumer and the debt collector i'd go ahead and they're providing that up front maybe that provides some benefit to included so i'm assuming from the very inclusion of the original creditor information here i'm assuming there's value to your honor and you're correct these letters are vetted before they go out and the the benefit could be seen as the the clear exchange between the debtor and the debt collector so the debtor already has more information upon receipt of this but the debt collector and knows who the original creditor was so it does not need to nestle explained that in the st letter but here they provided to go ahead and get the information out there in case the debtor maybe does not recognize who l v and defunding it so suppose suppose this case goes back to the survey that was conducted with reasonably reliable methodology and the survey indicates that twenty percent of people interviewed at a mall look at this letter and don't know who quote the client is front of us the geneticist case a smith case we're not relying on surveys we're looking at is this even plausible and so if if this case were to go back with the instruction or benefit of a later survey people know the issues here maybe your legal secretaries i mean aunt would you be satisfied counsel if there were a client wasn't in there and and also number one if it's just said that we are authorized to  of your whole problem is the inclusion of the word client in this that's one of the what that's the main objection because they don't have that they don't identify the client i think it's confusing and original and current and don't describe how they fit focus should be on who you should write the check to write that's right or who you should investigate to see is a legitimate collection attempt that was one of the points that the panel made you not osis when you have these debt buyers people should be able to  depends on what stage you are in the collection process and some early out collections judge they want the money going directly to sit chase bank or to the creditor or the doctor frequently in these kinds of cases i would agree that they want the money coming to them because then they can take their share of the money that they're you know they're getting out of it