Complaint Review: Chase - WaMu

and come to their own decision of who really means well

- Ronny, I had to put this first.  There is a difference between meaning well and being right.  A person who "means well" can still be wrong.  I know that I have never said that you don't mean well as the end goal appears to be the same.  But that does not mean that all of your logic and conclusions are correct either. 

debunked at least 90-95% of all the attacks against me and these posters  and nothing anyone is going to say is going to change that. 

You can "think" that and you are correct in that nothing anyone says is going to change what you "think". 

So all you bank defenders (and I sometimes wonder if there some that are actually more then one) can continue to appease each other...but anyone can read through these reports, for a long time to come since no posts will be altered or removed..and come to their own decision of who really means well..and who is just here for some kind of kicks.

- Please don't tell me you actually believe someone is so concerned about you that a single person has actually created several identities to "attack" you under different names.  If so I would have to say that you truly have gone off the egotistical deep end..so to speak. 

But beyond that you are correct people can come and read the posts and see which one is more logical to help them avoid very avoidable fees. 

The people who are telling them that the bank was evil, they did nothing wrong, and that the banks days are number because of the policy changes.  Or the people that are telling them to take responsibility over their account.  But also explaining to them that even if the bank changes their policies it does not take the responsibility off of them to manage their account.  Where if they don't manage their account they will probably be in the same situation regardless of any policy changes.

I guess I am such a bad guy....me against a half dozen or so bank defenders, taking attacks, insults, name calling, lies, twists, deceptions, insinuation, accusations, smoke screening, diversion of issue, innuendo...just to name a few....and take all this dishing out because I am so horrible.

If there is any reward to this other then exposing the banks part in this..is at least I have stood my ground..and debunked at least 90-95% of all the attacks against me and these posters.

So all you bank defenders (and I sometimes wonder if there some that are actually more then one) can continue to appease each other...but anyone can read through these reports, for a long time to come since no posts will be altered or removed..and come to their own decision of who really means well..and who is just here for some kind of kicks.

"Disagree with me if you want to. Call me names if you want to. Make things up about me if you want to. Just don't resort to this behavior and then pretend that you're one of the "good guys". "

Bravo!

Very well stated.

That is starting to make more sense then this banter..but if you insist...

only you know how many and whom said subjects are.

Exactly.

Okay..so I am a known "subject"..the "others" are a big secret....fine by me.

As far as "bank defender", it is not a nickname..it is a description of a "group" of people who constantly defend the banks. As Edward stated..we can't think of a better term and when I am discussing said bank defenders..it is easier and more efficient to use the group description as reference..then naming all half dozen or so of the group of bank defenders every time.

That speaks volumes about your undeveloped ability to think critically and articulate yourself with precision.

I feel I described the reason quite articulately. I had to be very thorough because bank defenders take everything so literally..that if you do not articulate with precision..or I guess even if you do..they twist it in any way to discredit the opponent..a slick, but obvious move which also displays a degree of desperateness on the bank defenders part.

I understand that you are "trying" to get people to pay less in overdraft fees..and that is fine. But as I have stated many times..that most of the posters are aware that they overdrafted..how they overdraft..and at times take responsibility.

I question this. Can you honestly tell me that the author of report #519162 understands how she overdrafted? She appears to genuinely believe that online banking is a way to keep track of your account. In fact, it appears that the majority of overdraft reports on this site are written because the authors didn't understand the funds availability, cutoff times, posting orders or other bank policies.

I commented on that report asking for more info. Until I get more info, I will not assume anything. It is apparent the poster has overdrafted...but the complaint is that since a policy change..something is different with the online statement. I left advice not to trust the statement anyhow..so what is your point?? More engine sludge?

I am curious what has changed with her statement since the policy change..when I have more info I can then decide what additional advice to leave,  if any ..and if the bank shares any responsibility...that's the size of it. I am sure bank defenders if they haven't already will tell the poster to "grow up" and other condescending and belittling remarks..that is a given. I do not need a sixth sense to predict that.

So I have no reason to tell the ripped off customer that if they didn't spend more then they had and keep better track of their account..because not only is it obvious..and not only will several BANK DEFENDERS post how to do this..but some of the bank defenders add insult..and that is where I feel the line has been crossed as far as genuine "help"vs. evil. To me it is clearly taunt, belittling and insulting to name a few.

Since you are not a moderator of this site, what you feel crosses the line has no more bearing on what I feel crosses the line. I think that your referring to the people that you call bank defenders as evil and suggesting that one in particular is probably a racist crosses the line as well.

That is why I stated that I "feel" a line has been crossed. That is based on my personal opinion..and the guidelines of this website. I do agree I myself have crossed lines...but not against an alleged victim who came here to lodge a complaint against a bank tactic(s)..I admit implying said person is a racist was perhaps unnecessary...but there is evidence that person I referred to has issues and is known to flood posts with prejudging and presumption. He considers all overdrafters as criminal, drug addicts..welfare recipients, drunks, drains on sociaty and a plethora of other ignorant terms..you have seen it yourself..and you want to use that as an example of what I have said wrong? Causes me question you more then I already do. Are you perhaps one in the same? We would have no way of knowing how many aliases you go under. Your admittance to me that myself and others are "subjects" puts you credibility on the questionable to nil side of the scale. I continue to debate you because you are intelligent..not as much as you think...but many points in IQ above the average defender who attacks and debates me..and I am always up for a challenge and good debate. And it may help someone which is what counts to me as well.

As far as Evil....yes, some of the taunting and belittling and verbal kicking of these alleged victims..or posters coming here to lodge a complaint...does fit some of the definitions..need I have to post the definitions? I will if requested..and have done so on other posts.

Make no mistake. I don't really care if you want to resort to name calling, insults and irrational accusations. In fact, I think that this kind of behavior is closer to the "real" you than your calls for civil discussion which you always wind up breaking. I just don't think that you should condemn such behavior from some people while you continually resort to the same behavior yourself. That merely adds hypocrisy to your list of behaviors.

I don't care about what you care about. But I know when I cross the line. and I have stated I am going to do my best to retain composure. Because I do not want to lose the credibility that many bank defenders have, at least in my eyes..so I need to resist stooping to their level. Although I feel at times it is the only way they get hear anything I say..or read anything I type to me more literal.

What does "wind up breaking" refer to? When you get the "assumption" that I am angry or frustrated on a post? Well you have no way of knowing my true emotional state..but if I am trying to get a mood across and you pick up on it..then I am doing a good job with my writing.

Oh..post this "list" of behaviors..I am interested. You can use something from one of your "assignments" from school maybe.

Edward and I on the other hand..expose the reason why they were charged excessive fees..and some of the unnecessary tactics the banks are using to maximize fees.

While you both resort to the same kind of behaviors that you criticize others for. To be fair to Edward, I do think that he is a rational poster overall.

I think you need to read back on some posts...and see the attacks I have been under here. As well as posters just lodging a complaint and getting kicked just because they didn't understand a policy..or made an error.

And your opinion of who is or is not more rational means nothing to me..you have already exposed yourself as a fraud here. My debate with you is for reasons I listed earlier..you have nothing of value to contribute here as far as I am concerned. You are in no position to judge rationality.

 On the other side of the fence, I also explain how the account holders were charged those fees, provide input on how to stop that from happening in the future and when applicable explain the policies that they agreed to. No argument that highest-to-lowest processing maximizes fees and I've seen quite a few account agreements that plainly tells the customer about this. In my opinion, if one agrees to highest-to-lowest processing, that's all the more reason to be hyper-cautious about managing their finances and one certainly shouldn't use online banking as a substitute for a check register (not that it was ever intended to be used that way).

I will not go back and forth with this forever. I will save it for the new posters..this is another example of dead horse beating..give it a rest.

Now...if a person reporting here was to lodge a complaint such as..."I overdrew my account and the bank charged me a fee...I am here to ask for help. How do I not overdraft ever again"...then..I would see the point to explaining how to use a check register.

What gets me about the whole issue..is the fact that the banks are handing out these debit cards to young and old alike...and encouraging the usage of them as if they were a credit card..or cash advance. It is deceptive and misleading. When the policies of overdraft protection and re-sequencing were designed...it was with checks in mind.

Really? I can pull out the account agreements for three major banks and one credit union and none of them encourage me to use a debit card as a "credit card" which is another product entirely nor do they encourage me to use a debit card as a cash advance. In fact, the terms and conditions are very clear as to what an electronic transaction from a debit card is and how it will be processed.

Ever swipe your card and the machine says "credit or debit"? Ever notice it works just fine on credit? All I am saying is there are insinuations these debit cards can be used like a credit card..when all they are is access to a checking account. Which is why I agree we need to explain that..but also why it is not fair to some customers that policies meant to protect check users..do nothing but hurt debit card users in the event of an overdraft. And to think telling everyone to use a register whether they do or not will do anything to change the banks policies..it will not. But what has..is the voice of "reason" was finally heard by the banks. And that voice is going to get much louder soon..you can bet on it.

Now these days with automated payments, direct deposit, excessive and unpredictable hold times..so called "merchant" holds..and a plethora of other potential issues..added to the fact that regardless of what it says in a terms booklet...the customers are using these debit cards for many and every purchase sometimes..as if it were cash. Now it's much easier to keep track of cash..because once your wallet is empty...no more spending. Now I agree it is everyone's responsibility no watch their spending and account...but there is a reasonable amount of "fault" I place on the bank as well..and I hope you can at least admit the banks were doing this with intent to trap customers into situations where not only were overdrafts easier to occur...but the re-sequencing was the cause of many additional fees...hence making the punishment so to speak...way too severe for the "crime"..considering the tough times we are in.

I've posted before that the terms and conditions at any bank will be in the bank's favor and I don't expect that to change even after the new overdraft policies take effect. That said, the vast majority of account holders do not overdraft their accounts and thus they do not pay overdraft fees. None of the policies that you mentioned can trap a customer who simply does not overdraft their account to begin with. For example, I am aware that the banks I use process from highest to lowest and if I overdraft my account, that will result in additional overdraft fees. I don't want to pay overdraft fees so I do not spend beyond my available balance. If for some reason I don't have my phone with me (I use a money app as a check register) and I'm not sure of my available balance, I'll use a credit card or I simply won't make a transaction until I am sure that the available balance will cover it.

This as also been beaten past death. You are not one of the customers that got hit with all those fees..you are Mr. perfect. But you know what?...You and I can argue this from now till Tuesday..but there must be a reason the banks are changing policies..and that lawsuits are still pending..and that congress has taken notice..it is not about just you and I here...this has effected and hurt A LOT of customers..albeit only a percentage of banking customers overall. But apparently enough that the banks are making changes..so why this debate with me? I have stated over and over and over that I do not advocate irresponsibility..but I also do not advocate tactics that take advantage of people by the bank. And nothing you could ever say will convince me otherwise..so let this dead dog lie.

If most people do not overdraft, perhaps we should consider what they are doing differently than the people who do overdraft?

I can't help it if I feel for some of these people..and I do consider the banks part in this to meet every possible criteria to be called a ripoff..and I also believe many of the poster smeet the criteria to be referred to as a "victim". I don't believe I need to post the definitions of ripoff and victim to bank up my statement. Now many times when I state this...I am viciously attacked..insulted and belittled..and then bank defenders start jabbing at the customer again telling them to "grow up" etc....like no adult has ever been a victim to this tactic. So I say it is one thing to offer genuine legitimate advice if it is truly going to help the poster...but to leave the insults out..and then you would notice it would be a lot more civil in here.

Your last line is total crap as there are threads on this site where you provided the very first rebuttal and launched into your routine of name calling, insults and generally boorish behavior. I know that you rationalize your hypocrisy by suggesting that the behavior of others somehow makes you resort to name calling or whatever else you do. However, what about those cases where your rebuttal is first? Are you going to suggest that the behavior seen in other threads somehow makes you act the same way in an unrelated thread?

I do not profess to be Mr. Perfect or superior (although some here think they are..I won't mention any names). I have stated I am going to try to use tact and retain composure..and I will. Let time be the evidence of that before you jump down my throat.

Disagree with me if you want to. Call me names if you want to. Make things up about me if you want to. Just don't resort to this behavior and then pretend that you're one of the "good guys".

I do disagree with you for the most part..but not all. I have not called you names in a while other then bank defender..and I explained it was a reference to a group..if you really take it personal or as insult I don't know what else to call one who defends the bank. But if you ask me to stop calling you that..I will do my best out of simple human respect if you return the same respect.

A far as "pretending"..do we really need to go there? I think everyone knows where I stand. Perhaps I have not always been as tactful as I should..but I don't insult banking customers that come here to lodge a complaint if it is legitimate..because I clearly see their side to it..and clearly understand the financial burden during these rough times.

only you know how many and whom said subjects are.

Exactly.

As far as "bank defender", it is not a nickname..it is a description of a "group" of people who constantly defend the banks. As Edward stated..we can't think of a better term and when I am discussing said bank defenders..it is easier and more efficient to use the group description as reference..then naming all half dozen or so of the group of bank defenders every time.

That speaks volumes about your undeveloped ability to think critically and articulate yourself with precision.

I understand that you are "trying" to get people to pay less in overdraft fees..and that is fine. But as I have stated many times..that most of the posters are aware that they overdrafted..how they overdraft..and at times take responsibility.

I question this. Can you honestly tell me that the author of report #519162 understands how she overdrafted? She appears to genuinely believe that online banking is a way to keep track of your account. In fact, it appears that the majority of overdraft reports on this site are written because the authors didn't understand the funds availability, cutoff times, posting orders or other bank policies.

