I need help with US Bank, they charged me $420 for overdraft fees for debit transactions that totaled less than $80 and then charged me $8 a day for everyday that my account was in the negative. I looked online at my account and it said the charges were pending and showed my balance with them taken out, so I thought they were taken out and made a transfer to another bank that I have an account with, well they paid that transfer and allowed the other items to overdraft my account because they would make a lot more money on several transactions rather than just one.

I called to work it out and was told that I needed to keep a better eye on my balance and was laughed at for crying, I am unemployed single and a mom and they took all of one unemployment check and I am still in the negative and they are still charging me $8 a day. They say that when you do a charge over the weekend it doesn't show up until Monday so you can spend all the money that you have in your account and more over the weekend and it won't deny your card even if you have a negative balance and they can attack you with all the overdraft fees, unlike any other bank in the world that I have dealt with. If I try to use my other ATM card from my other bank, it will deny it if I don't have the funds even if it is over a weekend. US Bank uses that excuse to steal our money.

I think it is ridiculous how they have it set up to steal our money. We really need to band together, talk to our senators or whomever and put a stop to this. I can't take it anymore. No wonder the US is in such a crisis and for the government to bail out these thieving banks and leave us hanging is really sad. We love our country but does our country love us back? No they only love the money. Sad but true.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on US BANK - US BANCORP

89 Updates & Rebuttals

I am the law

Chicago,
Illinois,
USA

Who cares?

#2Consumer Comment

Tue, May 04, 2010

Karl, no one cares about your stupid Obama poems.

If you hate the president so much, start your own website. Limit your ROR comments to the topic at hand.

Karl

Highlands Ranch,
Colorado,
USA

"GOLDMIN SAX POEM" is available at the 'Bank of America' page of this site.

#3Consumer Comment

Wed, April 21, 2010

*Simply go over to the BANK OF AMERICA page of this site and you'll be able to find "GOLDMIN SAX POEM" in the Updates section.

Thank You.

WELCOME TO AMERICA- IN FRAUD WE TRUST

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

robert from Buffalo, now here is a person with way too much time on his hands...

#4Consumer Comment

Wed, April 21, 2010

and it seems quite obvious, since he can NOT win a legitimate debate with me, he has devoted his LIFE to diverting topics, and posting unrelated info to any legitimate debates. I will humor him by responding, but he left the links so anyone can view them and see the actual reports and replies left.

Okay here goes...

http://www.ripoffreport.com/fast-food-restaurants/mcdonalds/mcdonalds-general-complaint-i-52a25.htm

so I got a couple of bites before tossing the rest again out the window. I hope it doesn't kill any wild animals that find it, although they are probably smarter then me and will smell it and walk away.

When called out for his illegal littering, on a busy road, The Great and Powerful Roz rationalized that he really didnt litter because..wait for it.

Normally "food" would be considered organic and not actually be littering...

Yup! There you have it! This is why hes the Great and Powerful Roz! Never wrong, always right, always has to have the last word. The rest of us poor schleps have to live within the laws of our society but not the Great and Powerful Roz!!!

Only in the Land of Roz, is littering not littering, is rambling with 30 page rebuttals and name calling considered debating and having the last post means a win. LMAO!

The Wonderful Liar (AKA The Cowardly Lyin):

http://www.ripoffreport.com/fast-food-restaurants/mcdonalds/mcdonalds-in-vineland-nj-mcdo-a22ba.htm

but when I got it the burger was not at all like the picture or as described and it was cold and tasted like old socks and butt wrapped in a stale bun. I didn't want to complain because I figured they would just spit on the burger so I threw it in the garbage.

In the garbage Roz? In your ROR (see above wonderful litterbug) you stated you tossed it out the window. While you were driving home on a busy street. According to YOUR McDonalds ROR you didnt even open your burgers until you were driving home! In this rebuttal you give the impression you were an eat in customer who tossed it in the garbage. If this rebuttal by you is the truth (making your ROR a LIE) me thinks you behaved more like the Cowardly Lyin LMAO!

