that were sent on may twentieth two thousand and two from my client r t m to mr guerrero through two different addresses that were provided by the original creditor at four fifty one to a post office box and another to a street address the post office box letter was further identified with the letter a the street address was further identified as a letter b because this account was last the last payment was in one thousand nine hundred eighty four years earlier and there this is the amount that's outstanding there is a postage of postage paid envelope and it's responding to a lawyer and if and the language at the bottom commonly referred to as the mini miranda that was required at least in hawaii up until proximately year before under the hawaii statute i don't believe that even if that language is there that one can interpret it as an attempt to collect the dead when it's in response to a letter from the lawyer and when the lawyer is consumer counsel is the intermediary my client reacting to a letter that was saying everything is to go through me as the counsel and i don't believe the congress or any of the cheesecloth has ever indicated or mandated or held that that type of communication cloth debt collector to an attorney somehow impacts or violates the fair debt collection practices it does not sound familiar to me and i apologize for not having found fourteenth letter in response to the june tenth letter from pear corrected that now this letter forms the basis of jewel the reasons why the order granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against my client basically that it was that we continued to collect on the debt and also that it was there was a misstatement where my client says to the attorney that we are not bound or guided by the provisions of the fair debt collection practices act even though that later on there was an admission that there we are bound by that if everything is of correspondence back and forth between attorneys implicate draconian reactions we as attorneys we as advocates or even clients who don't have the use or at that point don't utilize counsel go back and forth to attorneys in response to basically what all characterize attempt letters go demand is made pay us three thousand dollars within ten days or you'll find yourself in federal court for violating the fair debt collection practices act without doing anything more owes the money let's talk about and all the issues dealing that judge gilmore found with the june fourteenth letter i want to go back to the believe that there was if you look at the letter says we are in the process of complying correctly and will be sent to you on receipt so there's been no growth occasion that is what i would agree with you that language is in there but i would also argue that if you look at what's also contained is additional information is contained in that letter that information has been held to be consistent with the type of verification that is adequate under the fair and that information basically told you and gave you additional information beyond which was in the original many letters such as shell oil account was opened on august twelfth one thousand nine hundred three in the name of kenneth j guerrero with a specific social security number and telling account that we had the original creditor correct ok so there's no saving here from the original creditor the original creditor though it's listed up above jealously but there's no statement from the original creditor as of this fall short of a verification and that's to any person through any medium so it's possible to continue to collect through the lawyer it's one thing to talk to a lawyer about what you can talk to a lawyer about isn't it another to intend trying to continue to attempt to collect putting in so we just ignore those this is an attempt to collect the data we nor that i believe that my client was being overly cautious to putting that language in there without having dealt with mr parable for without having any information obtained will be used for that purpose i mean it appears to me to be an continually attempt to collect the that i would wholeheartedly disagree i think that language is so says we're not subject to the care of the collection practices act that is a statement that's basically going to the attorney who spent them a letter on june tenth stating is it right is it correct it was a position statement because they had bought the debt from the original but it's too cute by half isn't it i know of course they're subject to the fair debt collection practices i can't see any whether or not but the question now comes back day drop dead date to pay the three thousand dollars or find themselves in federal court if they didn't pay from the moment they receive a letter dated june tenth from mr pair this was the only response back was the june fourteenth letter there was no communication with the consumer and if we were to hold then because verification was under way and then not been treated it was a violation of the act to attempt to collect a debt do we need to reach the question of whether they have an independent obligation articulated by the fourth circuit and shakuri at a minimum quote verification of a death involved nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demand is what the creditor is claiming in his own right and that's from language as to whether this june fourteenth letter is an attempt to collect the other side says that's just boilerplate that ends up on there automatically hey it's not where we played the that's just not true everything he had the account he didn't he didn't know if the amounts were right and he didn't and he denied that he had two accounts with them but as far as the actual amount on the single