So I have no reason to tell the ripped off customer that if they didn't spend more then they had and keep better track of their account..because not only is it obvious..and not only will several BANK DEFENDERS post how to do this..but some of the bank defenders add insult..and that is where I feel the line has been crossed as far as genuine "help"vs. evil. To me it is clearly taunt, belittling and insulting to name a few.

Since you are not a moderator of this site, what you feel crosses the line has no more bearing on what I feel crosses the line. I think that your referring to the people that you call bank defenders as evil and suggesting that one in particular is probably a racist crosses the line as well.

Make no mistake. I don't really care if you want to resort to name calling, insults and irrational accusations. In fact, I think that this kind of behavior is closer to the "real" you than your calls for civil discussion which you always wind up breaking. I just don't think that you should condemn such behavior from some people while you continually resort to the same behavior yourself. That merely adds hypocrisy to your list of behaviors.

Edward and I on the other hand..expose the reason why they were charged excessive fees..and some of the unnecessary tactics the banks are using to maximize fees.

While you both resort to the same kind of behaviors that you criticize others for. To be fair to Edward, I do think that he is a rational poster overall.

 On the other side of the fence, I also explain how the account holders were charged those fees, provide input on how to stop that from happening in the future and when applicable explain the policies that they agreed to. No argument that highest-to-lowest processing maximizes fees and I've seen quite a few account agreements that plainly tells the customer about this. In my opinion, if one agrees to highest-to-lowest processing, that's all the more reason to be hyper-cautious about managing their finances and one certainly shouldn't use online banking as a substitute for a check register (not that it was ever intended to be used that way).

Now...if a person reporting here was to lodge a complaint such as..."I overdrew my account and the bank charged me a fee...I am here to ask for help. How do I not overdraft ever again"...then..I would see the point to explaining how to use a check register.

What gets me about the whole issue..is the fact that the banks are handing out these debit cards to young and old alike...and encouraging the usage of them as if they were a credit card..or cash advance. It is deceptive and misleading. When the policies of overdraft protection and re-sequencing were designed...it was with checks in mind.

Really? I can pull out the account agreements for three major banks and one credit union and none of them encourage me to use a debit card as a "credit card" which is another product entirely nor do they encourage me to use a debit card as a cash advance. In fact, the terms and conditions are very clear as to what an electronic transaction from a debit card is and how it will be processed.

Now these days with automated payments, direct deposit, excessive and unpredictable hold times..so called "merchant" holds..and a plethora of other potential issues..added to the fact that regardless of what it says in a terms booklet...the customers are using these debit cards for many and every purchase sometimes..as if it were cash. Now it's much easier to keep track of cash..because once your wallet is empty...no more spending. Now I agree it is everyone's responsibility no watch their spending and account...but there is a reasonable amount of "fault" I place on the bank as well..and I hope you can at least admit the banks were doing this with intent to trap customers into situations where not only were overdrafts easier to occur...but the re-sequencing was the cause of many additional fees...hence making the punishment so to speak...way too severe for the "crime"..considering the tough times we are in.

I've posted before that the terms and conditions at any bank will be in the bank's favor and I don't expect that to change even after the new overdraft policies take effect. That said, the vast majority of account holders do not overdraft their accounts and thus they do not pay overdraft fees. None of the policies that you mentioned can trap a customer who simply does not overdraft their account to begin with. For example, I am aware that the banks I use process from highest to lowest and if I overdraft my account, that will result in additional overdraft fees. I don't want to pay overdraft fees so I do not spend beyond my available balance. If for some reason I don't have my phone with me (I use a money app as a check register) and I'm not sure of my available balance, I'll use a credit card or I simply won't make a transaction until I am sure that the available balance will cover it.

If most people do not overdraft, perhaps we should consider what they are doing differently than the people who do overdraft?

I can't help it if I feel for some of these people..and I do consider the banks part in this to meet every possible criteria to be called a ripoff..and I also believe many of the poster smeet the criteria to be referred to as a "victim". I don't believe I need to post the definitions of ripoff and victim to bank up my statement. Now many times when I state this...I am viciously attacked..insulted and belittled..and then bank defenders start jabbing at the customer again telling them to "grow up" etc....like no adult has ever been a victim to this tactic. So I say it is one thing to offer genuine legitimate advice if it is truly going to help the poster...but to leave the insults out..and then you would notice it would be a lot more civil in here.

Your last line is total crap as there are threads on this site where you provided the very first rebuttal and launched into your routine of name calling, insults and generally boorish behavior. I know that you rationalize your hypocrisy by suggesting that the behavior of others somehow makes you resort to name calling or whatever else you do. However, what about those cases where your rebuttal is first? Are you going to suggest that the behavior seen in other threads somehow makes you act the same way in an unrelated thread?

Disagree with me if you want to. Call me names if you want to. Make things up about me if you want to. Just don't resort to this behavior and then pretend that you're one of the "good guys".

     I asked this question on a different thread and you never answered so I'll ask it again. First of all I never included you in the group of 'bank defenders' so by you taking offense to it, without being accused is very telling. You probably recall your past posting history on many of the bank class-action lawsuit reports. I picked up on that pattern where you would frequently come back and post questions asking how the lawsuit was coming. When I informed you of the subtle sarcasm I was picking up on, you very cleverly answered the question without showing your true colors, and I never gave a second though about it, until you now after you voluntarily associated yourself with the 'bank defenders' by taking offense to it without being accused.

Here's the question. If you don't feel that many of the bank's policies are ripoffs, and you frequently take the side of the banks on these reports, by nature you are 'defending the bank'. Nothing wrong with that if it's how you feel. So how is the correct description of 'bank defender' insulting and what else shall we call it? As I take a page out of the first chapter of your cleverly subtle sarcastic book.

As I turn to the next chapter of your cleverly subtle sarcastic book, let me return the favor of your curiosity and concern about the class-action lawsuits, as I now ask you how it's going with your treasure hunt of the infamous Chase Deposit Agreement to prove or disprove Ronny?




"I asked this question on a different thread and you never answered so I'll ask it again. First of all I never included you in the group of 'bank defenders' so by you taking offense to it, without being accused is very telling. . You probably recall your past posting history on many of the bank class-action lawsuit reports. I picked up on that pattern where you would frequently come back and post questions asking how the lawsuit was coming. When I informed you of the subtle sarcasm I was picking up on, you very cleverly answered the question without showing your true colors, and I never gave a second though about it, until you now after you voluntarily associated yourself with the 'bank defenders' by taking offense to it without being accused."

It's not so much that I take offense to it as I just find it silly. Imagine if you were to criticize Goldman Sachs and someone were to use that post and claim that you were an Obama hater due to his ties with that firm. I think that you would agree that this line of reasoning is incongruous at best and at worst calls the perceptions and reasoning ability of this person into question.

I'm afraid that your memory may be slightly confuzzled. While it's true that I have encouraged people to go through with their vague threats about a class action lawsuit, I think that the incident you're referring to was a random user named Gwen who was offended by what you would call a bank defender. Gwen wrote that she would make it her "personal quest" (her words) to expose this person, contact the media and make an appeal on YouTube to find this person. She also promised to come back in one week and post a link to her YouTube video. After some time I came back and asked how her efforts were coming along.


"Here's the question. If you don't feel that many of the bank's policies are ripoffs, and you frequently take the side of the banks on these reports, by nature you are 'defending the bank'. Nothing wrong with that if it's how you feel. So how is the correct description of 'bank defender' insulting and what else shall we call it? As I take a page out of the first chapter of your cleverly subtle sarcastic book."

I never wrote that "bank defender" is insulting. If you disagree, feel free to post the report # where I made such a claim. The fact that I think that it is silly for you and ChaseBoy to resort to that name does not mean that I am insulted by it. Trust me on this much - Being a conservative in California (particularly near the Bay Area) exposes you to much more vicious name calling than "bank defender".

You will note that I have consistently posted my opposition to the right to offset because I feel that it could cause someone who was responsibly managing his or her finances to experience a string of overdraft fees when the bank takes the money without warning to cover a bad debt caused by a family member.

With all of that out of the way, I am a big advocate of personal responsibility and that definitely includes reading, understanding and abiding by the legally binding agreements that we sign. Did you see a recent report on 200Cash which described the OP applying for a loan, authorizing the company to withdraw $19.95 for the processing fee and then emailing the company and instructing them not to withdraw the $19.95 if she wasn't approved for the loan. She was actually surprised when the company withdrew the money despite denying her for the loan and apparently this . As you may know, the 200Cash website plainly states that they will charge the application fee whether or not the loan is approved.

As it happens, I despise 200Cash and payday loan companies, rent-to-own stores, Venue.com, car dealerships with triple-digit interest auto loans and most businesses targeted towards people with sub-prime credit. However, if the companies offer contracts that are legal in that state and somebody signs those contracts then that person accepts the consequences of those terms and conditions. As one example, if Bank of America has terms and conditions that tell you up front that your transactions will be processed from highest to lowest and that this will probably cause additional overdraft fees if you go beyond your available balance and you STILL overdraft, you shouldn't be surprised at the string of overdraft fees that follows. If the terms and conditions are not to your liking, you should walk out and find an offer that is more attractive to you.


"As I turn to the next chapter of your cleverly subtle sarcastic book, let me return the favor of your curiosity and concern about the class-action lawsuits, as I now ask you how it's going with your treasure hunt of the infamous Chase Deposit Agreement to prove or disprove Ronny?"

I went to Chase on Monday. Very nice people there. As you may know, I currently have accounts at US Bank and BofA. While I have no problems with BofA, my account there was a bit on the lackluster side. Chase offered a number of attractive perks and I decided to open an account there and am considering closing the BofA account.

After opening my account, I received a typical welcome kit. I asked if this was the same kit that every account holder in California receives and they said that it was. In fact, it's essentially the same kit that they use across the nation with minor changes to be compliant in states where the laws are different.

My kit came in one of those full size pocket portfolios that kids use at school with the Chase logo on the front. Inside was the business card of my banker, the welcome letter, the privacy notice, the starter checks, account summaries and if course the rules and regulations booklet. It's the same booklet that I already linked to and it very clearly lists the posting order of transactions (largest-to-smallest). There was also an update to the rules and regulations in the folder but the only update that really applies to California is removing the first paragraph about returned item/ insufficient fund fees. If you're curious, that paragraph was about basing the fee on past occurrences within the last twelve months. Amusingly enough, the section now begins with how it is the account holder's responsibility to manage the account.

Photos and/or scans of relevant documents will be made if needed.

On a different note - Edward, I am considering relocating to Texas within the next couple of years. Any suggestions on nice areas that I should look into?

It's true you never wrote we were "all" subjects..but you did write it was myself and others...I simply stated "we"..meaning more then myself, as "others" implies there are more subjects..only you know how many and whom said subjects are.

As far as "bank defender", it is not a nickname..it is a description of a "group" of people who constantly defend the banks. As Edward stated..we can't think of a better term and when I am discussing said bank defenders..it is easier and more efficient to use the group description as reference..then naming all half dozen or so of the group of bank defenders every time.

I understand that you are "trying" to get people to pay less in overdraft fees..and that is fine. But as I have stated many times..that most of the posters are aware that they overdrafted..how they overdraft..and at times take responsibility. So I have no reason to tell the ripped off customer that if they didn't spend more then they had and keep better track of their account..because not only is it obvious..and not only will several BANK DEFENDERS post how to do this..but some of the bank defenders add insult..and that is where I feel the line has been crossed as far as genuine "help"vs. evil. To me it is clearly taunt, belittling and insulting to name a few.

Edward and I on the other hand..expose the reason why they were charged excessive fees..and some of the unnecessary tactics the banks are using to maximize fees.

Now...if a person reporting here was to lodge a complaint such as..."I overdrew my account and the bank charged me a fee...I am here to ask for help. How do I not overdraft ever again"...then..I would see the point to explaining how to use a check register.

What gets me about the whole issue..is the fact that the banks are handing out these debit cards to young and old alike...and encouraging the usage of them as if they were a credit card..or cash advance. It is deceptive and misleading. When the policies of overdraft protection and re-sequencing were designed...it was with checks in mind.

Now these days with automated payments, direct deposit, excessive and unpredictable hold times..so called "merchant" holds..and a plethora of other potential issues..added to the fact that regardless of what it says in a terms booklet...the customers are using these debit cards for many and every purchase sometimes..as if it were cash. Now it's much easier to keep track of cash..because once your wallet is empty...no more spending. Now I agree it is everyone's responsibility no watch their spending and account...but there is a reasonable amount of "fault" I place on the bank as well..and I hope you can at least admit the banks were doing this with intent to trap customers into situations where not only were overdrafts easier to occur...but the re-sequencing was the cause of many additional fees...hence making the punishment so to speak...way too severe for the "crime"..considering the tough times we are in.

I can't help it if I feel for some of these people..and I do consider the banks part in this to meet every possible criteria to be called a ripoff..and I also believe many of the poster smeet the criteria to be referred to as a "victim". I don't believe I need to post the definitions of ripoff and victim to bank up my statement.

Now many times when I state this...I am viciously attacked..insulted and belittled..and then bank defenders start jabbing at the customer again telling them to "grow up" etc....like no adult has ever been a victim to this tactic.

So I say it is one thing to offer genuine legitimate advice if it is truly going to help the poster...but to leave the insults out..and then you would notice it would be a lot more civil in here.

I asked this question on a different thread and you never answered so I'll ask it again. First of all I never included you in the group of 'bank defenders' so by you taking offense to it, without being accused is very telling. You probably recall your past posting history on many of the bank class-action lawsuit reports. I picked up on that pattern where you would frequently come back and post questions asking how the lawsuit was coming. When I informed you of the subtle sarcasm I was picking up on, you very cleverly answered the question without showing your true colors, and I never gave a second though about it, until you now after you voluntarily associated yourself with the 'bank defenders' by taking offense to it without being accused.