There you have it folks. The Wizard of Roz excels at everything, including LYING!

MY CURRENT REPLY>>>

Robert is an idiot. Take a look at the links. They are TWO SEPARATE REPORTS.

And, they are regarding TWO SEPARATE INSTANCES. One reply he pasted was from someone else's report back in August of 2009 which I commented on, when I lived in Silverlake, and one was very recent and a report I personally lodged regarding when I was driving home from work to where I currently live in NORTH HOLLYWOOD. One is regarding a deluxe burger from the menu..one is regarding .99 cent cheeseburgers.

I also did not state that I threw the burger on a "busy street". I clearly stated I threw it on the 134 eastbound. It is not a local street. It was the side of the highway. I could not take the smell. I also did admit it was disrespectful, however being it was organic matter, it will not pollute the earth.

Now, tell us Robert..what does any of this have to do with this report? So I admitted I tossed cheeseburger out the window..that means I lost this debate regarding banking policies?? You need serious psychiatric evaluation my friend.

STRIKE ONE...next

The Wonderful Author:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/banks/wachovia-bank/wachovia-bank-excessive-overd-844c8.htm

I used to teach at a school and wrote a textbook. I have written for a few publications and a home study course but I have not chosen writing as a profession.

Gosh. You wrote a textbook and yet seemingly know nothing about copyright law!

Seemingly? What does that mean? Can you back up with any evidence what I know or do not know regarding copyrighting a text book? First of all, I wrote the textbook for a school that I was teaching at. They handled the copyrights through a copyright attorney. I had my attorney look it over, and we came to an agreement. I never claimed to be a copyright expert. Writing a textbook, music, a screenplay etc has nothing to do with how much you know about copyright law. And that is why they have copyright attorneys. The report you are referring too, which has NOTHING to do with this debate about bank policies, was a complaint lodged regarding a customer at Walmart who was told they can not return an open DVD for a refund, and a debate regrading if it was because it was prohibited by federal law. I agree that this was store policy and not necessarily anything to do with a federal law.

So we were in agreement, I simply chose to investigate it, post evidence, and look at all sides. YOU on the other hand.."claimed" to be an expert in copyright law, based solely on your "claim" that you wrote some software back in the 1980's.

If anything..you seem to be the one who knows nothing. And how come you did not leave a link to that report? Are you afraid to let everyone see that we were in agreement, yet you are trying to somehow discredit me using copyright law knowledge as an example?

I have a feeling you are holding some kind of grudge against big retailers because you were denied a refund of open software or a DVD. Well tough luck. These companies are not in business of free rentals. You buy it..you open it..it is yours..period. You don't like the policy, don't shop there. The policy is no "corporate secret" or conspiracy. It is to prevent people from ripping them off..imagine that????..a retailer in business to profit, and not give free rentals..how absurd??

STRIKE TWO next...

The Wonderful Best Buy Associate (aka Best Buy Defender):

http://www.ripoffreport.com/appliances/best-buy/best-buy-best-buy-warranty-fr-95382.htm

Because in my 6 years associated with BesyBuy..

nor do they want to rip anyone off with intent...I feel they are very ethical and may be why they are surviving while places like Circuit City bite the dust...

I guess during your 6 years, you were not aware of the legal troubles Best Buy has had with some States Attorney General; illegally using software (copyright infringement by Geek Squad) and some unsavory business practices (duplicate Best Buy website with alternative pricing higher than what was on the public Best Buy website.) When customers complained that the in-store price was higher than advertised on the public website, the associate would go online (actually an IN-HOUSE intranet site) to a different website to show the customer that he or she was mistaken! Real ethical stuff!!!

Yes..I have been associated with this company for six years...including being a district trainer..so i know how it works...

Really? Does this mean you were party to the copyright infringers? Did you train Geek Squaders how to use software that Best Buy was using illegally? Did you help set-up the TWO websites that Best Buy had, or just the in house one that associates showed customers with a HIGHER item price than the public Best Buy website?

I have worked with BestBuys across the nation..and there are different cultures in different locations regardless of SOP.

