and that was the original date made why on the internet range maybe four hundred or something that was going to browse and hours and and and the owner of the credit card gave it to the boyfriend to make the charges and now she's got five thousand settlement and now she wants more money from other people balance sheet of the lender or on the other bank that they're not seeking collection of that account in any any further active manner right and even then it tells anybody that orders a credit report resat that there's been an creditor relied on that credit report we did your honor we showed does that there were four of them i think five different times in which she had played in i as a result of the errors in the credit report now those telephone conversation with banks still trying to get this straightened out and the bank sent her a letter as a thank you very much for your information we are going to further investigate this to see whether or not we made an error and then she made the statement came out in january of one thousand nine hundred for the banks position is that the obligations under the fair credit reporting act really do require a reasonable inquiry into the status of the ca of act that triggers that my ability the actual trigger to that liability under as to be which is of course is the one that actually goes to the furniture of the information which is what my clients are the credit reporting agency is when the report i want to get it fixed now he and then but it's still not triggered the credit reporting agency then must go to the punisher of the information that's what triggers the any obligation for the parties charge information and it's is incorrect to share something as charged off something was wrong from the get go in other words if a debt is never owed it should not be shown as charged off it is a theoretical matter of you agree or disagree creditor must make a reasonable inquiry that's the way the case law is applied there's many cases that they talk about what the furniture of information is publication is under the fair credit reporting act and they've used to do is conduct notified in writing that that was a wrong charge the fact that she didn't choose to file suit on and i don't see how that helps your client the question is whether they should knew or should have known that the charge was any an allegation in still at least five years or seven or eight years after the fact of something having been posted erroneously on account on on your account that you never corrected and it allude into a credit reporting incident that was not in your favor if the bank only has an obligation under the federal law to go back i believe it was testified by our clients that i actually three years they managed to come back with seven years of statements but at seven years at exactly eighty four months every month they purge the eighty fifth month every every year it is p after that exact seven years it was shy of when even and that's only by their own standards they're not required to keep the cat back that far and that's why you can't just look at the fair credit reporting act by itself and say well if they didn't correct to say it was never corrected and sue on that basis you have to prove that it wasn't corrected and the only statements that ms could provide were the initial statements from december january and i believe february of she didn't prove that those statements it was not corrected and arc or it is the first off from our client showed it mathematically starting with the first statement that was available and even taking off the end the entire prior balance prove that mathematically starting with the charges at that time that because her boyfriend her friend whatever in pain on a regular basis the charges mathematically could and did accrue all the way up to the amount that was not paid and then he just abruptly stopped paying on the account and after so many months the man charged off mathematically it worse we were surprised but it does and it's in the record it's exhibit number two twenty four i believe demonstrate because that would be assuming that the the card hadn't even been used for the two or three months prior to that statement date and given the history of all the statements that we see from exhibit two o nine it was being used on a regular basis all the way through i don't believe there's any months without any charges on it mr hariri used to consider consistently all the way until he just decided to stop paying on it i would like to these three different constructions but it clearly supports the position that in all of the reasons that there shouldn't be any for a b claim here any statutory hawai'i claim here that the time the statutory construction that's why i was wondering why you were arguing the merits of the claim that you can argue to the jury because we had we actually disagreed with the first question truly believe that probably this then this court should enter an opinion that deals with this issue of whether whether the fair credit billing at instance failure to correct any if there was something to be corrected precluded later making a claim that it was never corrected and therefore it should never have shown up on a credit report i truly believe that that's the an court by asserting an affirmative defense which you prove in the district court and have a jury but every and your other but all this other stuff has never really come to a final decision in the district court we try to and we argue well yes but interestingly if the court had had worded it the way that we asked the answer probably would have been no and they would have gone on earth would have been yes and they would gone to the second question because we asked for that question to under the theory credit reporting act as part of that question