Here's the question. If you don't feel that many of the bank's policies are ripoffs, and you frequently take the side of the banks on these reports, by nature you are 'defending the bank'. Nothing wrong with that if it's how you feel. So how is the correct description of 'bank defender' insulting and what else shall we call it? As I take a page out of the first chapter of your cleverly subtle sarcastic book.

As I turn to the next chapter of your cleverly subtle sarcastic book, let me return the favor of your curiosity and concern about the class-action lawsuits, as I now ask you how it's going with your treasure hunt of the infamous Chase Deposit Agreement to prove or disprove Ronny?

Even if we are merely your lab rat specimens...it doesn't bother me in the least.
It's funny actually. Well I think the "ChaseBoy" nickname is stupid you gave me..but I will humor you if you really enjoy calling me by that.

I never wrote that all of you were subjects. Incidentally, I think that bank defender is a silly nickname as well as I have spoken out against policies such as the right to offset and while I may have discussed banks lowering credit limits and impacting credit scores, you have never seen me actually defend the practice. On top of that, I'm trying to get people to pay less in overdraft fees to the banks.


I think we all need to lighten up to be honest..but I still expect attacks and provocation..and I figure I will do the same whenever I see belittling of posters that report here. I am going to try to keep better composure however..it's really about helping victims here..not feeding our own egos..I hope we can all "just get along" and agree to disagree, you never know..maybe some people can be swayed to see the light if done with tact and not conceit.

That's the point. It seems as if the only way to get into any kind of actual dialogue with you is to play is to play the game of throwing insults and condescending behavior.

I'm only messing with ya. Fell free to debate me anytime.

Even if we are merely your lab rat specimens...it doesn't bother me in the least.
It's funny actually. Well I think the "ChaseBoy" nickname is stupid you gave me..but I will humor you if you really enjoy calling me by that.

I think we all need to lighten up to be honest..but I still expect attacks and provocation..and I figure I will do the same whenever I see belittling of posters that report here. I am going to try to keep better composure however..it's really about helping victims here..not feeding our own egos..I hope we can all "just get along" and agree to disagree, you never know..maybe some people can be swayed to see the light if done with tact and not conceit.

You try to give the "impression" that you are here to help anyone...but no. It seems by your admission either we all all your "subjects" in some kind of social experiment..or you are lying and your statement are just an "attempt" to make you appear "superior" or intimidating.

That BS will not cut it here. Not with me.

Want "evidence" to back up what a fraud and/or liar (you choose) you are?

You stated this...and I quote...

"My full time job is at an IT company and then I go to school as I work on my business degree (though I do admit that I use your postings in some of my assignments)"

I am flattered that you find my debating skills impressive enough to use in some of your assignments..but I am here to expose the banks manipulative and deceptive tactics, and try to help posters with some relief and recourse and make changes...seems you are just here to do homework.

But it gets worse...you also state...

" You are merely one subject to me among others"

So here I was giving you the time of day...trying to "reason" with you..and turns out myself and "others" are merely subjects to you. Sounds a little narcissistic if you ask me..and if this is true you must not be doing too well in business school..as I am sure if you knew anything about business you wouldn't have been so careless as to confess this to me while "pretending" to be in a legitimate debate. You have lost ALL credibilty and legitimacy in my eyes..and hence this is the last time I ever respond or acknowledge you.

In closing..I would like to document that you are not nearly as smart as you think you are...and I at least know not to take the bait anymore...for example...

Instead of sticking to the topic at hand..in bank defender fashion you are poorly attempting to divert the matter by harping on this "grade school" mentality garbage with the "I didn't call you a lair" statements over and over and over .

Well you won't have a chance to explain it to me..but I leave this here for everyone to see..on a site that will never alter, edit or remove posts..more "evidence" or your games...

You stated...

"I listed two possibilities and asked you which was the case. That's called giving you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps in that little world that you created inside of your head I did insult you. However, I can't be held responsible for what goes on inside if your head. In the real world, I did not call you a liar"

and you stated...

"I didn't call you a liar. I wrote that you either didn't read the account agreement or that you lied and asked you which was the case. That's giving you the benefit of the doubt, ChaseBoy. That's also another example of your tendency to distort your opponent's arguments"

Okay then.  Lets see what you mean by "benefit of a doubt"

I stated I read the agreement booklet. That is a GIVEN. You state you listed two possibilities.
One is..that I didn't read the agreement, the other is I lied.

So since it is a given that I stated I read the agreement..choice one implies I am a liar. Choice two....is that I lied. So, I have a choice between being a liar, or I lied.
And that to you is the benefit of a doubt? You would make a HORRIBLE lawyer.

I could go on..but you were much easier to expose then the banks..and they were not that hard.

Good luck in "school".

Quotes from Ashley:

''What is your source for this claim ronnie:

The bank defenders are only feeding the other bank defenders what THEY want to hear...all half dozen or so of you. And what Edward and I post..is for the millions of "alleged" victims that want some relief and changes made....so lets see how this last post of yours measures up...

ChaseBoy...

I know you are clutching and digging to find a mistake or mis-post I made ..but that will not discredit me one bit even if it was true.

You're doing a fine job discrediting yourself. I'm happy to let you keep doing it.

Chaseboy response: No response fraudulent/conjecture no basis for argument.

I know you are clutching and digging to find a mistake or mis-post I
made ..but that will not discredit me one bit even if it was true.
Since Edward and I have TOLD you bank defenders over and over the banks
were going to change these policies...we were belittled and called
liars and every name in the book..and look what is happening? I know it
KILLS you bank defenders that we had the intelligence to foresee that
ALL the complaints were eventually going to bring on a change..but that
is just the way it is...indisputable FACT.

No clutching at straws here, ChaseBoy. Kills? Hardly, I was predicting that banks were going to be changing and adding fees as well. That's an indisputable fact. That said, I still think it would be wise for account holders to simply not overdraft their accounts and not pay overdraft fees. That's just me though.

Chaseboy response: I agree with the latter part..but how long was it before you "predicted" the banks would change these policies? Now I can be like you and demand for YOU to show evidence for what I am accusing you of..but I am sure Edward being that he has been here a lot longer then me auguring the point..may choose to post evidence.

I don't know any ratios..that statistic is not out yet. But I do
know the ROR is not the only place customers complain. I read an
article where a WAMU branch that was taken over by Chase in inundated
with complaints regarding the changes that WAMU customers were unaware
of. The article was an interview with a bank employee..and it's a mess
over there. You can google it yourself..I am not going to look for the
article since this was a few weeks ago...but if you really want the
evidence that bad..you can sift though 384,000 or so complaints
regarding Chase and find it yourself..you seem to have the free time. "google" Chase complaints.

So you're essentially admitting that you have no evidence to back up your claims despite all of the time that you spend here. You seem to have much more free time than I do. Why not base your claims on evidence?

If you consider me stating that there is good chance not all of the 12.7 million WAMU customers received notification of the change in policies a "claim" that needs some kind of evidence...and the complaints are not enough for you..then you go do the research. Or better yet..present some evidence of YOUR claim...which seems to imply that you know for a FACT that every single WAMU customer was notified..so these customers have no rights to complain here if any policy changes cost them in fees...yep...I guess that is fair in a bank defenders eyes..not surprising at all.

Fine with me. As long as you get the same terms booklet I did..from a Chase branch that was recently a WAMU..and ALL the employees were WAMU employees and NEVER heard of re-sequencing. I will even look through the booklet again and see if it states anything about re-sequencing....be right back...

I'll make certain to ask if this is the same set of materials that every new account holder in California receives. I'll also be sure to post where to find the information anf if you choose to challenge that then I'll even scan the document and post the image online for you.

Nope..read through the entire booklet again..not mentioned. So make
sure you get the same ONLY book my branch gave me..and if you find
it..I will conceded this point..but it makes no difference

This suggests that you really don't care about facts.

No wrong, fraudulent manipulative changing and fact twisting/ incorrect ASSumption.

It suggests if you are going to call me out for something..that you need to use the proper evidence. I do not doubt that somewhere it is stated that they re-sequnce..since it is an undisputed fact that they do..I simply posted that the employees ay my branch told me they do not...and the term booklet I was given and read 3 times...does not appear to state otherwise. Simple.

it just means I could not find something in 43 pages of tiny writing. When I
went into this bank to open the account

If it's there and you can't find it, then you didn't fully read the terms and conditions and shouldn't have signed any agreement.

I signed the agreement with intent. When they told me they do not re-sequence..and I asked the banker who was signing me up..3 bank tellers and the manager...no one heard of re-sequencing except the manager...who stated to me verbatim "we do not re sequence anything here. All transactions are processed as they come in"

I do not use the account...my balance is .05 cents. The bank was informed I will not make another deposit until the policy changes go into effect. They are fine with that and did not want me to close the account..imagine that?

I asked if they re-sequence..they told me "no". The booklet they gave me either does not state they re-sequence..or I can not find it. Now you think I should go online and do searches to find this policy? The bank would use this as a defense if I were to be charged any fees due to re-sequencing? What is wrong with ALL of you????

There is nothing wrong with me. I think that you should be fully aware of and understand all policies in a WRITTEN legal agreement before you sign. I'm serious here, you might think about doing this in the future as it can only benefit you. This goes beyond bank accounts.

I know how to read. I know how to manage my account. I know more then most how the banks work. You are preaching to the choir my friend..but thanks for the thought..glad you are concerned enough to have my back like that. Perhaps I have misjudged you.

If you don't believe me...are going to CALL ME a liar while you lie about me..Meanwhile the BANK DEFENDERS are NOTORIOUS for doing exactly what you accuse me of.

I didn't call you a liar. I wrote that you either didn't read the account agreement or that you lied and asked you which was the case. That's giving you the benefit of the doubt, ChaseBoy. That's also another example of your tendency to distort your opponent's arguments. You really should stop relying on these logical fallacies as it takes only the tiniest bit of critical thinking to see through them.

No distortion. Another fraudulent claim and twisting of words as a last gasp of self defense...If I am given a choice of telling you I read an agreement that I did not.."or" I am lying..I think any reasonable half wit understand the implication. No distortion on my end here..I think you are calling the kettle black on this one..nice try though..but epic FAIL.

I always back up what I state with FACT..as I am doing now.

No, you don't. In fact, in this very thread and in this response to me you admitted to not basing your conclusions on evidence.

Speaking of "fact"..it seems everything you are accusing me of is opinion, conjecture, accusation and word manipulation. There is no place I admitted to anything that requires evidence..where YOUR counterpoint didn't require the same. Difference is...my side is more reasonable to anyone with an once of reasoning in their body. Some things can be reasonably concluded without a survey being conducted..you know that so stop pulling our leg here.

I am sorry but some things you will need to take my word for..or not. Your choice.

But you don't have the credibility to be able to say, "It's this way because Ronny, Defender of Irresonsibility says so". How can anyone possibly choose to take your word at face value given your postings over the last few months?

Because this last statement is another example of fraudulent ignorant untrue un-proven un-substantiated opinion.

Show me where I ever defended irresponsibility...go on..we will wait. Maybe you bank defenders choose not to believe what I post..or see something that is simply not there...but you are not the one I need to get the message across to. It serves no point since it is fairly safe to asume that the bank defenders wll never concede,and never listen to the reasoning, sound logic..or and proof stated by a customer defender...so it useless to keep arguing it.

I simply assist customer who want to have some policy changes made and for these manipulative deceptive unnecessary policies to change. And this is starting to take effect...from all the complaints which id the root of causing these changes. So why does this cause Edward and I to be under constant attack a scrutiny of every syllable we type..when what we wanted to happen in the first place is happening. It is good news for some of the posters. The ones who choose to opt in to OD protection and continue to overdraft...I will no longer place any blame on the bank for fees..since it is fair of the bank to now give the choice to the consumer. That simple.

But back up where I "tent to exaggerate or distort" anything. I may have a lot of conviction and am a colorful writer...I don't intend to distort the truth

How about where you claim that people like me claim that banks are never at fault/do no wrong, that all people who overdraft are criminals, deadbeats, etc.

Are you serious? Just look at virtually ANY ROR regarding bank overdraft policies...from now until way before I was ever here. Most of them state exactly or very close to what I claim..and this is what upsets me and makes me so defensive. I wish it weren't true as it does no good and actually discredits those who do leave good advice...but unfortunately the acts of most of the bank defenders..have hurt the credibility of some who may be fair.

I BACK UP WITH FACT.

Prove it. SHow me one instance where I wrote that banks are never at fault or that people who overdraft are deadbeats and/or criminals. Prove that I called you liar. Prove that I called Chase account holders liars.

I already explained how you called me a liar by insinuation. You are doing the same thing by stating here that the customers who claim they did not know about the policy changes must have received the changes..and did not read them. You can not prove that they received any info on policy changes..so what does this make you?

Now I will go search out some old reports ...be right back...

Okay back. I will admit it was hard to find you specifically calling anyone deadbeats..the usual "crew" was there with the insults to no end. What I notice about you is you like to "taunt" customers who speak of any lawsuit..and youthrow the register defense in almost every case.

I will concede that perhaps I was lumping you in with the much more severe "offensive" bank defenders who only come here to insult and offer no help. You seem in most of your posts to mean well...even though I may not agree 100% with the way you go about it. You also seem to only respond where the poster is actually much more to blame then the banks..such as customers that blatantly overdrafted..and are wondering why they got fees. Now I still can not defend the bank in most cases for any policies and tactics that caused additional fees such has with excessive hold times and re-sequencing..but you seem to be far more educated in banking and general knowledge then most of the other bank defenders....so..