Once again, I do not know what this report regarding bank policy has to do with Best Buy..but here we go..

The issues BestBuy had can be found at Wikipedia Bestbuy. As far as the software issue, it was resolved and the software company ended up in an agreement with BestBuy to use the software, that is how it ended, nothing else is disclosed, no news here.

As far as the duplicate website, I have nothing to do with that and I don't know why that is being brought up in a debate about bank policy. This was addressed back in 2007.. "In response, Best Buy spokesperson Sue Busch indicated the in-store kiosks were not intended for price-match purposes and rather a means to navigate in-store availability. Since the initial investigation, a banner was placed on the in-store site to make its customers more aware of the difference."

And that is as much as I know, or care about that. When I shop online..I do it at home and print it out. If Best Buy was using any tactics with intent to decieve customers, I certainly as a consumer advocate do not defend it. I only know the policies as I was told when I did any work for them. Which was "have the customer bring in a copy from bestbuy.com of the price, and we will match it in the store". Doesn't seem like rocket science to me.

Why Robert is bringing this up here, I have no idea..but I responded to a report in which a customer brought in a sound system that was non-functioning. The system was still under manufacturers warranty. The customer was denied because the system had liquid inside of it, and signs of mold/corrosion etc on the side and cord. So the customer was accusing Bestbuy of doing this with intent.

I am sure this company has nothing to gain by further damaging and already non functioning unit, that is COVERED under the manufacturers warranty, just to rip them off. No company could survive this way. How many other reports are there of Bestbuy or any large retailer doing something like this to a piece of equipment that is currently covered under the manufacturers warranty?

Again I ask...what does this have to do with bank policy?

STRIKE THREE.... next..

The Wonderful New ROR Editor:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/doctors/black-hawk-plastic-s/black-hawk-plastic-surgery-dr-abe38.htm

You really have no reason to make this person feel even worse, unless you are getting some kind of satisfaction from it? Or does it just make you feel important or better as a person to belittle victims?, Not very nice now, save that for the bank posts.

Thats our mighty Roz laying into someone who made a rebuttal. Notice the Wizard of Hypocrisy? Of course, he doesnt mention how HE treats ROR posters when they complain about Best Buy! No not at all!

Click on the link and go to the report. Some woman was swindled by a plastic surgeon. She wanted a certain procedure, the doctor told her that was what she was getting, and then she found out they were going to do the EXACT procedure she said she did not want, and that the Doctor told her it was not going to be.

So what do these trolls do? Insult her for being vain. The doctor charged her $20,000 for a procedure she did not want, and was told she was not getting. When she tried to cancel after realizing she was not getting the procedure as she was told she was, they would not refund a penny. I felt that was wrong..forgive me Robert.

Again I ask Robert..what does this have to do with a Report regarding bank policy?

STRIKE FOUR....next...

The Wonderful Subway Hidden Tax Finder (AKA thats MY 49 cents!):

http://www.ripoffreport.com/fast-food-restaurants/subway/subway-is-a-5-dollar-foot-lon-9ab86.htm

I was duped. I though it was going to be like Baywatch..but I traverse the streets dodging used condoms and drug bags, homeless beggars abound..I think they charge a fee to enter the 7/11..and instead of fresh ocean air breezes..I get to inhale pollution..feces, and urine smells. The pollution is so bad..

And so it goes! This was heavy intellectual stuff that the entire world (those of us who are not blessed to live in the Land of Roz) had to know! As it was, the Great and Powerful Roz actually posted a retractionerwell.sorta.

I would like to submit a "semi" retraction...

A semi retraction? Is that anything like oops or I was mistaken? Naw, couldnt be! This is the Great and Powerful Roz!

I don't know what this has to do with a report regarding bank policy, but yes, I lodged a complaint against Subway for non disclosure. It ended with Subway putting up a sign, and me understanding some regulations regarding California food to-go vs. eat in toasting and heating statutes.

Anyone can click on the link and see my semi retraction. I never claimed to be infallible from a mistake. Only the bank defenders, the most arrogant bank defenders, believe they can never make a mistake, and anyone who does is a criminal as they imply.

