Bmillstein Santa Fe, New Mexico
Karl
Highlands Ranch,#2Consumer Comment
Mon, April 06, 2009
was posted earlier today as an 'Update' to Susan's Ripoff Report which was posted here. I believe her Ripoff Report is currently on 'page 2'. I think it was the 3-17-2009 Report that said this- BANK OF AMERICA WHEN IS........ I put it there with 'HARVARD PROFESSOR POEM', and 'CUOMO POEM', so the '3 Wise Men' can all be together! Thank you. More poems to come!
John
Califon,#3Consumer Comment
Sat, April 04, 2009
The bank is not a mediator. That would take a lawyers. Again, it's not the bank's fault the OP fell for a scam.
Purplenights
Phoenix,#4Consumer Comment
Sat, April 04, 2009
The OP stated that the approved charge was for the trial ONLY. After calling and calling, and then doing research, finding out this company was a scam, and could not reach the company, the bank continued to allow the company to bill the account even though no producted was wanted, or even delivered. It seems to me that the bank should not allow continued charges after the OP requested that the bank not honor the company's request for funds. But the bank's customer will give the money to the company instead of honoring the OP's directive to cease payment. How is this fair to the OP? And furthermore, why does the bank continually side with the business? What does the bank get out of it? Even if the the charges were legitimate, if the OP asks the bank to stop allowing the payments to that company, what business is it of the banks? The company could always sue the OP if they felt the charges were legitimate and they did not pay. I am allowed to stop payment on a check--any check at all-- so what is the difference? The bank is not liable to the company, the OP is. I understand this compalint completely, and it is a valid complaint. It is a shame that the banks are more interested in helping perpetuate scams than protecting the victims of them. And you, my dear, are very cold and heartless. Try looking at it from the OP's point of view instead of your narrow-minded frame of reference.
Purplenights
Phoenix,#5Consumer Comment
Sat, April 04, 2009
The OP stated that the approved charge was for the trial ONLY. After calling and calling, and then doing research, finding out this company was a scam, and could not reach the company, the bank continued to allow the company to bill the account even though no producted was wanted, or even delivered. It seems to me that the bank should not allow continued charges after the OP requested that the bank not honor the company's request for funds. But the bank's customer will give the money to the company instead of honoring the OP's directive to cease payment. How is this fair to the OP? And furthermore, why does the bank continually side with the business? What does the bank get out of it? Even if the the charges were legitimate, if the OP asks the bank to stop allowing the payments to that company, what business is it of the banks? The company could always sue the OP if they felt the charges were legitimate and they did not pay. I am allowed to stop payment on a check--any check at all-- so what is the difference? The bank is not liable to the company, the OP is. I understand this compalint completely, and it is a valid complaint. It is a shame that the banks are more interested in helping perpetuate scams than protecting the victims of them. And you, my dear, are very cold and heartless. Try looking at it from the OP's point of view instead of your narrow-minded frame of reference.
Purplenights
Phoenix,#6Consumer Comment
Sat, April 04, 2009
The OP stated that the approved charge was for the trial ONLY. After calling and calling, and then doing research, finding out this company was a scam, and could not reach the company, the bank continued to allow the company to bill the account even though no producted was wanted, or even delivered. It seems to me that the bank should not allow continued charges after the OP requested that the bank not honor the company's request for funds. But the bank's customer will give the money to the company instead of honoring the OP's directive to cease payment. How is this fair to the OP? And furthermore, why does the bank continually side with the business? What does the bank get out of it? Even if the the charges were legitimate, if the OP asks the bank to stop allowing the payments to that company, what business is it of the banks? The company could always sue the OP if they felt the charges were legitimate and they did not pay. I am allowed to stop payment on a check--any check at all-- so what is the difference? The bank is not liable to the company, the OP is. I understand this compalint completely, and it is a valid complaint. It is a shame that the banks are more interested in helping perpetuate scams than protecting the victims of them. And you, my dear, are very cold and heartless. Try looking at it from the OP's point of view instead of your narrow-minded frame of reference.