Why I ask you..why are you so hard on me? Do you really believe I am advocating irresponsibly by trying to prevent the banks from using tactics that cause an unsuspecting student to pay hundreds of dollars for coffee and books? Or a person on SSI that does not even know what hit them because they have never been in this situation before...and perhaps the last time they read a bank T & C was 1957? Do you really ONLY see the banks side?...or can you understand at least what I am trying to expose as well? You seem reasonable...you why can't you understand where I am coming from?

Now if you can't believe that a bank full of employees that worked
at a bank for years that NEVER re-sequenced..and are taken over by a
bank that does..is it possible they may not know about it? I mean have
you yourself ever read a bank terms booklet?

Yes, I have.

Well then do i need to explain how employees can possibly give a customer the wrong information..such as apparently has happened in my case..unless California has different policies with Chase we are both unaware of?

Imagine the ones the
employees need to read? The branch was very recently converted to a
Chase..the plaster is still wet..and you are telling me the employees
can't make a mistake?

I wouldn't imagine it's any more difficult than the continuing education and refresher requirements that most professionals have to go through. Hell, I spent five years working for a federal contractor and we had to adjust our policies every time the government to change their requirements or the law, sometimes two or three times a month.

Okay point taken. But I am talking here about WAMU employees who may have been very used to the same policies for years. They NEVER had to deal with complaints of fees due to re-sequencing..probably one of the main complaint factors regarding excessive fees. So is it really so unreasonable to assume perhaps they are unaware of the policy change at some point? Remember..the existing customers as well never dealt with re-sequencing either..so is it that difficult to fathom some of these customers are rightfully very angry now with Chase?

Read any REPORTS lately about this VERY thing
happening to other WAMU/CHASE customers. Or is you new full time job
just trying to discredit me personally because it is killing you that I
was RIGHT and you were WRONG all this time? Grow up and move on already.

My full time job is at an IT company and then I go to school as I work on my business degree (though I do admit that I use your postings in some of my assignments). I'm curious though - what do you think that I'm wrong about? I was also predicting bank changes as well as new fees such as BofA and CitiGroup adding an additional fee to people who pay off their credit card balances every month. I'm also right in that people will still have to practice responsible financial management techniques even with the upcoming changes and I think that I'll be right in my prediction that at some point in the near future the banks will start experimenting with overdraft fees again.

You are wrong in almost every assumption and opinion you have about me..you are wrong to personally attack me for exposing some unethical tactics..and you are wrong to try to manipulated and twist things around to discredit me..when you accuse me of doing the same thing.

As far as any predictions..I predict most if not all banks by sometime next year will ALL eliminate mandatory OD protection..will ALL eliminate re-sequencing.will lose or settle most lawsuits...and legislation will go into effect against some of these policies. Now as far as other tactics they come up with that they can "legally" get away with is yet to be seen...but I have some ideas that they will be attacking the "good responsible" customers in one way or another. If I am wrong so be it. I have stated it here at a website that does not alter, edit or remove postings..so we will see.

You should definitely consider following your own advice - You should grow up and move on.

I agree..but like you...I use this debate for scholastic reasons as well as trying to make a difference. However...you know this has become a pissing match..we are arguing points that help no one..and have little to do with the root issue at hand. The season is approaching. I go to school..run a home based business..and was recently offered a really good job out by where Robert of all people live. So I may by no choice of my own soon be here a lot less. I am satisfied that the complaints and exposure have done some good to convince the banks what is the "right" thing to do..but I also have my doubts if they can behave for very long. We will see.

I didn't "distort" anything. If you imply that I lied..it is calling me a liar.

I listed two possibilities and asked you which was the case. That's called giving you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps in that little world that you created inside of your head I did insult you. However, I can't be held responsible for what goes on inside if your head. In the real world, I did not call you a liar.

We covered this already...moot.

Can you blame me if I get defensive here?

If you get defensive over things that only occured in that world inside of your head, I get a little concerned. I don't think that you are nearly as far gone as the guy who wrote Report #515924 but the way you post here does suggest that you have a few issues.

I am subjected to constant attack, personal insult. dafemation , ridculing and name calling since day one. So I give it back. As well I defend the banking customers that came here already angry and upset and at financial loss. They feel this is a place they can vent..maybe get a result..and what do they get?? Read some posts if you are not aware. So if this to you is in my head...and I have an "issue" with it..then fine...I can live with that.

I admit things can get heated and out of hand, We can all get frustrated and say things off the cuff we wish we could take back. But we are stuck with what we post on this site. I have apologized in the past if I felt I went too far or was unreasonable..but trust me..I am of very sound mind.

I am attacked by you bank defenders for simply stating common knowledge and fact..and every word I say gets dissected under a microscope in attempt to
discredit me.

In this very thread you admitted to not having facts to back up your conclusions. You don't post from common sense and fact except for when it's convenient for you. You're discredting yourself, rather spectacularly I might add.

This has been addressed..and is speculation, opinion, and false.

I have too much pride perhaps..but this entire issue is now becoming obsessive...for NO POINT AT ALL. ITS OVER. The banks are changing the policy. No distortion..no exaggeration...simple well known fact.

Yet you continue posting irrationally. Yes, a number of banks are changing policies but the new policies do not absolve one of the responsibility of understanding their legally binding agreements and managing their finances responsibly. That's a simple, well known fact as well.

This is again opinion..and I never have stated or do I believe the policy changes absolve anyone from their responsibility. It is ONLY about fairness. If you can't relate to that...then I have to wonder who has "issues".

By the way..before this typical attempt at an insult comes back to me..I am not "ranting and raving and crying and whining" I use caps to express a point clearly..as it seems you bank defenders will kick a dead horse past the point where it's bones are dust..all futile, all unnecessary. And the reason and motive behind why you bank defenders do this..has yet to be figured out. My guess is too much time to kill..and the shear enjoyment you all get out of being evil to banking customers who were financially damaged for any reason.

I don't believe that the above paragraph needs any commentary. It speaks for itself.

Agreed.

I still don't understand why you posted this. Are you nuts? First of all I don't use checks so why would I care? Second of all..if someone wishes to complain about the fact the Chase charges a fee to cash a check for non chase customers..what does that have to do whether it's in the Chase terms booklet or not? You bank defenders NEED to get it though your THICK SKULLS that just because something is written in a book..does not mean American citizens forfeit all rights to complain. Because to WIT...complaints can lead to better and more fair policies for everyone..and that is the way it works. If you don't like to deal with complaints..I would HIGHLY recommend you avoid THIS website. If you don't believe people have a right to complain...take it up with the first amendment of the constitution.

Okay, now I am in doubt about your education. The First Amendment and the Constitution have nothing to do with RipOffReport.com as this site is a private entity.

Copied from ROR terms and conditions...you didn't read it and post here this much?

"Ripoff Report is a service to the world's consumers. The Ripoff Report enables YOU the consumer to be armed with the opinions and comments of your fellow consumers. This report will help you exercise your first amendment right to freedom of speech. By using our forum, you will have an opportunity to speak out against companies, businesses, governments, and individuals that have treated you unfairly. The bad Business Bureau's ... Ripoff Report will help you do that! Once your report is posted, millions of fellow consumers worldwide will have access to your information."

Well how do you know they didn't? I understand the first assumption of bank defenders is anyone who posts a ripoff report is a deadbeat..I chose to take the complaint at face value and give the customer the benefit of a doubt. Even in a court room people are assumed innocent until proven guilty. The bank defenders go the opposite route..so be it. The bank defenders put up a good argument sometimes..I just wish it was used for a more noble cause then defending banks. And regardless..the bank defenders argument about reading the terms etc...no longer matters..since if it was actually a legitimate defense..I doubt the banks would be changing policies on their own. And as I have stated before...just because something is written in a contract or booklet.. does not automatically forfeit a US citizen from complaining about unfair terms..and hopefully can change the terms to be more fair. Just like the bank defenders have the right to come here and belittle and verbally kick and abuse customers who were financially damaged by the very terms and policies..it works both ways my friend.

All of this rambling and you still failed to answer the question, ChaseBoy. Like it or not, the banks changed perfectly legal policies on their own. For the record, we're not friends. I have no idea who you are and you wouldn't know me if I walked right past you. You are merely one subject to me among others.

Well you make enough assumptions about me so I figured you think you know me. And in the context I used "friend"..is simply a figure of speech. I think you are intelligent enough to tell whether a phrase is literal from figurative? Am I wrong?

And if you don't think I answered the question..kindly ask it again because apparently I am missing something here.

Hmmm.... I am a "subject". So how many years have you been "studying" on this site. Now unlike you I won't jump to any conclusions...but they say if it walks like a duck...

Has far as "your" question..I find the customers complaints proof enough for me. Now I can not state Chase has not notified customers of any policy changes to WAMU customers with any credibility, but I strongly feel it is safe to assume that not ALL WAMU customers received notification. Address changes and error etc..you know WAMU has a heck of a lot of customers...do you have a "credible" source that proves EVERY WAMU customer received notification of any policy changes? If not..can we end this madness here?

Whose responsibility is it to notify the banks and other entities of a change of address. If one does not notify the bank of a change of address, who is at fault?

Maybe some got lost in the mail, we are talking 12.5 million "notifications" here. Edgeman..get real...I can not and will not fall sucker your petty nonsense..and relentless attempts to discredit me. I am not on trial here. I am here to expose bank tactics..and I will continue too as often as I fit.

As well...the customers who were victims of this tactic due to the acquisition are also not on trial. But you must be aware of who is going to be on trial soon? Care to take a wild guess?

I can't imagine what I stated was so hard to comprehend.

Your post wasn't hard to comprehend. It's just that you failed to answer the question.

I believe I did answer it. Ask again because it seems according to you that I answered something you can not comprehend, or simply CHOOSE not to.

You told me on page 4 there was something about re-sequencing. I told you what the title is of the banks terms booklet I had right in front of me at the time..and I was looking at page 4..and no mention of re-sequencing. So if you are going to imply I am a liar..you need evidence that proves it..otherwise YOU are the one posting drivel. Is that so hard to understand?

Wrong, ChaseBoy. That may have been what happened in the word inside of your head but here's a recap of what happened here in the real world:

On October 29th, you wrote this: because no where in its terms does it state they will re-sequence anything

On October 30th I wrote this: Ronny, you were right about one thing- Let the debunking begin. You have just shown everyone on this site that you either don't read your own legally binding account agreements or that you are a liar.

Then I followed that up with a quote from the bank's own disclosures. I didn't call you liar nor did I imply. I stated that either you didn't read your account agreement or that you lied then left it up to you to tell us which was the case. That's actually giving you the benefit of the doubt but you have this need to believe something different so you post in this very thread that I "called" you liar.

Been here before. Boring and already dealt with.

So if you wish to prove me wrong...go see if your branch has the same booklet..Get a magnifying glass to find where it discusses re-sequencing..if you find it, I will conceded I was wrong...tell you it doesn't matter in the long run because Chase is changing the policy first quarter of next year anyhow..and the matter can be officially CLOSED. I almost hope I am proved wrong to end this already. It's not even worth my pride at this point. Ludicrous.

If you don't feel that this is worth your time, you can stop posting at any time.

Learn to read or get glasses..I stated "PRIDE" not time.

Hmm.."consumer demand" you say. You mean the bank is doing this to appease consumers? Surely you don't mean the "small percentage" of "deadbeats" that can't balance a register? The bank would do all this for a few deadbeats? Interesting.

I know you are clutching and digging to find a mistake or mis-post I made ..but that will not discredit me one bit even if it was true.

You're doing a fine job discrediting yourself. I'm happy to let you keep doing it.

I know you are clutching and digging to find a mistake or mis-post I
made ..but that will not discredit me one bit even if it was true.
Since Edward and I have TOLD you bank defenders over and over the banks
were going to change these policies...we were belittled and called
liars and every name in the book..and look what is happening? I know it
KILLS you bank defenders that we had the intelligence to foresee that
ALL the complaints were eventually going to bring on a change..but that
is just the way it is...indisputable FACT.

No clutching at straws here, ChaseBoy. Kills? Hardly, I was predicting that banks were going to be changing and adding fees as well. That's an indisputable fact. That said, I still think it would be wise for account holders to simply not overdraft their accounts and not pay overdraft fees. That's just me though.

I don't know any ratios..that statistic is not out yet. But I do
know the ROR is not the only place customers complain. I read an
article where a WAMU branch that was taken over by Chase in inundated
with complaints regarding the changes that WAMU customers were unaware
of. The article was an interview with a bank employee..and it's a mess
over there. You can google it yourself..I am not going to look for the
article since this was a few weeks ago...but if you really want the
evidence that bad..you can sift though 384,000 or so complaints
regarding Chase and find it yourself..you seem to have the free time. "google" Chase complaints.

So you're essentially admitting that you have no evidence to back up your claims despite all of the time that you spend here. You seem to have much more free time than I do. Why not base your claims on evidence?

Fine with me. As long as you get the same terms booklet I did..from a Chase branch that was recently a WAMU..and ALL the employees were WAMU employees and NEVER heard of re-sequencing. I will even look through the booklet again and see if it states anything about re-sequencing....be right back...

I'll make certain to ask if this is the same set of materials that every new account holder in California receives. I'll also be sure to post where to find the information anf if you choose to challenge that then I'll even scan the document and post the image online for you.

Nope..read through the entire booklet again..not mentioned. So make
sure you get the same ONLY book my branch gave me..and if you find
it..I will conceded this point..but it makes no difference

This suggests that you really don't care about facts.

it just means I could not find something in 43 pages of tiny writing. When I
went into this bank to open the account

If it's there and you can't find it, then you didn't fully read the terms and conditions and shouldn't have signed any agreement.

