end quote. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds the defendant not liable as a false, deceptive or misleading implication does not arise from an objectively-reasonable reading of the subject letter. Accordingly, judgment will be entered for the defendant. From this brief statement, it appears that the court ruled in favor of J.V.D.B. merely because the collection letter included the statutory verification notice. However, as we held in Turner v. J.V.D.B. & Associates, 330 F.3d at 998, a letter that includes a statutory verification notice may still violate § 1692e, if it leads an objectively reasonable, but unsophisticated recipient, to believe the discharged debt is still payable. See also Durkin v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc., 406 F.3d 410, 417 (7th Cir.2005) (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>). We remanded the initial appeal to the
holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city holding that touchstone in determining whether one act is part of continuing violation is whether employee was put on notice that his rights had been violated holding that determining the existence a violation of  1692e when the statutory verification notice is contained in the letter turns on whether the specific text contains any impermissible overshadowing or contradiction with respect to the validation notice holding that the validation notice is overshadowed where a debt collector serves a consumer with process initiating a lawsuit during the validation period without clarifying that commencement of the lawsuit has no effect on the information conveyed in the validation notice holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner