No, Breeze. You are incorrect. This is an unresolved issue. There is and has been a very lively and articulate on-going debate (and I use that word in the best sense, as referring to an informed and regulated discussion between matched sides) on the appropriate scope of the word _communication_.
The FTC, which had accepted public comments up to this month, for the stated purpose of clarifying the FDCPA, has yet to propose anticipated revisions. However, with respect to _communication_, the issue is whether the present language of the FDCPA requires the _mini-miranda_ on legal pleadings.
There are attorneys who have taken the most conservative approach and have included it, despite the fact that the majority view is that it is unnecessary. This view is bolstered by the argument that, in fact, it is the Clerk of the Court who technically issues the Summons, and the Clerk has never been interpreted to be within the scope of and subject to the FDCPA.
The point to be derived from this information, for you and for jinky, is that _communication_ is presently defined by the Act as _the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium_ (my emphasis). I trust there is no dispute about that.
It follows that, pending further clarification, Mo_s original position was arguably correct and yours was not.
It follows that your concluding remark about having no further right to communicate pre-judgment is, in fact, still open to debate and interpretation. In instances where the CA and the plaintiff_s attorney are agents of the creditor (which, contrary to your JDB_s, is the majority of the time), or the attorney is agent for the CA, legal responsibility of the principal may be imputed to the agent. There is still no _clear bright line_.
It also follows that jinky_s _clarification_, does not address the issue fully. The _clarification_ only pertains to communication from the CA and, in my opinion, was misleading in any event. If you would prefer more euphemistic terms, I_ll settle for _highly ambiguous_. It would have reflected more favorably on the member, if the clarification were offered in lieu of the derogation of DC. Instead, the _clarification_ was offered when confronted with the language of the Act.
