motion for a protective order my motion to compel and point zero zero five one b l do little i i am a factor and you're a factor because i buy accounts and i pursue them and and under oregon law i  because the wording of the statute says the difficulty or the purposes of this paragraph don't you have to be operating under some sort of overall agreement with the enterprise for which are of a factor you know oregon has never legislated to control or regulate people who buy accounts and hurt purchase them and seek to recover in their own name collection agency collection money for other people i do not i collect money for myself they take they are signed an account they don't buy it just lying to them and they pursue it in their own name but they're pursuing on behalf of a third party i do not do that i buy an account how i write and i curse you in my own name could you help me out by telling me under which sub paragraph of six ninety seven point zero five you say you are a factor i believe that six point seven zero zero five one b l two little are the frozen doesn't doesn't true call for an agreement yet listening or collecting on accounts would have been purchased from commercial regulate you've got thirty seconds left i don't hear from the other side and then we'll give you a chance for a battle we'll got thirty seconds left why don't we hear from the other side and then you'll have a chance for a battle proceeding involves totally different facts i'm not even aware of what the reasoning of the court was or if you know transcripts so that is not binding on this court as a as an unpublished opinion from a motion hearing that i'm sorry did you say that there is a specific to what mr shelton was doing at the time the injunction prohibits mr shelton from operating as a debt collection agency unless he's in compliance with a lot i'm not even aware of what facts presented to that court nor is there anything that i can read to argue against that case the factual finding of the bankruptcy court in the district court that mr shelton frequently pursues cases as an ass and me is supported by more than just the one case you referenced the fact in this specific case you presented the confession of judgment to the debtors that  not part of the record before this court there's no chance to develop that issue with regard to the standing proceeding that happened earlier in the bankruptcy court nor was there any waiver as the debtors of the way on evidence whether or not he had a good faith belief when he filed his case so that he could defend against the frivolous motion for sanctions for those meeting and in fact even if the court were to consider that evidence is not confident on the issue of whether mr sharp was a debt collection agency according to the springfield education district versus springfield school district number nineteen organs of greenport decision an agency that is not granted discretion to interpret the statute that can have no binding interpretations it's a matter of law and it's for a court to decide what the definition of accurate is in the state of florida how do you respond to mr shelton's argument that he is not a collection agency that is rather a factor respond to that argument there are many different types of debt collection actions in oregon and there are purchases of accounts politan under the statute for regulation as lilly have that on the record i do not believe that there's a record of various types and forms of collection actions that can occur in oregon but if you look at the genesis of the that collection statute it makes clear that there is a distinction between outright purchasers and factors if you follow through  the term factor doesn't appear until the one nine hundred seventy five in athens and in that year they had definitions of both purchasers who were excluded from the statute and factors or excluded from the statute making a distinction between the two types of not in the factoring statute in the debt collection agency regulation act there are some oregon cases that refer to the entity of the factor and in all those cases the courts have looked at a purchaser but to leave it factor they seem to have gone back to refining that exclusion down to this concept of a factor and got rid of the concept of purchaser of debt without recourse and that was the specific language in seventy five that was eventually eliminated by the oregon legislature peers that leading up to that point the legislature silence on an exclusion for a lecture without recourse meant that the producers were included by not being specifically included the few cases that have looked at this scheme have described it as a comprehensive scheme for the regulation of that collection and therefore if there's not a specific exclusion when within the legislature intended to apply to everyone who was not specifically excluded well but i'm not just reading the specific exclusion for factoring of the double life exclusion it says anyone who is soliciting or collecting on accounts that have been purchased from commercial clients under an agreement then whether or not the agreement means it doesn't overarching agreement it doesn't say agreement covering more than the particular data just as an agreement then obviously there's no way you're going to purchase something from somebody without an agreement with that's in investment here and in the notion of purchase asked one possibility of being a factor but they have to be engaged in providing factoring services in this math so that when i just said well why is need doing that in this math of the method being purchasing an account from a commercial anyone who purchased without recourse than it would not have deleted that specific definition from the one nine hundred seventy five statute and replace that with this concept of the factoring relationship which is a factor creditor relationship under in agencies further define in seventy five they have two different definitions of purchase without recourse and factors by two thousand and one or two years without recourse are eliminated from the statutory scheme and we have left the factoring exception which came in a time when they were using both that would suggest that the organ legislature was clearly refining this exception down to the factor creditor relationship as a narrow exception or exclusion to the statute and that purchasers without recourse list bankruptcy proceeding watching to be a matter of bankruptcy laws to federal law as to who's the creditor who has standing to collect on the death under the cases that defined standing for the purposes of appearing in a bankruptcy court the us supreme court has a definition of that relationship which refers back to to a certain extent state law and requires that there be some valid basis to pursue th that is the debt in question the bankruptcy court in that context that mr shelton is not authorized to collect under oregon law therefore he does not have a claim and is not a creditor into the bankruptcy so what's the supreme court pronouncement that you have in mind  i don't want to distract you from them that's right i have nothing further other than to respond to your question