Here is the condemning "semi retraction" I stated, from a report I posted back in October, 2009..."Today I went into Subways again.and ordered the new buffalo chicken 5 dollar foot long..and said "yes" when asked if I would like it toasted...

Total came out to $5.49...$5.00 + .49 "sales" tax.

So mystery one solved..they only tax once for both chicken heating tax..and toasting tax combined.

I looked around at the signage in the store..and did notice some of the signs state on the bottom.."plus applicable sales tax".

Congratulations Robert aka "Kojak and copyright attorney"..you solved the case of the chicken/toast tax semi-retraction caper.

Again I ask Robert...what does this have to do with a report regarding bank policy?

STRIKE WHATEVER, I am starting to lose track..next..

The Wonderful Travel Agent (AKA Whats a branded credit card?):

http://www.ripoffreport.com/credit-card-processing-ach-companies/u-s-bank-national-as/u-s-bank-national-association-4b2e2.htm

False advertising comes to mind, which is against the law. If I were in your shoes I would start with a call or letter to the FTC if the bank continues to refuse accountability.

Rozzy is correct about a possible false advertising issue. Except that any false advertising was made by Aeromexico, not the bank that administers the card. We all know what happens whenever the Wizard of Roz detects the word bank in a report!

Okay, here we go again. Robert aka Kojak the copyright attorney is bringing up a report that is unrelated, and irrelevant. Anyone can click on the link Robert was kind enough to leave. And they will clearly see, that the bank was ADVERTISING on Aeromexico's website. Hence, the bank must honor what they advertised, or face a false advertising charge. This was NOT an ad placed by Aeromexico on the banks website..but an ad placed by the bank on Aeromexico's website. If the bank will not honor their own ad, and customers sign up with that bank or any offers implied, then the bank must honor the offer. If the ad was fraudulent and the customer signs up, surely at the time of sign up, the bank would have some responsibility to tell the customer the ad is a fraud, if indeed it was.

And again Robert I ask, what does this have to do with the report we are debating here?

STRIKE..well heck..who is counting anymore?

The Wonderful ROR Hijacker:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/banks/us-bank-us-bancorp/us-bank-us-bancorp-rip-off-f3dda.htm

Page after page of Rozzy wasting bandwidth. A funny read if you have a lot of free time on your hands. A simple ROR turns into The Wizard of Roz Show as Rozzy hijacks this posting to troll for fights; showing his true colors (and they arent emerald green) once again. This one is so long it would probably smoke your printer if you attempt to print it! LMAO!

Why would anyone use a printer to read a report from this site? That aside, if you were more alert, you would realize that the link you posted..is THIS very report. Need I say more? And the cause of the waste of bandwidth, is that people like you are debating logic, and diverting the topic with personal attacks and slander against me. I do not need to apologize for defending myself.

Sometimes it requires reasoning and evidence to back up a point, which I use freely. No one is forced to read it, and no one is required to respond, rebut or debate it.

Another Strike...

If that wasnt enough heres another example of The Great and Powerful Roz (AKA Chaseboy) hijacking a post! Troll, troll, troll.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/banks/chase-wamu/chase-wamu-wamu-chase-bank-f225b.htm

What are you talking about "hijacking" a post? That was called a DEBATE, and I held my ground. Anyone can click on that link...and see the report...which was about a $34.00 overdraft fee escalated to a $64.00 overdraft fee..for....get ready for this...brace yourselves............the customer went over by.......................TEN CENTS !

Once again...Robert..the "Kojak" and copyright attorney of rip off report..solved the case!!!! Yes..you did it. You discredited me and proved what a bad person I am. Or..maybe you are a couple of cans short of a six pack? Let the readers decide..if any have not been bored into a coma by now.

The Wonderful Auto-restorer and PayPal/Ebay Defender:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/motorcycles/rebecca-sparks/rebecca-sparks-stephanie-wallo-e9de4.htm

Since this is ONE of my businesses, restoring older cars and selling them via online auction nation and WORLD wide,

I wish ROR would go back to the OLD search format which worked much better!