Purplenights
Phoenix,#7Consumer Comment
Sat, April 04, 2009
The OP stated that the approved charge was for the trial ONLY. After calling and calling, and then doing research, finding out this company was a scam, and could not reach the company, the bank continued to allow the company to bill the account even though no producted was wanted, or even delivered. It seems to me that the bank should not allow continued charges after the OP requested that the bank not honor the company's request for funds. But the bank's customer will give the money to the company instead of honoring the OP's directive to cease payment. How is this fair to the OP? And furthermore, why does the bank continually side with the business? What does the bank get out of it? Even if the the charges were legitimate, if the OP asks the bank to stop allowing the payments to that company, what business is it of the banks? The company could always sue the OP if they felt the charges were legitimate and they did not pay. I am allowed to stop payment on a check--any check at all-- so what is the difference? The bank is not liable to the company, the OP is. I understand this compalint completely, and it is a valid complaint. It is a shame that the banks are more interested in helping perpetuate scams than protecting the victims of them. And you, my dear, are very cold and heartless. Try looking at it from the OP's point of view instead of your narrow-minded frame of reference.
Karl
Highlands Ranch,#8Consumer Comment
Fri, April 03, 2009
was the first poem that got it all going! You can 'Google' this- SLUDGE POEM, and read it. It was posted on 8-23-2007 about Toyota's CEO. Exactly two weeks later, on 9-6-2007, Toyota's CEO QUIT his position after 37 years of employment with Toyota Corporation. The former CEO's name is Jim Press. You can 'Google' this- JIM PRESS, and go to the Bloomberg.com site and read about his resignation with Toyota on 9-6-2007, if you'd like. Now I'm certain that a poem didn't cause him to quit his CEO position with Toyota. I'd be crazy to think that, right? We all know that poems can't cause a person to quit, correct? Maybe the poem, along with the song that was composed about him on 9-3-2007 both played a part in his resignation, huh? You can 'Google' this- RIP OFF REPORT TOYOTA CHRISTMAS SONG #2, and sing the song that was written about Jim Press, and posted just 3 days BEFORE he quit his position as CEO with Toyota. That song was posted on 9-3-2007. That's three days before he quit! It's also the same day that the 'Update' to Betty's Ripoff Report was posted about the 'Collapse of the U.S. economy', which came true, huh? You can 'Google' this- RIP OFF REPORT GM CREDIT CARD SERVICES, and read Betty's Ripoff Report, and the '1st Upadte' to her Report where it says the U.S. economy & the stock market would COLLAPSE. That was on 9-3-2007, wasn't it? POWER TO THE PEOPLE P.S. I should write a 'DEEPAK POEM', since Deepak's book enabled me to do the things I can do, huh? Coming soon- DEEPAK POEM In order to prepare for 'DEEPAK POEM', it would be best to read his book entitled- 'The Spontaneous Fulfillment of Desire- Harnessing the Infinite Power of Coincidence'. If you're not a 'book person', simply read 'page 118' of that book. Then read pages 289 - 293. That'll give you the message!!!! I'm Karl, and I approve this Update!
Laurie
Haslet,#9Consumer Comment
Wed, April 01, 2009
YES YOU DID AUTHORIZE THEM TO SEND ADDITIONAL PRODUCT! it was in the terms and conditions that you CHOSE not to read. THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF THE SAME COMPLAINT THEY DID NOT RIP YOU OFF - You agreed to the membership program when you ordered the trial supply. ITS NOT THEIR FAULT YOU DID NOT READ THE INFO PROVIDED. As for the BoA issue - if they charged you an overdraft fee on a CLOSED Account, YES they are at fault. FILE COMPLAINTS WITH THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND OFFICE OF THRIFT SUPERVISION.
John
Califon,#10Consumer Comment
Wed, April 01, 2009
How is it the bank's fault you got scammed?
John
Califon,#11Consumer Comment
Wed, April 01, 2009
How is it the bank's fault you got scammed?
John
Califon,#12Consumer Comment
Wed, April 01, 2009
How is it the bank's fault you got scammed?
John
Califon,#13Consumer Comment
Wed, April 01, 2009
How is it the bank's fault you got scammed?