I asked if they re-sequence..they told me "no". The booklet they gave me either does not state they re-sequence..or I can not find it. Now you think I should go online and do searches to find this policy? The bank would use this as a defense if I were to be charged any fees due to re-sequencing? What is wrong with ALL of you????

There is nothing wrong with me. I think that you should be fully aware of and understand all policies in a WRITTEN legal agreement before you sign. I'm serious here, you might think about doing this in the future as it can only benefit you. This goes beyond bank accounts.

If you don't believe me...are going to CALL ME a liar while you lie about me..Meanwhile the BANK DEFENDERS are NOTORIOUS for doing exactly what you accuse me of.

I didn't call you a liar. I wrote that you either didn't read the account agreement or that you lied and asked you which was the case. That's giving you the benefit of the doubt, ChaseBoy. That's also another example of your tendency to distort your opponent's arguments. You really should stop relying on these logical fallacies as it takes only the tiniest bit of critical thinking to see through them.

I always back up what I state with FACT..as I am doing now.

No, you don't. In fact, in this very thread and in this response to me you admitted to not basing your conclusions on evidence.

I am sorry but some things you will need to take my word for..or not. Your choice.

But you don't have the credibility to be able to say, "It's this way because Ronny, Defender of Irresonsibility says so". How can anyone possibly choose to take your word at face value given your postings over the last few months?

But back up where I "tent to exaggerate or distort" anything. I may have a lot of conviction and am a colorful writer...I don't intend to distort the truth

How about where you claim that people like me claim that banks are never at fault/do no wrong, that all people who overdraft are criminals, deadbeats, etc.

I BACK UP WITH FACT.

Prove it. SHow me one instance where I wrote that banks are never at fault or that people who overdraft are deadbeats and/or criminals. Prove that I called you liar. Prove that I called Chase account holders liars.

Now if you can't believe that a bank full of employees that worked
at a bank for years that NEVER re-sequenced..and are taken over by a
bank that does..is it possible they may not know about it? I mean have
you yourself ever read a bank terms booklet?

Yes, I have.

Imagine the ones the
employees need to read? The branch was very recently converted to a
Chase..the plaster is still wet..and you are telling me the employees
can't make a mistake?

I wouldn't imagine it's any more difficult than the continuing education and refresher requirements that most professionals have to go through. Hell, I spent five years working for a federal contractor and we had to adjust our policies every time the government to change their requirements or the law, sometimes two or three times a month.

Read any REPORTS lately about this VERY thing
happening to other WAMU/CHASE customers. Or is you new full time job
just trying to discredit me personally because it is killing you that I
was RIGHT and you were WRONG all this time? Grow up and move on already.

My full time job is at an IT company and then I go to school as I work on my business degree (though I do admit that I use your postings in some of my assignments). I'm curious though - what do you think that I'm wrong about? I was also predicting bank changes as well as new fees such as BofA and CitiGroup adding an additional fee to people who pay off their credit card balances every month. I'm also right in that people will still have to practice responsible financial management techniques even with the upcoming changes and I think that I'll be right in my prediction that at some point in the near future the banks will start experimenting with overdraft fees again.

You should definitely consider following your own advice - You should grow up and move on.

I didn't "distort" anything. If you imply that I lied..it is calling me a liar.

I listed two possibilities and asked you which was the case. That's called giving you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps in that little world that you created inside of your head I did insult you. However, I can't be held responsible for what goes on inside if your head. In the real world, I did not call you a liar.

Can you blame me if I get defensive here?

If you get defensive over things that only occured in that world inside of your head, I get a little concerned. I don't think that you are nearly as far gone as the guy who wrote Report #515924 but the way you post here does suggest that you have a few issues.

I am attacked by you bank defenders for simply stating common knowledge and fact..and every word I say gets dissected under a microscope in attempt to
discredit me.

In this very thread you admitted to not having facts to back up your conclusions. You don't post from common sense and fact except for when it's convenient for you. You're discredting yourself, rather spectacularly I might add.

I have too much pride perhaps..but this entire issue is now becoming obsessive...for NO POINT AT ALL. ITS OVER. The banks are changing the policy. No distortion..no exaggeration...simple well known fact.

Yet you continue posting irrationally. Yes, a number of banks are changing policies but the new policies do not absolve one of the responsibility of understanding their legally binding agreements and managing their finances responsibly. That's a simple, well known fact as well.

By the way..before this typical attempt at an insult comes back to me..I am not "ranting and raving and crying and whining" I use caps to express a point clearly..as it seems you bank defenders will kick a dead horse past the point where it's bones are dust..all futile, all unnecessary. And the reason and motive behind why you bank defenders do this..has yet to be figured out. My guess is too much time to kill..and the shear enjoyment you all get out of being evil to banking customers who were financially damaged for any reason.

I don't believe that the above paragraph needs any commentary. It speaks for itself.

I still don't understand why you posted this. Are you nuts? First of all I don't use checks so why would I care? Second of all..if someone wishes to complain about the fact the Chase charges a fee to cash a check for non chase customers..what does that have to do whether it's in the Chase terms booklet or not? You bank defenders NEED to get it though your THICK SKULLS that just because something is written in a book..does not mean American citizens forfeit all rights to complain. Because to WIT...complaints can lead to better and more fair policies for everyone..and that is the way it works. If you don't like to deal with complaints..I would HIGHLY recommend you avoid THIS website. If you don't believe people have a right to complain...take it up with the first amendment of the constitution.

Okay, now I am in doubt about your education. The First Amendment and the Constitution have nothing to do with RipOffReport.com as this site is a private entity.

Well how do you know they didn't? I understand the first assumption of bank defenders is anyone who posts a ripoff report is a deadbeat..I chose to take the complaint at face value and give the customer the benefit of a doubt. Even in a court room people are assumed innocent until proven guilty. The bank defenders go the opposite route..so be it. The bank defenders put up a good argument sometimes..I just wish it was used for a more noble cause then defending banks. And regardless..the bank defenders argument about reading the terms etc...no longer matters..since if it was actually a legitimate defense..I doubt the banks would be changing policies on their own. And as I have stated before...just because something is written in a contract or booklet.. does not automatically forfeit a US citizen from complaining about unfair terms..and hopefully can change the terms to be more fair. Just like the bank defenders have the right to come here and belittle and verbally kick and abuse customers who were financially damaged by the very terms and policies..it works both ways my friend.

All of this rambling and you still failed to answer the question, ChaseBoy. Like it or not, the banks changed perfectly legal policies on their own. For the record, we're not friends. I have no idea who you are and you wouldn't know me if I walked right past you. You are merely one subject to me among others.

Has far as "your" question..I find the customers complaints proof enough for me. Now I can not state Chase has not notified customers of any policy changes to WAMU customers with any credibility, but I strongly feel it is safe to assume that not ALL WAMU customers received notification. Address changes and error etc..you know WAMU has a heck of a lot of customers...do you have a "credible" source that proves EVERY WAMU customer received notification of any policy changes? If not..can we end this madness here?

Whose responsibility is it to notify the banks and other entities of a change of address. If one does not notify the bank of a change of address, who is at fault?

I can't imagine what I stated was so hard to comprehend.

Your post wasn't hard to comprehend. It's just that you failed to answer the question.

You told me on page 4 there was something about re-sequencing. I told you what the title is of the banks terms booklet I had right in front of me at the time..and I was looking at page 4..and no mention of re-sequencing. So if you are going to imply I am a liar..you need evidence that proves it..otherwise YOU are the one posting drivel. Is that so hard to understand?

Wrong, ChaseBoy. That may have been what happened in the word inside of your head but here's a recap of what happened here in the real world:

On October 29th, you wrote this: because no where in its terms does it state they will re-sequence anything

On October 30th I wrote this: Ronny, you were right about one thing- Let the debunking begin. You have just shown everyone on this site that you either don't read your own legally binding account agreements or that you are a liar.

Then I followed that up with a quote from the bank's own disclosures. I didn't call you liar nor did I imply. I stated that either you didn't read your account agreement or that you lied then left it up to you to tell us which was the case. That's actually giving you the benefit of the doubt but you have this need to believe something different so you post in this very thread that I "called" you liar.

So if you wish to prove me wrong...go see if your branch has the same booklet..Get a magnifying glass to find where it discusses re-sequencing..if you find it, I will conceded I was wrong...tell you it doesn't matter in the long run because Chase is changing the policy first quarter of next year anyhow..and the matter can be officially CLOSED. I almost hope I am proved wrong to end this already. It's not even worth my pride at this point. Ludicrous.

If you don't feel that this is worth your time, you can stop posting at any time.

Hmm.."consumer demand" you say. You mean the bank is doing this to appease consumers? Surely you don't mean the "small percentage" of "deadbeats" that can't balance a register? The bank would do all this for a few deadbeats? Interesting.

Well, "deadbeats" is your word but there is no denying that the majority of people who hold checking accounts simply do not overdraft. That's from the FDIC study. You're the one who speculated that maybe Chase realized that this was the right thing to do so what's the problem?

Not that this is pertinent to any argument here, although we have been "discussing" Chase Bank... I have had some trouble accessing account information from Chase. Even though my debit card has a Chase logo on it...and even though my checks (which I will never use..a waste of paper) have a Chase logo on them, when I call or go online to check status..I am denied access..even thought the debit card works.

I can assume it is due to the acquisition..understandable, but  inconvenient. The only way to check my account other then my book keeping skills..was to call the bank during business hours..or go into the branch. In LA even a simple trip to the bank or post office is a nightmare...but if you live here you put up with it.

Anyhow, my book keeping skills are pretty good since I keep track to the penny. My summary came in the mail today..and my balance is .05 cents.

I am enrolled in  "Chase free extra checking" and called customer service just to make sure the account is not in any danger being this low.

I asked the agent if it is better for me to close the account, since I refuse to make a deposit until the policy changes go into effect next year. To my surprise, the agent told me to "keep the account, it is fine, you have nothing to worry about I assure you". I am starting to like this bank. I must have a lot of faith to trust they will not turn on me and find a way to charge a fee. I guess they want to keep this customer..even with 5 cents in the account, and knowing I will not make a deposit until sometime next year...impressive.

Now lets hope this judge residing the lawsuit I posted is not too tough on the bank..I believe in fairness..not gouging. The Judge is a lifetime Democrat...I am not a big fan of the Dems...or the Republicans for that matter..but in a case like this I feel a Dem may sway more towards the peoples side..and less to the banks. This judge was  appointed by Nixon..which means he is old as dirt. This may not be a good thing for the customers since the policies that require changing were at one time applicable during the days of checks only..when debit cards were not used for small purchases in lieu of cash transactions. For most customers the policies have no useful place with a debit card..other then to maximize the potential for the bank to charge fees..which is clearly evident to anyone with an ounce of perception, albeit it is not illegal..or proven yet to be so.

Guess we will see where it goes. In the meantime...judging by the fact that this bank (Chase) is doing away with mandatory OD protection AND re-sequencing..one would have to wonder if they have any doubts regarding the outcome.

"The level of ignorance on this and other threads on the part of the Land of Oz crew (i.e. Edward and his partner, Ronny G) is enormous, but not surprising in the least."

Okay then. Game on. Lets go through this section by section...dissect under a microscope every word you say..every period and comma you use..and do an "ignorance" check...here goes,your serve.

"So here we have them, in all their glory, proclaiming that ending involuntary overdraft protection i.e. SPENDING THE BANK'S MONEY will result in an end to NSF fees."

Nope..wrong. I never said that. If you have ANY proof I ever at anytime in ANY post stated opting out would eliminate NSF fees...show it to me and I will eat it. All I ever implied is that by giving the customer the CHOICE whether to opt into courtesy overdraft protection, the customer can decide without the bank forcing or sneaking any service onto them, the best way THEY feel to best protect their account. If a customer CHOOSES to opt in..then they need to expect point of sale and ATM transactions to be processed even if overdrafted..and get the fees..same as it ever was, other then the banks placing limits that were not in effect before said changes.

If the customer wishes to remain opted out...transactions at a point of sale or ATM will be declined if the funds are TRULY unavailable...whether due to theft, fraud, deadbeat, error..any reason, period. Many customers prefer this and deserved the right...which apparently many banks must agree. Of course by being opted out of OD protection..if there is not a different policy change as far as ACH and checks etc..then yes..they subject themselves to NSF fees.

All fair in my eyes..no free rides...personal responsibility STILL applies...sans the banks tactic. Now does this sound so unfair and unreasonable? If you actually have read and comprehend what I have always been harping on...this is it when it comes to the tactic of mandatory forced courtesy overdraft protection. The consumers wanted CHOICE..and they are getting it no matter how much that upsets you..and no matter how much ALL the bank defenders attack me personally.

Anyone keeping score of the ignorance points? Let us continue.

"The problem with that stance is its factual fallacy. ANY transactions initiated by a customer, sans the funds to cover them, are legally classified as INSUFFICIENT FUNDS TRANSACTIONS. Ergo, the bank will be well within its rights to charge you a SEPARATE FEE for EACH AND EVERY TRANSACTION THAT BOUNCES - regardless of whether they pay it or not."

Huh? who ever stated this was not the case? I certainly never did. All I have ever stated is that if the account is below zero...the debit card will be declined at a point of sale..or an ATM. Why do you bank defenders constantly put words in my mouth..and attempt to get me to defend things I never stated..and/or I agree with.

What the "ignorance" score now? Anyone?

"In addition, when transactions are initiated with merchants that are not discovered to have been covered with available funds, very serious legal and civil consequences can and will ensue. Since Edward and Ronny G are so hopped up on hypotheticals, let's throw on in the discussion:

A customer uses his debit card at the pump. The bank authorizes one dollar at the time (which is customary among most banks), but when it runs the actual $60 charge for the gas, the transaction is DECLINED.

