Talk:JK Harris & Company

The Citation is No Longer Available
I wanted to add the year related to the law suit instead of just stating "In July" and found the link to the citation does not return any information about this Law Suit. Without the citation, is it still proper to display this information on the Law Suit? John Carcutt (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Company History Information
I would like to add additional company information to expand on the current content of the page. Since I am rather new to Wikipedia, can I post it here first for discussion or review? John Carcutt (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I waited a few days and went ahead and made the edit, please let me know if I could have done better. John Carcutt (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent Removal of page content
This is agandelman here. John Carcutt, the author of the JK Harris article, is obviously employed by JK Harris or one of its supplier companies. This much is clear. Why Wikipedia would allow purely commercial, advertising copy and messages to stand as the content of any article is beyond me, and I have contacted Wikipedia about this matter.

The lawsuit settled in South Carolina was a class action suit in which the attorneys general of 18 states had joined in. In the settlement of the lawsuit, JK Harris was specifically agreed not to engage in over "16 business practices," which included their agreement not to use the term "over 450 offices" in advertising, as this implies that the company actually has over 450 offices of its own, staffed with its own people, to serve clients. The court specifically told JK Harris to cease this erroneous claim, and JK Harris agreed. However, John Carcutt's article does not adhere to this legal requirement, perpetuating the "450 offices" fraud. In addition, there are numerous other provisions, including amending use of the term "the nation's largest tax relief firm," that are blatantly ignored in the Wikipedia entry. To the author of the article, Mr. Carcutt, I would advise you that your text is a violation of a legal agreement.

I would advise anyone who contemplates writing a JK Harris article to disclose their relationship to the company, making it clear where their loyalty lies: to objective information or to the marketing of the company.

In the meantime, those who wish to view the experience of many who were dissatisfied with JK Harris may take a quick look at the following two links, which are among dozens of similar testimonials on the Web.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/finance/jk_harris.html http://www.thesqueakywheel.com/complaints/2007/MAY/complaint13684.cfm

I will contintue to delete the JK Harris article as often or as long as I am able, until one appears that is objective, informational and not so emphatically skewed to represent the commercial interest of that company.

Someone named Agandelman (who had not made an edit in almost 2 years) removed the entire contents of the page and replaced it with a diatribe about how the page was edited without reference to past legal problems the company has had. In fact the pages contained the exact text referring to those legal problems that had been on the page long before the recent addition of more general information about the company. I undid the edit and returned the page to its previous state.

I believe in the future if Agandelman has a problem with the content of the page he/she should bring them to the communities attention here and let us discuss them. John Carcutt (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

April 2009 Lawsuits section update
I have updated the Lawsuits section with 2009 info and edited/sourced the existing info on the 2006 lawsuit settlement. Since the section's subject is potentially contentious, I only used info sourced to independent news sources meeting WP:RS and official gov pages (I could find no official JK Harris press releases or statements on the subject). The sources listed above are probably too POV to use and not needed since there is plenty of news reporting on the matter. Flowanda | Talk 20:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Liquidation
My understanding is that, once in liquidation, the company is closed. If so, should the opening paragraph be change from "is" to "was"? -- k a i n a w &trade; 17:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)