i appreciate that i have the task of convincing this court that the district judge's opinion should be reversed in light of taylor to that end mr case is more akin to the facts in the eastern district of new york's islam versus american recovery services decision  they radically different between this and taylor park well number one the letters are completely different and it's not just form over substance so it's not just about the placement of a logo or telephone number but we're talking about that prominent position front and center on the debt collection letter which is completely absent from what this court considered taylor and as you can see from that letter it's got all of the subject charges the interest being zero dollars and the so called total non interest charges or fees accrued being zero dollars listed the interest in the charges and fees and as zero retailer you're saying that you didn't have those at all that's correct that isn't that i think to answer st question there are actually two differences so you've got the substance of the letter itself which is this prominent item is ation of this interest and fees being zero dollars which is not in the taylor letter so i think that that's difference number one on a factual level that's not what i'm arguing here i'm not arguing and omission i'm not saying that the debt collector omitted anything and i think that's the nd distinction to answer your st question from taylor i'm saying that what they included this as of language is completely superfluous it has no place in this letter what cases where he rules and in favor of consumers he had these identical facts he had this item is asian judge parker he had this these this interest in the so called non interest charges of being zero dollars before him and he looked at  and and i think that's important and also judge judge pooler in taylor although islam wasn't actually cited in taylor if you look at the docket the appellate brief and the appellate last person standing here last but in the appellant brief they actually cited islam so the nd circuit judge has had i believe you pronounce it as the i'll say and that was after taylor and he will the same way and i think the point is that had this court wanted to abrogate islam they certainly could in taylor they had that case before them they knew about it i mean by basic west law search but in the appellant's brief they also talked about islam so had the judge wanted to add this court wanted to abrogate islam as advocated by frontline they certainly could have done so and they decided not to and the facts just gross apologize stuff goes the the harm is and in my line of work i see this all the time so a client comes to my office and they don't just have one problem ok they don't just have a credit card debt they've got medical bills they've got student loans and car bills and when you line all those bills on your dining room table at the end of the month and you're deciding which ones to pay st you're going to look at this one dollar that seems to indicate that interest and all these other fees are going to are going to accrue when they're really not and you think they're not because you know that it static and then you say you know what i'm going to pay this one person as opposed to the five others that's the harm your honor but it says zero fees you know interest on this tour and i think that one of the things that frontline brings up is a good point that that that very well may be true ok that may be a true statement but that doesn't mean that there's another way of looking at it and so the other way of looking at it is that this may go up that i see the zero doubt these fees being zero dollars and one dollar part of a letter prominently displayed but then at the end i see as of the date of this letter it might it might increase and so i say to myself maybe it will increase so in terms of materiality which is essential in the nd circuit the materiality is that when i'm deciding between five different bills to pay i'm going to go with the one that i think is misleadingly telling me that it's going to increase when it's not thank you  good morning in may it please the court my name is jacob cohn and i am counsel for frontline asset strategies this is a case that is squarely governed by taylor taylor is president taylor rejects the argument that was adopted by the court in this long there is no daylight here the only difference that they want to grab onto is the fact that all the other information other than current balance do indicates to static that and that is a distinction without a difference i mean we start with we could basically follow judge calibrate through three cases and answer is this the st is of yellow with your honor authored and that says if you have a dynamic that you can say current balance without giving the avila safe harbor language it says it's moving then you go to taylor and taylor says this is this is  court that the only harm taylor inclined suggest to consumer might suffer but mistakenly believing that interest or fees are occurring on a debt is being led to think that there is a financial benefit in making repayment sooner rather than later so that's hardly a basis for a reading taylor and saying anything other than it says and then you get the medal is out and you read that it's actually a month after taylor's taylor's not cited but that's a different question it's not right before this court is if you have a static that but you put a veil of warnings in that says it might be a moving target does that constitute an f t c p a violation i don't know let's not before the court it's not right  to think this is from page ten of their their brief think the balance set forth in the front line letter is static a tallackson however she would then read the as of the date of this notice language and think that it's dynamic and the as of the date of this notice is what's answered by taylor they can see that if anything providing the zero interest and you know zero fees is helpful to reinforcing that it's a static debt and that is the argument they made below and balance is not misleading and lawyers can can twist themselves into pretzels to try to make it misleading and that's just not so because you end up with a reductive you ad absurdum where you end up saying that the word balance due means you problem is the zero interest accrued and zero fees assessed which is completely contrary to their argument in this court and below and if they want to make that it's waived and it's wrong if it's a static debt and what's the point of putting in the language as of the date of this letter there could very well have been a payment made that has not been received that has not been applied it's accurate but again i think that that is meant to be to address any retroactive balance not a feature balance well and it would make it dynamic as opposed to static it is a dynamic to reduce it's never going to increase and again tailor stands for the proposition that even if you can read it i could see of a bully to suggest that it might increase in the future that is i'm not a material issue that is what taylor flatly rejects all i think you asked the most pertinent question to mr cohen and that's what's the purpose of it and he gave one answer but there's certainly a plausible other answer that that it was in there either negligently right they didn't really know what they were doing or it was done for business purposes because they said to themselves you know what mr wolfe might be right there might be five different bills from five different creditors that this person has to pay let's get ours to the top of the list let's put this language in there or maybe there was just a strategic reason maybe there was some reason they were not thinking what would you have the letter say in in place of that judge parker i think number one i mean i can certainly answer that question i'm not sure it's my obligation to tell them what to put in i mean that's certainly something for congress to decide but maybe they could have just said here's your balance why put anything that has in terms of mail and one of the payment in the mail it wasn't reflect and then it would be misleading i mean that's a different set of facts and i don't think that i need to i don't i mean i can certainly answer that question and may very well miss be misleading and if there's a letter like that when i get back to my office it's something that i could think about but i don't think that prohibits this court from reversing this decision and that mr cohn can answer that question why is it in there and if his innocence a problem if you're asking us to find that woods in there is misleading and if we take it out it's misleading and then  lost well i know i can i can appreciate that but i don't think that that's my job today your honor i mean i think that i can look at this protect that this court to look at this particular letter and maybe this is a trilogy maybe this is a via and taylor slash the rose and this is the rd one but this is a totally statutory in new york so that that item is a statutory so that what i'm saying is is is temporal is this as of this date language so to go back to judge part i don't know if i necessarily need to tell them what they need to do to make their letter better right my job as a consumer advocate is to tell them why it's wrong and the as of this date is completely superfluous there is nothing in the at the c p a to put that requires them to put that in there if it was dynamic then obviously you know a viet nam apply and there may be this the miller sa