Whoa???!!!

[masterduke]

The new forum has an interesting twist: On the same page where the posts are concerning collections, etc. There are now ads for ...collection attorney firms!?
I know we all have to make a living, but whats up with that? Just wondering.

Haven't seen any collection attorney ads.

Can you post a screenshot of the page you were on?

Henry Franklin

[gratisman]

Looks like they're using Google Adsense to make some money. Click on that advertisement all you want. Puts money in Sui Juris' pocket, and takes money out of theirs (ie Collection Attorney) who would be paying for the advertisement. (Paying Sui Juris).

[J.W.]

Gentlemen:

Gratisman statements above are correct. We have the Google ads here as a means of offsetting the hosting costs as well as the other expenses related to running and development of this site. Google ads use an algorithm which attempts to base ads on the content of this site, however Google's system is far from perfect, and thus prompts both useful and other times simply laughable ads.

However, in the end clicking on the ads does help us out.

[masterduke]

O.K.! Thanks for the info. As the money goes to support this site, which has become a national treasure of sorts,the endless battle aginst the bulldozing intrustions put upon us by the so called state and its "bar members", we need all the help we can get!

[Judge Roy Bean]

Just make sure you're using an anonymizer and have anti-spyware software active before you wander off clicking into the google adsense world.

[J.W.]

Judge Roy Been,

Why would you say this? Is it a matter of Google (Big Brother) privacy concerns or is it something else. I am really quite curious as I have through other sites clicked on interesting Google as without issue.

Thanks,

Jason

[Judge Roy Bean]

Jason, it's a privacy and system security issue. Already on the new forum I can't "reply" with a quote because I use an anonymous network proxy system that this forum will not allow to function directly with a quote or reply (I have to return to the forum, log in and then reply).

It is all too easy for data gatherers to create tar-baby sites and attract people to click through and start stuffing their IE with pop-ups and adware or worse. Google is not exactly the epitomy of privacy protection nor are they willing to diligently screen out potential ad revenue to protect consumers from frauds.

My rule of thumb on the internet is that if you didn't ask for it, anyone who tries to give you something has a reason and it usually boils down to advertising or data collection to enhance advertising.

Needless to say, my positions put me as the enemy on multiple sides of issues. The financial industry would love to see us go away as would the promoters of "services" that offer bogus legal theories, so privacy is at the top of the priority list around here.

[J.W.]

Judge,

We are in agreement for the most part. Although Google asserts a "Don't Be Evil" policy, such is to be questioned, and there are many who have as of late. Also, with regard to you being a thorn in the side of the financial industry as well as service providers I respect your efforts however, based on my observations as of late, I do not entirely agree with you on the money issue but do regarding most “providers” in that arena. I may be overlooking or misinterpreting your stance but I always keep an open mind and am certainly willing to entertain your commentary regarding the statements of say: Walker Todd, Todd Ellis Swanson or heck, even Tom Schauf.

Let me be clear though, that I do not endorse latter two but for the most part agree with their contentions. As far as Walker Todd and his infamous affidavit are concerned, I don't think there is much to be said in opposition thereto. If you have something though, in the interest of truth and knowledge please fire away.

Thanks,

Jason

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by Jason Whitney

Judge,

We are in agreement for the most part. .....I may be overlooking or misinterpreting your stance but I always keep an open mind and am certainly willing to entertain your commentary regarding the statements of say: Walker Todd, Todd Ellis Swanson or heck, even Tom Schauf.

Let me be clear though, that I do not endorse latter two but for the most part agree with their contentions. As far as Walker Todd and his infamous affidavit are concerned, I don't think there is much to be said in opposition thereto. If you have something though, in the interest of truth and knowledge please fire away.

Thanks,

Jason

Jason, not having the time this evening I would only say that the problem with adhering to and then using those kinds of theories is that the typical individual who has actually been victimized by a financial or insurance entity is almost universally ill-equipped to defend themselves; those theories are now well-known to the judiciary and plaintiff's bar and a real victim is simply paying for the seasoning to be tossed into a meat-grinder if they try to use them.

At the risk of being redundant, it seems as if the adherents to such theories assume the "opposition" is operating sans communication and will be somehow surprised and astonished at the arguments presented.

Bear with me as the holiday looms....