dslreports logo
site
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search Topic:
uniqs
291
share rss forum feed


Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:2
reply to Popster27

Re: [Scam] Perfectly legal scam

It says in big bold print, THREE TIMES, that it is not from the government, and clearly states TWICE that you can get the same records directly from the county recorder.

I still stand by my original comment. This is a company selling a completely legal service to people who are either stupid, or just too lazy to do it on their own, and I am perfectly ok with that. I see no scam at all.


Snowy
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Clearwire Wireless

1 recommendation

said by Camelot One:

It says in big bold print, THREE TIMES, that it is not from the government, and clearly states TWICE that you can get the same records directly from the county recorder.

I still stand by my original comment. This is a company selling a completely legal service to people who are either stupid, or just too lazy to do it on their own, and I am perfectly ok with that. I see no scam at all.


"Warning: $2,000 Fine, 5 Years Imprisonment, or both for any person interfering or obstructing with delivery of this letter U.S. Mail TTT.18 U.S. Code."
This warning printed on the address side of the envelope doesn't seem misleading to you?

Here's a self test that can be taken at home/office to assess scam identification proficiency.
Why is that warning there?
1. A public service mesage educating the general public about the consequences of mail theft.
2. The USPS bought advertising space on the envelope to discourage mail theft.
3. To give the impression that the envelope is related to U.S. government business where such notices are common.

Why is "This is not a government approved or authorized document" printed below the warning?
1. It's a voluntary statement made by the advertiser.
2. It's mandated by the USPS to offset the misleading nature of the warning.

Why does the mailing indicia say "Local Records Office"?
1. To mislead the addressee into believing it's from their "Local Records Office".
2. To mislead the addressee into believing it's from someone elses "Local Records Office".
3. It isn't misleading because it is from "Local Records Office".

Why does the letter refer to itself as originating from "Local Records Office"
see above

Here's a pop quiz:
What is a "Local Records Office"
1. It's the office of a dude named Local Records
2. A town or counties records bureau
3. A carefully chosen business name used to fool people into believing the business is something they are not.

Optional for extra credit:
Why are there so many legal disclaimers?
1. They are opt-in disclosures that responsible advertisers adhere to
2. They are Federal requirements put in place to mitigate false & misleading advertisements.

DISCLAIMER: Anyone self administering this self test does so AT THEIR OWN RISK!


Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:2

1 recommendation

said by Snowy:

"Warning: $2,000 Fine, 5 Years Imprisonment, or both for any person interfering or obstructing with delivery of this letter U.S. Mail TTT.18 U.S. Code."
This warning printed on the address side of the envelope doesn't seem misleading to you?

I find it no more misleading than Best Buy or Walmart posting those "Shoplifting is a crime punishable by.....etc" posters. The letter is quoting the penalty for tampering with mail. Sure, it would apply to any piece of mail, not just this one, but there is nothing fraudulent about quoting the law.

Do you NEED their service, no. Could you spend your own time getting the documents, absolutely. But hocking a product you don't have to have and could get elsewhere for less is just how sales works. And if anything, I find the disclosures on this letter paint a far more honest picture than most of the crap being marketed by major corporations.


Snowy
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Clearwire Wireless
said by Camelot One:

I find it no more misleading than ...

2 differing opinions, one just happens to be a better opinion, IMO
I'll agree that for all the ways a person can be taken advantage of this particular scam hustle is not going to set the victim customer back too much.