What has just transpired is nothing short of THEFT. The customer used a method of payment without making sure there were sufficient funds to cover it, then drove away with the product. The merchant is well within his rights to press charges against the customer and seek legal/civil remedies for this theft. The same holds true for ACH and check transactions that will bounce once the customer "opts out"."

Here we go again..with the friggen gas pump. Always the last resort after the checks..and insulting of grammar. I guess you really have not been keeping up on this whole issue. Edward and myself have totally and completely debunked the gas pump issue time and time again. I will do it one more for the sake of this discussion..and never again...

First of all...IF the bank allows a swipe at a gas pump...a p***s pump..or ANY pump...it is partially THEIR fault if it overdraws the account. Now before you blow a fuse let me explain...

The banks ALREADY have considered this...surely the banks are not that stupid ..you think? They would allow opt out of OD protection and not consider this?

How it has worked in my case...back when I was with Whacoffonya..after much dispute with the bank manager...I was given IN WRITING...documentation that I am opted out of OD protection because i simply refused to play their "game".

What happens now I find..is that when I swipe the card at the pump and and below a certain balance in my checking account..a little notice comes up on the screen which  states "transaction can not be completed at this time, please see attendant inside". Hmmm, possible the bank has a safeguard for this very reason? Or did you think you were actually smart enough to discover a potential issue the banks have not already considered?

Now is this to say it is impossible if burning the wood and conjuring up every possible hypothetical scenario that is possible to overdraft even when opted out of OD protection? I would say it fairly reasonable to say it is possible. But as I read through the many many complaints here..I have yet to read a single one where a gas pump charged the customer excessive overdraft fees...so let us close that book.

Ignorance???  Check please?

Simply "google" 'Chase bank lawsuits'..you will yield around 422,000 results. If you wish to narrow it down.."google"  'Chase bank overdraft fee lawsuits' which will yield around 16,200 results. Found this one first pop...

Bank Customers Victimized by Alleged Abusive Bank Overdraft Fees Strike Back

Consolidated, Nationwide Class Action Lawsuits Filed in Federal Court Against Bank of America, Wachovia, U.S. Bank, JPMorgan Chase and Citibank
October 20, 2009 11:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time

MIAMI--(EON: Enhanced Online News)--Marking a substantial step forward in litigation over the banking industrys abusive and excessive overdraft fee policies and practices, plaintiffs' counsel announced that bank customers have filed a series of nationwide class action lawsuits against Bank of America, Wachovia, U.S. Bank, JPMorgan Chase and Citibank. The complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami, where all federal lawsuits brought against the banking industry for abusive overdraft fees have been coordinated before the Honorable James Lawrence King.

    The collection of excessive overdraft fees, usually around $35 per transaction, impacts millions of Americans each year and has become a multibillion-dollar profit center for the banks

"The collection of excessive overdraft fees, usually around $35 per transaction, impacts millions of Americans each year and has become a multibillion-dollar profit center for the banks," explained lead plaintiffs counsel Bruce S. Rogow. "In many instances, these overdraft fees cost customers hundreds of dollars in a matter of days, or even hours, when they may be overdrawn by only a few dollars. Charging a $35 overdraft fee when a college student uses her debit card to buy a cup of coffee is unconscionable."

How Bank "Overdraft Protection" Works and Why the Abusive Collection of Overdraft Fees is a National Concern

Today, when customers open checking accounts, banks provide debit cards for the withdrawal of cash from ATM machines and the purchase of goods and services. Many bank customers are not aware that as part of the process of obtaining the debit card, banks automatically enroll their customers in "overdraft protection." The overdraft protection kicks in if the customer spends more than he or she has in the account to cover the purchase, up to a limit of a few hundred dollars.

Banks could simply decline to honor customer ATM or point-of-sale transactions if the account lacks sufficient funds, or could warn customers that if they go through with the transaction an overdraft fee will be assessed. In fact, until a few years ago, most banks simply declined debit transactions that would overdraw an account.

"Banks do not record charges and purchases on ATM or debit cards in the order they actually occur," stated plaintiffs counsel Michael W. Sobol of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. "Instead, banks reorder the charges and purchases so that the largest charge or purchase is the first one paid by the bank. This manipulative practice is intentionally designed, the complaints allege, to maximize overdraft fee revenue."

"If you buy your kids a $15 meal at McDonalds on your debit card and your account was overdrawn, that lunch actually cost you $50," added Mr. Sobol. "The bank wont decline the debit transaction, nor will the bank tell you that you have overdrawn your account and is about to turn your $15 lunch into a $50 expense."

In 2007, banks collected more than $17 billion in overdraft fees. That number nearly doubled in 2008, as more and more consumers struggled to maintain positive checking account balances. In 2009, banks are expected to bring in up to $40 billion in overdraft charges from nearly 50 million customers.

"While all bank customers have been affected, these overdraft fee policies disproportionately affect young people, the elderly and the poor, who are most likely to maintain low account balances," noted Mr. Rogow. "Moreover, these fees have the tendency to create a domino effect, resulting in even more fees."

Further Information for Bank Customers

Bank customers assessed overdraft fees who wish to learn more about this litigation should visit www.bank-overdraft.com where they can submit their complaint to plaintiffs counsel.
Contacts

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Michael W. Sobol, 415-956-1000
or
Bruce S. Rogow, 954-767-8909
Permalink: http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20091020005332/en/fee/overdraft/lieff-cabraser

View All Releases from This Organization

"Tell me this, ChaseBoy - What is the ratio of Chase account holders to the people posting complaints about the new policies? I ask because we have a WaMu/Chase customer in this very thread who wrote that he not only received the account updates, but that the terms were clearly listed. Is it possible that a number of people didn't read the account updates?"

I though this was over....but okay..if you insist..

I know you are clutching and digging to find a mistake or mis-post I made ..but that will not discredit me one bit even if it was true. Since Edward and I have TOLD you bank defenders over and over the banks were going to change these policies...we were belittled and called liars and every name in the book..and look what is happening? I know it KILLS you bank defenders that we had the intelligence to foresee that ALL the complaints were eventually going to bring on a change..but that is just the way it is...indisputable FACT.

Now on to the fluff and nonsense..

I don't know any ratios..that statistic is not out yet. But I do know the ROR is not the only place customers complain. I read an article where a WAMU branch that was taken over by Chase in inundated with complaints regarding the changes that WAMU customers were unaware of. The article was an interview with a bank employee..and it's a mess over there. You can google it yourself..I am not going to look for the article since this was a few weeks ago...but if you really want the evidence that bad..you can sift though 384,000 or so complaints regarding Chase and find it yourself..you seem to have the free time. "google" Chase complaints.

"Tell you what, ChaseBoy. I actually have to stop by Chase Bank on Monday to make a payment on a recently opened credit account. I'll inquire about accounts. Will you guarantee that the materials I receive will say nothing about how transactions are posted?"

"What I posted online was the disclousres for new accounts. I'm willing to wager that I'll receive a similar disclosure on Monday. As for what you were told... well, you say one thing and someone else something different. Who are we to believe? Given the fact that you tend to exaggerate or even distort your opponent's arguments, your credibility is somewhat tarnished."

 If you don't believe me...are going to CALL ME a liar while you lie about me..Meanwhile the BANK DEFENDERS are NOTORIOUS for doing exactly what you accuse me of.

I always back up what I state with FACT..as I am doing now. I am sorry but some things you will need to take my word for..or not.  Your choice. But back up where I "tent to exaggerate or distort" anything. I may have a lot of conviction and am a colorful writer...I don't intend to distort the truth..I BACK UP WITH FACT.

Now if you can't believe that a bank full of employees that worked at a bank for years that NEVER re-sequenced..and are taken over by a bank that does..is it possible they may not know about it? I mean have you yourself ever read a bank terms booklet? Imagine the ones the employees need to read? The branch was very recently converted to a Chase..the plaster is still wet..and you are telling me the employees can't make a mistake? Read any REPORTS lately about this VERY thing happening to other WAMU/CHASE customers. Or is you new full time job just trying to discredit me personally because it is killing you that I was RIGHT and you were WRONG all this time? Grow up and move on already.

"By the way, I didn't call you a "lair". I wrote that you either didn't read your disclosures or you lied and asked which was the case. I certainly didn't call any of the complainers a "lair" either. This is another example of your tendency to distort your opponent's arguments."

I didn't "distort" anything. If you imply that I lied..it is calling me a liar. Can you blame me if I get defensive here? I am attacked by you bank defenders for simply stating common knowledge and fact..and every word I say gets dissected under a microscope in attempt to discredit me. I have too much pride perhaps..but this entire issue is now becoming obsessive...for NO POINT AT ALL. ITS OVER. The banks are changing the policy. No distortion..no exaggeration...simple well known fact.

By the way..before this typical attempt at an insult comes back to me..I am not "ranting and raving and crying and whining" I use caps to express a point clearly..as it seems you bank defenders will kick a dead horse past the point where it's bones are dust..all futile, all unnecessary. And the reason and motive behind why you bank defenders do this..has yet to be figured out. My guess is too much time to kill..and the shear enjoyment you all get out of being evil to banking customers who were financially damaged for any reason.

"That was in reference to the people who complain that Chase sometimes chooses to charge a $6 fee to chas checks for people who don't have a Chase account."

I still don't understand why you posted this. Are you nuts? First of all I don't use checks so why would I care? Second of all..if someone wishes to complain about the fact the Chase charges a fee to cash a check for non chase customers..what does that have to do whether it's in the Chase terms booklet or not? You bank defenders NEED to get it though your THICK SKULLS that just because something is written in a book..does not mean American citizens forfeit all rights to complain. Because to WIT...complaints can lead to better and more fair policies for everyone..and that is the way it works. If you don't like to deal with complaints..I would HIGHLY recommend you avoid THIS website. If you don't believe people have a right to complain...take it up with the first amendment of the constitution.

"If you're not going to rely on evidence, then how do you know that these people simply didn't read the account updates? As you may have noticed, a lot of people don't even read their account agreements in the first place so is it really a stretch to see that they may not have read about the account updates? I know for a fact that updates were sent out because someone I own a side business with banked at Washington Mutual and complained to me about the new Chase policies before they went into effect."

Well how do you know they didn't? I understand the first assumption of bank defenders is anyone who posts a ripoff report is a deadbeat..I chose to take the complaint at face value and give the customer the benefit of a doubt. Even in a court room people are assumed innocent until proven guilty. The bank defenders go the opposite route..so be it. The bank defenders put up a good argument sometimes..I just wish it was used for a more noble cause then defending banks.

And regardless..the bank defenders argument about reading the terms etc...no longer matters..since if it was actually a legitimate defense..I doubt the banks would be changing policies on their own. And as I have stated before...just because something is written in a contract or booklet.. does not automatically forfeit a US citizen from complaining about unfair terms..and hopefully can change the terms to be more fair. Just like the bank defenders have the right to come here and belittle and verbally kick and abuse customers who were financially damaged by the very terms and policies..it works both ways my friend.

Chase has decided to NOT RE SEQUENCE TRANSACTIONS ANYMORE...

"That's wonderful, ChaseBoy. What does that have to do with the fact that these changes won't occur until next year and that they are currently free to post transactions from highest to lowest if they wish? I must also point out that this doesn't answer my question about a credible source on Chase not notifying the WaMu account holders about the terms and conditions. Since you don't seem to understand logic and common sense, I'll put it simply for you. "

"I asked this:

"So Ronny, tell me. Why did you write that there was nothing in Chase Bank's terms and conditions regarding resequencing transactions when it was very clearly printed on page four? Did you really read it or were you lying? Also, if you were wrong about that then how can we be certain that your other statement about Chase not notifying the WaMu account holders is correct? Do you have some kind of credible source on this?"

You then responded with a bit of drivel about not using evidence and that a lot of people complained. You also wrote that Chase will be changing their policies next year. Your responses have nothing to do with the question that I asked.

I can't imagine what I stated was so hard to comprehend. You told me on page 4 there was something about re-sequencing. I told you what the title is of the banks terms booklet I had right in front of me at the time..and I was looking at page 4..and no mention of re-sequencing. So if you are going to imply I am a liar..you need evidence that proves it..otherwise YOU are the one posting drivel. Is that so hard to understand?

So if you wish to prove me wrong...go see if your branch has the same booklet..Get a magnifying glass to find where it discusses re-sequencing..if you find it, I will conceded I was wrong...tell you it doesn't matter in the long run because Chase is changing the policy first quarter of next year anyhow..and the matter can be officially CLOSED. I almost hope I am proved wrong to end this already. It's not even worth my pride at this point. Ludicrous.

"Well ChaseBoy, I'm not going to pretend to know what the powers that be over at Chase are thinking but I'd guess that that they were aware of BofA's plans (these discussions have been going for a while in financial circles) and/or consumer demand."

Hmm.."consumer demand" you say. You mean the bank is doing this to appease consumers? Surely you don't mean the "small percentage" of "deadbeats" that can't balance a register? The bank would do all this for a few deadbeats? Interesting.

The level of ignorance on this and other threads on the part of the Land of Oz crew (i.e. Edward and his partner, Ronny G) is enormous, but not surprising in the least.

So here we have them, in all their glory, proclaiming that ending involuntary overdraft protection i.e. SPENDING THE BANK'S MONEY will result in an end to NSF fees.

The problem with that stance is its factual fallacy. ANY transactions initiated by a customer, sans the funds to cover them, are legally classified as INSUFFICIENT FUNDS TRANSACTIONS. Ergo, the bank will be well within its rights to charge you a SEPARATE FEE for EACH AND EVERY TRANSACTION THAT BOUNCES - regardless of whether they pay it or not.

