Comments on: FTC v J.K. Publications Inc http://www.geeknewscentral.com/2009/06/19/ftc-v-jk-publications-inc/ Geek News Central is the technical site for Geeks. We Spin tech for the common man. With a Family of Tech Shows and Content. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:38:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John Mueller http://www.geeknewscentral.com/2009/06/19/ftc-v-jk-publications-inc/comment-page-1/#comment-5426 John Mueller Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:09:05 +0000 http://www.geeknewscentral.com/?p=9025#comment-5426 I received a check for $ 27.68 as well and I took it to Chase and they called Bank of the West and verified that there were funds and the check did clear when I deposited it. The lady at Chase did say that the Bank of the West employee she talked to did mention it was part of a settlement. --John I received a check for $ 27.68 as well and I took it to Chase and they called Bank of the West and verified that there were funds and the check did clear when I deposited it. The lady at Chase did say that the Bank of the West employee she talked to did mention it was part of a settlement. –John

]]> By: C. J. Carter http://www.geeknewscentral.com/2009/06/19/ftc-v-jk-publications-inc/comment-page-1/#comment-5416 C. J. Carter Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:30:48 +0000 http://www.geeknewscentral.com/?p=9025#comment-5416 I received two (2) checks at two different address' - both for $27.68. I've been watching for scam updates and have yet to find any mention on snopes.com. I don't believe one can be charges a fee for a NSF check issued buy another party. You would have to return the money obviously - a wash. I received two (2) checks at two different address’ – both for $27.68. I’ve been watching for scam updates and have yet to find any mention on snopes.com.

I don’t believe one can be charges a fee for a NSF check issued buy another party. You would have to return the money obviously – a wash.

]]> By: Gary http://www.geeknewscentral.com/2009/06/19/ftc-v-jk-publications-inc/comment-page-1/#comment-5128 Gary Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:59:41 +0000 http://www.geeknewscentral.com/?p=9025#comment-5128 Todd, It was easy for them to locate you. You do file a tax return through the IRS each don't you? This is just a case of one Government agency talking to antoher. Todd,

It was easy for them to locate you. You do file a tax return through the IRS each don’t you? This is just a case of one Government agency talking to antoher.

]]> By: Dave http://www.geeknewscentral.com/2009/06/19/ftc-v-jk-publications-inc/comment-page-1/#comment-5126 Dave Sun, 21 Jun 2009 08:44:05 +0000 http://www.geeknewscentral.com/?p=9025#comment-5126 I wouldn't say "the FTC article on the FTC site clears up any doubts" - "clearing up doubts" would involve the FTC explaining why there is no specific accounting for the refund amounts (they're satisfied justice is done by virtually leafleting the public with these checks?), why the wording on the checks is so appallingly amateur-scammer, and why they didn't subsequently specifically apologize for not getting someone with some business/legal writing skills to to edit that text before it went to print. From seeing people's responses on line, hundreds or thousands of may have figured the SETTLEMENT was a scam and decided to shred their checks - solely as a result of the FTC's tacit approval of this grade-D presentation. It doesn't help that they sound as if they're not sure even how much money they have in the pot to pay out - ("...Please cash the enclosed check no later than August 10, 2009. After this date, your check could bounce [sic] and you could be charged a bank fee." This in boldface, no less? Ummm.../your/ check bounces? And then *I* get charged a fee? What, because... my balance was so low that I was counting on your $27.68 to keep above water? Maybe the FTC gets to add to their budget whatever funds aren't distributed? I wouldn’t say “the FTC article on the FTC site clears up any doubts” – “clearing up doubts” would involve the FTC explaining why there is no specific accounting for the refund amounts (they’re satisfied justice is done by virtually leafleting the public with these checks?), why the wording on the checks is so appallingly amateur-scammer, and why they didn’t subsequently specifically apologize for not getting someone with some business/legal writing skills to to edit that text before it went to print. From seeing people’s responses on line, hundreds or thousands of may have figured the SETTLEMENT was a scam and decided to shred their checks – solely as a result of the FTC’s tacit approval of this grade-D presentation. It doesn’t help that they sound as if they’re not sure even how much money they have in the pot to pay out – (“…Please cash the enclosed check no later than August 10, 2009. After this date, your check could bounce [sic] and you could be charged a bank fee.” This in boldface, no less? Ummm…/your/ check bounces? And then *I* get charged a fee? What, because… my balance was so low that I was counting on your $27.68 to keep above water?

Maybe the FTC gets to add to their budget whatever funds aren’t distributed?

]]> By: geeknews http://www.geeknewscentral.com/2009/06/19/ftc-v-jk-publications-inc/comment-page-1/#comment-5109 geeknews Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:02:14 +0000 http://www.geeknewscentral.com/?p=9025#comment-5109 Read the FTC article on the FTC site clears up any doubts Read the FTC article on the FTC site clears up any doubts

]]> By: Ray http://www.geeknewscentral.com/2009/06/19/ftc-v-jk-publications-inc/comment-page-1/#comment-5107 Ray Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:49:56 +0000 http://www.geeknewscentral.com/?p=9025#comment-5107 I got one too. Still suspicious. I got one too. Still suspicious.

]]>