Please avoid this by making payment. Please send full payment.” Id. at 2. While the statutory validation language was highlighted at the bottom of the same page, the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, stating: “Although the letter does not clarify what constitutes continuation of the collection process or what ramifications stem from such a process, the least sophisticated consumer can be left with only one impression — that the cessation of this ominous ‘collection process’ will occur only if full paymen n urgent, restrictive time limit within which plaintiff must make payment. Cf. Russell, 74 F.3d at 32. It even used the permissive language of “we may recommend legal proceedings against you” rather than issuing a direct demand or a threat. Cf. Kramsky, 00-CIV-2936 at 5 (<HOLDING>); Sokolski, 53 F.Supp.2d at 311 (hold ing that
holding that instructions are sufficient which substantially follow the language of the statute or use equivalent language holding that the language by not addressing this matter you will cause the collection process to continue implied that undesirable consequences would follow if she faded to pay in full holding that the childs statement regarding sexual abuse was not sufficiently trustworthy when made in direct response to the question  did anybody ever do anything like this to you to make you do this  after the child was found sexually touching her sister holding that if you do not qualify under the hup test you never get to the statute holding that seventh amendment right to jury trial not violated by courts dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to rule 12b6 because as a matter of law complaint faded to present an issue for trial