In addition, when transactions are initiated with merchants that are not discovered to have been covered with available funds, very serious legal and civil consequences can and will ensue. Since Edward and Ronny G are so hopped up on hypotheticals, let's throw on in the discussion:

A customer uses his debit card at the pump. The bank authorizes one dollar at the time (which is customary among most banks), but when it runs the actual $60 charge for the gas, the transaction is DECLINED.

What has just transpired is nothing short of THEFT. The customer used a method of payment without making sure there were sufficient funds to cover it, then drove away with the product. The merchant is well within his rights to press charges against the customer and seek legal/civil remedies for this theft. The same holds true for ACH and check transactions that will bounce once the customer "opts out".

THIS is the logical fallacy that exists with both Edward and Ronny G's assertions - and it constitutes the TRUE RIP-OFF on this and every other thread where they spew their sewage instead of actually helping consumers AVOID THE FEES IN THE FUTURE.

Let me teach you something very simple you can do yourself even to fact check. Simply copy and paste a sentence, phase or section in question  into a google search...and like magic....facts are verified instantly.

Here is one source..the way it is written is how CHASE bank themselves press released it...some info there on B of A policy changes as well. No nonsense or "theory"..from any dictionary needed.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/09/overdraft_charges02.html

eliminating overdrafts for debit cards unless the customer opts in to overdraft services 

And anyone can 'Google' this- BANK EXECUTIVES PROFITING ON THE DEATH OF EMPLOYEES, and read where Chase has $11 BILLION in secret life insurance policies on its employees. Bank of America & Wells Fargo have $17 BILLION each in these policies too. That's $45 BILLION in secret life insurance policies by just those three banks alone, right? $11 BILLION + $17 BILLION + $17 BILLION = $45 BILLION

ChaseBoy wrote:

The astounding amount of complaints should suffice..and I believe many things regarding the banks tactics have proven to be self evident..but here is what I can state as fact...

Tell me this, ChaseBoy - What is the ratio of Chase account holders to the people posting complaints about the new policies? I ask because we have a WaMu/Chase customer in this very thread who wrote that he not only received the account updates, but that the terms were clearly listed. Is it possible that a number of people didn't read the account updates?

I have all the paperwork the bank gave me...can not find whatever it is on that PDF. I have in front of me a booklet the bank gave me when I opened the account titled "WELCOME TO CHASE, better banking is here. A special customer update including account rules and regulations beginning October 23 2009"..and has a Chase logo on it. Page 4 says nothing of re-sequencing.

Tell you what, ChaseBoy. I actually have to stop by Chase Bank on Monday to make a payment on a recently opened credit account. I'll inquire about checking accounts. Will you guarantee that the materials I receive will say nothing about how transactions are posted?

So if you choose to call me a lair..or all these complaining customers..it would be nice of you to present the evidence of what OUR terms say that the bank handed us...or what they TOLD us in person..not what you find on line.

What I posted online was the disclousres for new accounts. I'm willing to wager that I'll receive a similar disclosure on Monday. As for what you were told... well, you say one thing and someone else something different. Who are we to believe? Given the fact that you tend to exaggerate or even distort your opponent's arguments, your credibility is somewhat tarnished.

By the way, I didn't call you a "lair". I wrote that you either didn't read your disclosures or you lied and asked which was the case. I certainly didn't call any of the complainers a "lair" either. This is another example of your tendency to distort your opponent's arguments.

Huh??? And this has to do with the price of tea in China how? I can't see in this complaint where the poster claims they were charged a fee for not having a Chase account and didn't understand Chases policies..since they would not be a Chase customer if they did not have an account to begin with. So what is the point to posting this?

That was in reference to the people who complain that Chase sometimes chooses to charge a $6 fee to chas checks for people who don't have a Chase account.

One is at least some WAMU customers apparently WERE NOT made aware of the policy changes..or they would have known, the complaints here tell me this..I am not going to go to their houses and check their mailboxes for evidence..get real...

If you're not going to rely on evidence, then how do you know that these people simply didn't read the account updates? As you may have noticed, a lot of people don't even read their account agreements in the first place so is it really a stretch to see that they may not have read about the account updates? I know for a fact that updates were sent out because someone I own a side business with banked at Washington Mutual and complained to me about the new Chase policies before they went into effect.

Chase has decided to NOT RE SEQUENCE TRANSACTIONS ANYMORE...

That's wonderful, ChaseBoy. What does that have to do with the fact that these changes won't occur until next year and that they are currently free to post transactions from highest to lowest if they wish? I must also point out that this doesn't answer my question about a credible source on Chase not notifying the WaMu account holders about the terms and conditions. Since you don't seem to understand logic and common sense, I'll put it simply for you.

I asked this:

"So Ronny, tell me. Why did you write that there was nothing in Chase Bank's terms and conditions regarding resequencing transactions when it was very clearly printed on page four? Did you really read it or were you lying? Also, if you were wrong about that then how can we be certain that your other statement about Chase not notifying the WaMu account holders is correct? Do you have some kind of credible source on this?"

You then responded with a bit of drivel about not using evidence and that a lot of people complained. You also wrote that Chase will be changing their policies next year. Your responses have nothing to do with the question that I asked.

So..lets either end this here...OR you explain to me WHY you think Chase has decided on their own..to change the policies.

Well ChaseBoy, I'm not going to pretend to know what the powers that be over at Chase are thinking but I'd guess that that they were aware of BofA's plans (these discussions have been going for a while in financial circles) and/or consumer demand.

What is your source for this claim ronnie:

...until they are charged 64 dollars in fees for going over by 10 cents. I know some of you think you are so perfect...but you can't predict the future. I am not advocating irresponsibility here so don't take it the wrong way...but there is a time and place for a little basic forgiveness..or as the banks call it... a courtesy, waiver, grace, pardon, allowance and others.

Fortunately, the banks themselves are starting to change policies. Perhaps those so harsh to judge should ask the BANKS why they are doing this. Here are some of the changes Chase will be making if they haven't already...

• eliminating overdrafts for debit cards unless the customer opts in to overdraft services
  
• modifying posting order to recognize debit-card transactions and ATM withdrawals as they occur
  
• eliminating overdraft fees if a customer's account is $5 or less overdrawn
  
• reducing the maximum number of overdraft fees per day to 3 from 6

Chase has been our bank for probably 10 years. They bought us from 1st Chicago and 1st Chicago bought us from another long gone bank whos name I cant remeber. 

We bounced once in 30 years. And that was not the banks fault. 

Go back to high school or just read the back of your bank statement, it tells you how to balance your account. 

I will never understand why anyone blaims a bank for spending more than they have. 

Simple math, if your account balance is $5.00 and you wrote a check for $4.50. Even if that check didnt clear, your balance is only fifty cents. 

If you "revolutionaries" spent half the effort you do logging into this website regularly on balancing your checkbooks, you wouldn't even have these problems.  Overdraft fees would not happen if you kept an accurate ledger.  Who cares about processing order?  Either the money is in the account or it's not.  You spend more than you have in your account, you sign an agreement with the bank that you will pay a fee for that.  It's not rocket science. 

The astounding amount of complaints should suffice..and I believe many things regarding the banks tactics have proven to be self evident..but here is what I can state as fact...


I have all the paperwork the bank gave me...can not find whatever it is on that PDF. I have in front of me a booklet the bank gave me when I opened the account titled "WELCOME TO CHASE, better banking is here. A special customer update including account rules and regulations beginning October 23 2009"..and has a Chase logo on it. Page 4 says nothing of re-sequencing. So if you choose to call me a lair..or all these complaining customers..it would be nice of you to present the evidence of what OUR terms say that the bank handed us...or what they TOLD us in person..not what you find on line. I read through everything they gave me with the INTENT of finding where they state they re-sequence..and can not find it. If it is in there...it is not only well hidden..but the bank employees and managers would be LYING to ME. Either way the policy or "tactic" is not necessary as explained in plenty of detail over and over by Edward and myself...if you don't understand by this point..then it is futile. The important thing is the unsuspecting victims of the policy understand...we don't need to keep catering to banks defenders and constantly presenting evidence to prove the obvious.



"Incidentally, that same page discloses that someone who does not have a Chase account may be charged a fee if they try to cash one of your checks so we can also dismiss the RipOff Reports about that."

Huh??? And this has to do with the price of tea in China how? I can't see in this complaint where the poster claims they were charged a fee for not having a Chase account and didn't understand Chases policies..since they would not be a Chase customer if they did not have an account to begin with. So what is the point to posting this?

"So Ronny, tell me. Why did you write that there was nothing in Chase Bank's terms and conditions regarding resequencing transactions when it was very clearly printed on page four? Did you really read it or were you lying? Also, if you were wrong about that then how can we be certain that your other statement about Chase not notifying the WaMu account holders is correct? Do you have some kind of credible source on this?"

Look..there are TWO bottom lines that should shut you the hell up about this already.

One is at least some WAMU customers apparently WERE NOT made aware of the policy changes..or they would have known, the complaints here tell me this..I am not going to go to their houses and check their mailboxes for evidence..get real...

Two is....Chase has decided to NOT RE SEQUENCE TRANSACTIONS ANYMORE...

From the New York Times, Sept. 22nd

"Chase plans to eliminate by the first quarter of next year a common industry practice that enraged many consumers. Instead of lumping a days worth of debit card and A.T.M. transactions together and then processing the highest amounts first a practice that has caused large numbers of consumers to overdraw more quickly and pay more fees it will credit the transactions chronologically. Chase also plans to allow customers to opt out of overdraft coverage."

So..lets either end this here...OR you explain to me WHY you think Chase has decided on their own..to change the policies.

Thank You.

Edgeman, thank you for reminding me of how tactful I usually am posts. Nice to know you noticed. Because if you did notice, you can also confirm it's also usually not in my nature to be concerned with 'winning' or 'losing'. I digress on that point. You'll be happy to know that I have indeed calmed down again and returned true to form you've become accustomed to. Just watch:

Hey Robert, old pal. Just curious whether you would care to elaborate? It sounds as if you were one of those former WAMU customers, and this would explain why you received the bulk mailer about the changes. If that be true, then you could certainly confirm for everyone that WAMU did indeed post transactions in the order they occurred and WAMU never did use re-sequencing. That's if we're even concerned about this anymore. You know, just out of curiosity, since we're all here to get factual information and ''help the consumer'' and all.

Apparently I could have used your services and first hand knowledge to come to my defense TWO YEARS ago, when I unsuccessfully tried to express this to the 'bank defenders' back then.

Sorry to here about every ones dilema,, I have a active wamu,now chase card,and recieve my bill by e mail every month.

I had bought a new computer,and didnt recieve my bill,as i know the 15th or so is my due date,So i signed into my account,and sure enought,same thing,late fee,,they wanted to drop my credit limit,as I have never once been late in 4 years!

I found out that the email is not the way to go,!!!!! So i called the custer service # and spoke with a real nice lady,and I explaided my dilema,as I didnt recieve my bill..Well she checked my payment history, fixed the computer thing,,As she explained,Chase did not read the #'s from my old one,,Isnt tecknology great!!!!???

She walked me through the steps,to get back on the email list,and could not of been any nicer!!!!! Anouther bit of info,that works,allways call on a fri,,as there looking to get the heck out of there!

Good Luck with your problem,and hope you get to talk to a nice woman like i got, Jack

 Also, if you were wrong about that then how can we be certain that your other statement about Chase not notifying the WaMu account holders is correct? Do you have some kind of credible source on this?

- I don't know if Ronny will tell you how he is certain.  But I have WaMu/Chase as one of my accounts(not my primary account).  I can also tell you that I was in fact notified of the changes.  How..they sent me the information in the mail.  This was not some small postcard or advertisement that could have been missed.  This was a huge envelope that actually was bent a bit to get it into my mailbox.  This is why it stuck out to me.  Edgeman you are also correct that the terms were clearly disclosed.  I even have electronic(e-mail) statements so it is not like they only did this for people who get their statements mailed.

Which makes more sense.  That I was treated special because I am a "bank defender", so the President of Chase personally mailed this to me and made sure that I was the only one who received this envelope.  Or that I am just a regular customer who along with every other customer received the same information.  Who then had the opportunity to review the terms of the account.

Make sure you tip your waiter on the way out, Ronny...

Nice pick-up, Edgeman. Score one for the good guys i.e. those who actually seek to help others avoid the rip-off in the future.

Ronny, you were right about one thing- Let the debunking begin. You have just shown everyone on this site that you either don't read your own legally binding account agreements or that you are a liar.

You wrote: As I stated I recently opened an account with Chase...because no where in its terms does it state they will re-sequence anything

Chase bank DOES disclose the fact that they resequence transactions. It's right in their disclosure and it's actually close to the beginning of the text. I'll provide the link to the disclosure but if the link is redacted you can easily find it on the Chase website.

https://apply.chase.com/oao/DisclosureRetriever.aspx?DI=aHR0cDovL2FwcGNvbnRlbnQuYmFua29uZS5uZXQvUlNJL0RlcG9zaXQvU1dfUlJfRU5HLmZkZg==

If you go to page 4 of the text (page 6 of the PDF file) you'll see a section titled "Posting Order". Here's the text that follows:

Generally, deposits will be credited
to your account first and then well pay your items
(e.g. checks, debit card transactions, ATM transactions
and other debits to your account) from highest
to lowest dollar amount each business day. Certain
transactions such as wire transfers may post before
others.

Incidentally, that same page discloses that someone who does not have a Chase account may be charged a fee if they try to cash one of your checks so we can also dismiss the RipOff Reports about that.

So Ronny, tell me. Why did you write that there was nothing in Chase Bank's terms and conditions regarding resequencing transactions when it was very clearly printed on page four? Did you really read it or were you lying? Also, if you were wrong about that then how can we be certain that your other statement about Chase not notifying the WaMu account holders is correct? Do you have some kind of credible source on this?