Why? What would the old search format do to conclude you are a waste of time that the current format does not allow? I have been restoring old cars as a hobby, and it turned into a lucrative business. What does this have to do with the report here about bank policy?

The Wonderful DC Engineering;

http://www.ripoffreport.com/utility-companies/txu-oncar-energy/txu-oncar-energy-txu-my-electr-84c86.htm

Although I no longer reside in NYS, and am no longer a licensed electrician for home/industrial in NYS, I was a local 3 union electrician, as was my uncle, and Grandfather. I now specialize in DC engineering.

I guess this would be sorting out the red, black, and green wires in those restored autos!

Oh, I can tell by that reply that you probably are an electrician, and an antiquated one at that. And yes, the wiring in older automobiles is quite simple,,but not exactly sorting red, black and green wires..there is a bit more to it then that. I don't know any vehicles I have ever restored that only use 3 colors..that is reserved for old school A/C electricians..which as I stated, I have been one in the past. I was able to get into the union while I was in school since close family members were in it. And the test was not very difficult to pass.. it was essentially based on the same principles used since Thomas Edison was experimenting with the phonograph.

But if you even try to get into a debate with me about current automotive technology, I will make you look like even a bigger fool then you are making yourself look like. You do realize that late model vehicles, which I train others how to integrate with, incorporate data bus systems, LAN systems, M.O.S.T. systems, and fiber optics to name a few? Robert, it is basically being a software engineer on top of everything else, it is not like twisting wires together where all you had to figure out was which was neutral...and use pliers and wire nuts. Robert..you are SO far out of your league..that the light bulb from your league would take 100,000 light years to get here if you had a light bulb 100,000 years ago. Go ahead, try me.

The Wonderful Radio Installer (AKA Sirius Defender):

http://www.ripoffreport.com/satellite-companies/sirius-xm-radio/sirius-xm-radio-xm-radio-what-ca79d.htm

I am not actually a direct employee of Sirius XM..but I work for a company that sells and installs a lot of them.

Gosh! Is there anything you dont do or havent done? Oh, I forget-The Great and Powerful Roz! This must be more of that DC Engineering thing! Lets see, author, teacher, engineer, auto-restorer, Best Buy Trainer. Im overwhelmed-NOT. Its getting harder to believe any of this crap! LMAO!

Yes Robert. It is ALL related. D/C based technology. Guess what most vehicles use as a power source? I will tell you. A D/C battery. Which applies to...the textbook I wrote, the articles I have published, the degree I have, and what I have been teaching in schools, and... for corporations that sell and install DC operated products. The auto restoration was a hobby that turned itself into a side business. Is that so unheard of? Does it make you envious that I can profit off doing what I enjoy? And that I can freelance, and make my own hours, and I am still young?

That must kill you. I won't rub it in your face too hard. And, I have nothing I need to prove to you. And I will not expose or divulge any personal further personal information about me on this public forum since I don't need you sickos involved in my personal life..but if there is anything you wish to debate regarding D/C engineering or it's applications regarding current automotive technologies, have at it, I am all to quite willing to do this.

But again, I must ask..what doe this have to do with bank policy?

The Wonderful Electrical Engineer (and Best Buy Defender):

http://www.ripoffreport.com/miscellaneous-electronics/best-buy/best-buy-warranty-lies-flint-d8fc7.htm

Number two, I am an electrical engineer, and white on the circuit board is a sign of water damage, and green buildup can be mold, or possibly corrosion build up, and this kind of damage is built up over time.

Wow! From Best Buy associate and trainer to electrical engineer! Whoooeeeh. BTW O Great and Powerful Roz, the Best Buy customer stated that the stuff was on the OUTSIDE of the surround sound when Best Buy gave the item back. No where did the customers ROR state anything about white on a circuit board. It was white stuff on the OUTSIDE, as well as a water mark, and green stuff on the power cord!!! But hey, you were too busy defending Best Buy and blaming the customer to even READ the ROR correctly.

