two hundred sixteen dollars and fifty set at provided it date of service when she allegedly incurred this medical debt and then the first paragraph says you know please pay your debt now no problem with that the next paragraph says should there be any discrepancy  control it seems that what you're or you know is that any letter would be appropriate thirty thirty day period is anything they say is going to have eight in the patient one kind or another to communicate to several works that not all you writes i'm not saying that the second letter and we have to remind her of her rights but if it's going to refer to disputing rights or anything exercising disputes then it has to because otherwise you've run afoul of overshadowing and now well it's saying if if you want us to if you think it's a valid reason why you're not paying a step let us know so that that's in the nature of it and in fact there's a we have a good example closer to home church shared it and it more recent case they wish to disputed they must do it writing and you come here with all caps should there be any discrepancy please call toll free eight hundred like waco are twenty four hour our automated customer service at eight hundred cetera i mean tapio the least sophisticated better could just look at the reverse side of the letter i mean as mr zimmerman said they may not it who knows that three weeks later he even had the letter and then you get another letter that says just f relatively it's the least some desiccated i mean you've got to make it so you know i could tell you i used to do some of this work so am i using fairly sophisticated i got this letter does no requirement under the law for the second communication to refer back to the original validation this requires under the law you have to write this with the common denominator of the least just a good consumer right correct correct yeah but does it know what it says of if even if you don't have a letter there is no the rabbit decision states that i've not seen a case in research circuit commenting either way on that other than the pearson decision  requires yes and the second letter violates the statute and you are saying that the second letter is ok because it's clearance by a letter three weeks before that may have been lost that's some of them say the second letter out on any good occasion but what would you three separate numbers so you were indicating this is the way you want to have a rapport with them or whatever if that doesn't show you're interested discussing the bet and telling them what the debt is a work truck and so forth why did you only have the billing address wife's but three times and three different numbers well it's because they're put back collection and big type as opposed to bigger type than actually the phone numbers were in caprio that mailing address was and small very small type and the phone numbers were and bold and there's no particular emphasis on the phone numbers as different from the rest of type of the letter value validation right this is really parsing of writer's respect i think that if you said if you said the first letter the second letter but first and right after that you sent a letter that says no it really has to be in writing maybe you've got a case but when you send the first letter and then roughly three weeks later you send a second letter that on its space violates the statute then you really have a problem and it's it's one maybe maybe you could have an argument at summary judgment that in fact a person had the first letter in front of them that the person but they remember the first letter said it could be in writing and had maybe they consulted an attorney at some point a person said don't worry about it who knows but at twenty six it seems like you've got to go with the person who is the least bottom of the high for the sophisticated consumer who really is you know the lower rungs of sophistication in our society and what what my adversary was saying that oh you know we won in court settlement and