Talk:Bad check restitution program

Recently, someone edited this page to state that "District attorneys claim a Bad Check Restitution Program is . . ." rather than what it actually is. The paragraphs that have been added in this edit seem to be a personal attack against BCRPs rather than a factual description written at a neutral point of view. Perhaps the user who made these changes has had to deal with a BCRP him/herself, and is feeling the anger and frustration of being intimidated by one.

Though many of the statements during this recent edit were not cited, I do not doubt their accuracy, and I am sure sources can be found. But in order to meet Wikipedia guidelines, the article should be rewritten in a way that does not exclude these cases, but that contrasts these views in an encyclopedic fashion. For example, there could be a section called "criticism."

I recommend it be best if the person who originally wrote these statements make the appropriate changes. Hellno2 18:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes. I am a lawyer intensley involved in litigation against check restitution companies. The article as I found it was nothing but industry propoganda. I attempted to add some of the very well-founded information we have gathered through several years of litigation. I though I was being neutral by not saying that this is a scam designed to extract high fees by scaring innocent people to death. I don't have much experience with Wikipedia, but I can provide any documentation you think is appropriate.