Edgeman,

I put forth a challenge to you. I can GUARANTEE you have never witnessed me ATTACK anyone without provocation. To the contrary, even when I'm attacked, as is often the case, I usually try to respond calmly with even more logic and indisputable facts, because I feel this bolsters my credibility and my opinion. That's my M.O. Not to bring myself down to the level of my opposers and false accusers.

My very first post on this thread was to remind everyone of the statements I made two years ago about WAMU. Two years later, we now have proof what I said turned out to be true. My only objective was for everyone to know who's credible here and who's just blowing smoke. And for everyone to keep this in consideration with respect to any future differences of opinion.

Another example of the vindication I was alluding to? The Unavailable Funds Fee at Wachovia and my month's long drawn out debate with Striderq the Wachovia employee. My claim? Wells Fargo did not ever use this fee and customers would see it go away now that Wells Fargo has bought Wachovia. Striderq disagreed. Remember those Wachovia threads for this issue which flooded in daily? Still not one for Wells Fargo, before or after the merger. Who ''helped the customer'' with correct information Edgeman? Who turned out to be credible?

Back to this thread. Without PROVOCATION, you have my dear friend Robert who chimes in with an off base accusation of me claiming that I've won. Read my comments yourself Edgeman and I think you'll agree that was far from the case. Then Robert unfairly expands on this incorrect conclusion to claim that I often do this on many threads. Again far from true. So, ONLY THEN, in defense of myself, do you witness the fierce wrath. Whenever you witnessed it on any other thread, I GUARANTEE it was always under similar circumstances.

My challenge to you Edgeman. Show where I have done this on any thread unprovoked.

I would say Edward vindicated quite effectively. Once again..this is not really about "win" or "lose" as far as these debates. As far as many customers...yes....a lot lost. I know it kills the bank defenders when it is proven time and time again that the banks are doing some things 'wrong"..and not every complaint here was posted by an irresponsible felon...or that the customer was ALWAYS 100% at fault..this is not the case to wit.

I don't think Edward or myself have different "philosophies" on personal responsibility...I just think we have a way to see all sides..not just the banks...and we are less apt to ALWAYS prejudge every customer as the wrong doer..and more apt to see where the bank played a part. Speaking for myself...I actually do not want to be proven right of wrong..I just want the banks to show some fairness..and a little leniency during a horrible recession. I feel the banks played a role in causing the economic disaster..I feel the banks were bailed out and should not have been..and I feel all the top executives put more concern into their salaries and bonuses...and very little if any time into developing any tactics that can actually help this country recover. It makes no sense..because it would benefit the banks as well if the economy recovered...but it seems to me they do not care..or even want it to recover. Maybe they have a plan for all the foreclosures? Speculation yes..but I would not put it past them

Now Robert...you stated in your last reply that you "bank defenders" want to "HELP" the consumer. Okay..lets say this is true. Answer these questions then...

Do you think you have helped anyone?

If your advice worked..and no one ever overdrafted again..what would the banks do to make up for the loss?

If no more overdrafts were the result of YOUR advice..and the banks were to attack every customer to make up for the loss..would you except responsibility for that?

If the banks are doing nothing "wrong" why have they decided on their own to start making policy changes that are what Edward and I have been arguing they should do all along?

And last but not least...If these changes do actually cut down on the amount of fees the banks take in from overdrafts, would you agree Edward and I were doing the right thing by exposing part of the problem?..that is since you want to "HELP" these consumers so much.

By the way Robert..I was in your town this morning..took me an hour and a half to go 45 miles thanks to the traffic. Nice area..but where I got off the freeway on the Irvine exit..it smells like a garbage dump. I guess there is a dump there?

Funny thing is...the place where I had to pick up my merchandise offered me a full time job as a product tester/ technical evaluator..can you believe that? They are however relocating to Chino Hills in a month or two..so I do not know if I will take the job now..or wait until they relocate. That drive is insane..I would kill someone with road rage if I had to deal with that traffic every day.

I apologize for the off-topic question.

Edward, having followed some of your older posts I came away with the conclusion that you were an intelligent and articulate fellow who had some good intentions. However, the last several weeks has uncovered some malicious, vindictive and downright bullying behavior on your part.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't behave this way if you don't want to, but this behavior is so different than what I've come to expect from you. Your behavior is nowhere near as bad as Ronny's, but I do have to wonder just what happened to you.

My question - What happened to bring about this change in attitude or did I have the wrong impression of you?

What YOU FAIL......yes I will repeat...FAIL to understand..is customers were NOT informed of the policy changes. That's what this rip off report is about..and it is legitimate.

As I stated I recently opened an account with Chase...because no where in its terms does it state they will re-sequence anything...and so did the bank employees tell me this as well. As a matter of fact..since WAMU did not re-sequence anything...and the Chase employees are actually WAMU employees...no one but the bank manager had even heard of re-sequencing..they thought I was crazy when I kept asking if they do this scam tactic, because most of them never even heard of it.

It is apparent by several new complaints coming in since Chase took over the WAMU branches...that not only are the customers unaware of the policy changes...but neither are many of the bank employees. WAMU had very happy customers at one time...now...not so much...wonder why??

HEY ROBERT,

Now that you are up to speed with EVERYONE ELSE on what I meant by vindication, let me add a few more points just for emphasis.

1. ROBERT, For me it's never about winning or losing. I've stated this numerous times on many threads, which you should have seen if you actually read them thoroughly. But I suspect you may have been fooled by the mistake you made here yourself. On the other threads, you probably read the comments from some other knuckle head accusing me of only being about winning or losing and then you reached the wrong conclusion based on their wrong accusation. By the same token, any newcomer to this thread might reach the same WRONG CONCLUSION about me from YOUR FALSE ACCUSATION!!!

2. ROBERT, Quote from your previous post: ''See us 'bank defenders' actually want to HELP the consumer.'' No!! Really????

ROBERT, Just how did you and others help the customer two years ago? By giving false information? You know like the statement ''All banks re-sequence transactions''? And then when I inform you SO CALLED EXPERTS with the CORRECT information TWO YEARS AGO, who do you think ACTUALLY helped the customer ROBERT? That's what I meant by credibility in my first post on this thread. Based on this track record, who do you think will be more credible now in the eyes of others, ROBERT?

ROBERT, No it's not about winning or losing. It's about helping the customer as you said. TWO YEARS ago I helped customers by going against the grain with ACCURATE information that WAMU a few other banks DID NOT RE-SEQUENCE transactions.

Those of you familiar with my posting history, if these back-to-back posts with NUMEROUS SHOUTING give the impression I'm just a little upset, that would be a fair assumption. It's one thing to disagree with my opinions or philosophy, but don't falsely accuse me of something, especially when you didn't even bother to get up to speed on what I was referencing. And even more especially since I was the one with the ACCURATE information who QUOTE ''helped the customer'' ENDQUOTE.

Ok, I've calmed back down now.

You know, I'm really starting to question whether you 'bank defenders' can actually read and comprehend the Terms and Conditions booklets that you harp on, when you can't even follow along or pick up on what I think is a very obvious point. Many of you 'bank defenders' get things so confused and messed up almost as much as you claim about the rest of us. How ironic is that?

I assumed that most could read between the lines and follow along. Or I assumed they would at least take the effort to go and double check the reports I REFERENCED to maybe have some idea of what I'm talking about before they embarrassingly chimed in OFF TUNE!. But since YOU ROBERT cannot do that, I've taken it upon myself to go to one of those past reports I REFERNCED and copied a quote from myself to clarify for you what I meant. From past Ripoff Report # 285936, I said:

'''From my own research, I had already discovered that one WELL KNOWN national bank did not post items in order of Largest-To-Smallest. So I suspected there might be and probably are more banks like this. So instead of revealing the name of this ONE bank and coming across as someone with a biased agenda, that's why I was not as forthcoming. I wanted to continue researching and wait until I had other names, so whenever I made the statement that not all top tier national banks use this method, I could recommend the OP try switching to a bank that doesn't use this method and here are SOME names to choose from. Instead of directing them only to a SINGLE bank.''

The bank in question was WAMU. TWO YEARS AGO, I stated that WAMU was not like the other large national banks because WAMU did not use re-sequencing. I was called everything under the sun for such a ludicrous assumption. All banks re-sequence, right?

Hello Robert???? THE VINDICATION I was referring to is the confirmation of what I claimed TWO YEARS AGO, evidenced by the sudden appearance of these new ROR reports from former WAMU customers who now adhere to the new policies of Chase. Now these customers know what everyone has been talking about when they describe re-sequencing. This is NEW to these former WAMU customers because......it never occurred at WAMU. DO YOU GET IT NOW ROBERT?

My apologies to everyone else who got what I meant from my first post and the need for this second, long winded post for the sake of Robert. But hey. At least Robert can read and follow along with those very legally worded T&C's. Utterly Amazing!

Edward among very different philosophies on personal responsibility, another big difference is that you(and others) seem to take on the idea that you have to "win".  As I have seen that in more than one thread you have responded too.  In this report you say you are vindicated because people no longer respond.  Well if I recall correctly you were gone for several months.  I don't recall any of the "bank defenders" gloating that they won or were vindicated.  I don't recall any of the "defenders" saying that because they were still posting they are more credible.  If someone does not respond to your posts quickly enough you start claiming that again you must be right because they didn't respond so you won again.

See us "bank defenders" actually want to HELP the consumer.  In terms of banking by telling them what happened and how to avoid these fees in the future.  While I can not speak for any of the other "defenders", I do not respond here to "win" or be "vindicated".  I am here to try and get people to take some responsibility for their actions.

I am not going to get into any debate with you about this in this thread, and I am sure in your mind that will make you think you won.  Well nothing I can do about that.  This was just something for you to hopefully think about, in what your true intentions might actually be.

Oh, if I could only turn back the hands of time, and undo all of the name calling leveled at me TWO YEARS AGO, from the 'bank defenders' when I was ahead of the curve with the revelation that not all banks follow the crowd or latest ripoff fads.

Silly me for trying to ENLIGHTEN everyone with THE TRUTH and real facts. Oh no! Let's just stick to false assumptions and unfair generalizations. Because that cleverly masks the unfair ripoff policies. My only objective was to prove that some banks out there still pay attention to the words 'customer friendly' and they were being unfairly grouped with other banks. My main point was to educate consumers that they indeed had a choice.

Now two years later, after the purchase of WAMU by Chase, sure enough, right on cue here come the Ripoff Reports after the WAMU customers start to experience policies and procedures they never experienced before, JUST LIKE I INDICATED. Imagine that!

Oh yeah, just review my posts in Ripoff Reports 284804 or 285936 in 2007, just for the record.

Also pay close attention to the 'bank defenders' and even EMPLOYEES in those reports two years ago, and notice how they are LONG GONE. Let that be another lesson for you in credibility.

Yet another vindication from a little ole fraud like myself. I'm starting to lose count.

This post is for informational purposes only, for the record. Regarding the information presented in this post, by all means, anyone please feel free to respond but in no way feel obligated to respond.

Oh, if I could only turn back the hands of time, and undo all of the name calling leveled at me TWO YEARS AGO, from the 'bank defenders' when I was ahead of the curve with the revelation that not all banks follow the crowd or latest ripoff fads.

Silly me for trying to ENLIGHTEN everyone with THE TRUTH and real facts. Oh no! Let's just stick to false assumptions and unfair generalizations. Because that cleverly masks the unfair ripoff policies. My only was to prove that some banks out there still pay attention to the words 'customer friendly' and they were being unfairly grouped with other banks. My main point was to educate consumers that they indeed had a choice.

Now two years later, after the purchase of WAMU by Chase, sure enough, right on cue here come the Ripoff Reports after the WAMU customers start to experience policies and procedures they never experienced before, JUST LIKE I INDICATED. Imagine that!

Oh yeah, just review my posts in Ripoff Reports 284804 or 285936 in 2007, just for the record.

Also pay close attention to the 'bank defenders' and even EMPLOYEES in those reports two years ago, and notice how they are LONG GONE. Let that be another lesson for you in credibility.

Yet another vindication from a little ole fraud like myself. I'm starting to lose count.

This post is for informational purposes only, for the record. Regarding the information presented in this post, by all means, anyone please feel free to respond but in no way feel obligated to respond.

The customers don't even have to reach a point where they hate the bank. All they have to do is read the terms and conditions for the account, especially sections pertaining to deposit holds and the order in which transactions are processed. If the customer decides that he or she is unwilling or unable to work within those policies, the customer should not open the account and search for a bank with more suitable policies.

This does not excuse the bank..but this may be what happened...it is a sound theory.

I recently opened an account with Chase...because they told me they do not manipulate or re-sequence my transactions..everything will process as it comes in.

What I had realized is the Chase bank was recently a WAMU..and all the employees in the bank are ex WAMU employees...so they really only know WAMUs policies..which were much more fair to the customer.

I think what happened is the teller was a WAMU employee and was unaware of the policy change due to Chase...and the misinformation cost YOU.

I recently read an article about what ex WAMU employees are going through with complaints about fees since becoming Chase...an employee stated the phone lines can't handle the load and they don't even know what to do or tell the customers.

They are going to lose plenty of customers if they do not quickly change the policies back. But they may not care since if Chase is in control..why would they want to lose all the revenue..even if it causes the customers to hate them and post rip off reports.

I used to have WAMU and never had problems with them until Chase took them over. I got fed up with Chase giving me the OD charges even though I had money to cover the ammount so after my last 2 direct deposits to the bank I drew out my money and went to another bank. I also closed my savings account with them as well and will be putting it my account with Regions . You are right Chase is a bunch of robbers I will agree with you on that 1.