The customer stated Best Buy noticed LIQUID on the INSIDE, and white stuff on the side, and green stuff on the power cord. What more do you need to be satisfied that this unit has liquid in it? I don't care where the white stuff was. I stated white on the circuit board indicates liquid..yes I did..so crucify me. However, it is a TRUE statement that white residue on a circuit board indicates liquid. Now you are correct, the report did not state there was any white on the circuit board...IT WENT A STEP FURTHER by stating there is actual LIQUID on the circuit board. Feel any better now???

Oh..and Robert, I should ask..what does this have to do with bank policy?

This is not the way best buy became such a success.

Of course not. Neither was the double website caper or the illegal use of diagnostic and utility software! Yeah, Best Buy is a stand up company. Go do a search for some lawsuits against Best Buy and read up on their past antics.

Since this was already discussed, go back several hundred replies to see my response to this. Why does Robert think this is relevant to this report? And I never stated Best Buy was a "stand up company" in those terms so why do you put it in quotes? I simply choose to look at all sides of an accusation before condemning. Imagine that? Due process, reasoning and fairness??? I guess that is something you have never had in your life..so you think no one else should utilize it.

The Wonderful Ripoff Report Defender:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/banks/us-bank-us-bancorp/us-bank-us-bancorp-rip-off-f3dda.htm

they most likely will end up here, so it is important that information is accurate and all sides of the argument are offered so the site doesn't come off as a joke or biased, which due to this redundant banter, it may to some.

Now youre the self-appointed defender of ROR! The reality is that your redundant hypocrisy coupled with your picking for fights POLUTES ROR! Anyone reading your incessant novellas quickly realizes that your purpose is to provoke conflict under the guise of attempting to debate. There is no debating with you-you act as a child. As someone else has told you, its OK if you wish to be a hypocrite, just dont do so and pretend to be one of the good guys-youre not. You troll for a fight and play victim when called out on it.

Robert?...Are you senile? The link is once again..to THIS very report.

All you have accomplished here, is to post links to THIS report where we are already at, or reports that are unrelated to the topic here, and to COMPLETELY divert the topic, and ruin any credibility it may of had. And, to posts where I have debated and stood my ground. I don't know what you wanted to accomplish..maybe to make the bank defenders proud? Either way, I don't think anyone could care less.

The bank defenders are set in their ways, for whatever reason. Those who were victim to bank policies, will feel the way they do. If the truth is exposed and someone does not like it...well too bad. Topic diversion will not sway anyone's mind. If you wish to debate me on ANY topic, have at it. However, I don't feel it is right to do this on other peoples reports if unrelated and irrelevant, but I have a right to defend myself if attacked and provoked.

I have a better idea Robert. Lodge a separate report. A complaint against me for whatever it is you think I have done wrong. And we can use that to our hearts content to debate anything you want.

If you really want to debate hypocrisy with me, I am more then up to that as well. I will be glad to provide evidence to prove my side, and disprove yours. And if I was hypocritical, or wrong about something I stated..guess what? I will man up to it and submit a retraction.

As far as "I am the Laws" last post..I can vouch for him. There is NO WAY on this green earth, that he is an employee of this bank.

I am the law

Chicago,
Illinois,
USA

I don't work for USB.

#5Consumer Comment

Tue, April 20, 2010

Ok Roz, if you're going to take up a movie theme for your posts, you could at least make it a cool movie. I mean, "The Wizard of Oz"? Come on, get of the drugs.

Anyhoo, just stopping by to fire back at some overdrafters that are accusing me of working for USB. Let me assure you that I don't. I have had an account with them for about a decade, however. (To be completely 100% honest, a few years back, my wife worked in one of their buildings as a caterer for about six months. Nothing on the financial side, though.)

So, foolish ones, if I actually did work for USB, why would I spend my time telling you how to AVOID overdraft fees. You'd think I'd just try to keep bank customers confused so they'd overdraft constantly.

Yet another tactic by the negligent to paint themselves as victims.

Robert

Buffalo,
New York,
USA

Wait no more Rozzy!

#6Consumer Comment

Tue, April 20, 2010

The Wonderful Wizard of Roz! The Yellow Brick Road winds and climbs through the Land of Roz! With so many sharp turns, its easy to lose track of the Wizards mighty accomplishments. Heres a SHORT LIST of the Great and Powerful Wizard of Rozs many conquests! I hope you have as much fun reading them as I. When you have time, go to each linked ROR to read the FULL MEASURE of the man behind the curtain! LMAO! (Psssst. Run, Toto, Run!)

The Wonderful Litterbug:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/fast-food-restaurants/mcdonalds/mcdonalds-general-complaint-i-52a25.htm

When called out for his illegal littering, on a busy road, The Great and Powerful Roz rationalized that he really didnt litter because..wait for it.

Normally "food" would be considered organic and not actually be littering...

Only in the Land of Roz, is littering not littering, is rambling with 30 page rebuttals and name calling considered debating and having the last post means a win. LMAO!

The Wonderful Liar (AKA The Cowardly Lyin):

http://www.ripoffreport.com/fast-food-restaurants/mcdonalds/mcdonalds-in-vineland-nj-mcdo-a22ba.htm

There you have it folks. The Wizard of Roz excels at everything, including LYING!

The Wonderful Author:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/banks/wachovia-bank/wachovia-bank-excessive-overd-844c8.htm

I used to teach at a school and wrote a textbook. I have written for a few publications and a home study course but I have not chosen writing as a profession.

Gosh. You wrote a textbook and yet seemingly know nothing about copyright law!

The Wonderful Best Buy Associate (aka Best Buy Defender):

http://www.ripoffreport.com/appliances/best-buy/best-buy-best-buy-warranty-fr-95382.htm

Because in my 6 years associated with BesyBuy..

nor do they want to rip anyone off with intent...I feel they are very ethical and may be why they are surviving while places like Circuit City bite the dust...

Yes..I have been associated with this company for six years...including being a district trainer..so i know how it works...

I have worked with BestBuys across the nation..and there are different cultures in different locations regardless of SOP.

The Wonderful New ROR Editor:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/doctors/black-hawk-plastic-s/black-hawk-plastic-surgery-dr-abe38.htm

Thats our mighty Roz laying into someone who made a rebuttal. Notice the Wizard of Hypocrisy? Of course, he doesnt mention how HE treats ROR posters when they complain about Best Buy! No not at all!

The Wonderful Subway Hidden Tax Finder (AKA thats MY 49 cents!):

http://www.ripoffreport.com/fast-food-restaurants/subway/subway-is-a-5-dollar-foot-lon-9ab86.htm

I would like to submit a "semi" retraction...

A semi retraction? Is that anything like oops or I was mistaken? Naw, couldnt be! This is the Great and Powerful Roz!

The Wonderful Travel Agent (AKA Whats a branded credit card?):

http://www.ripoffreport.com/credit-card-processing-ach-companies/u-s-bank-national-as/u-s-bank-national-association-4b2e2.htm

False advertising comes to mind, which is against the law. If I were in your shoes I would start with a call or letter to the FTC if the bank continues to refuse accountability.

The Wonderful ROR Hijacker:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/banks/us-bank-us-bancorp/us-bank-us-bancorp-rip-off-f3dda.htm

If that wasnt enough heres another example of The Great and Powerful Roz (AKA Chaseboy) hijacking a post! Troll, troll, troll.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/banks/chase-wamu/chase-wamu-wamu-chase-bank-f225b.htm

The Wonderful Auto-restorer and PayPal/Ebay Defender:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/motorcycles/rebecca-sparks/rebecca-sparks-stephanie-wallo-e9de4.htm

Since this is ONE of my businesses, restoring older cars and selling them via online auction nation and WORLD wide,

I wish ROR would go back to the OLD search format which worked much better!

The Wonderful DC Engineering;

http://www.ripoffreport.com/utility-companies/txu-oncar-energy/txu-oncar-energy-txu-my-electr-84c86.htm

I guess this would be sorting out the red, black, and green wires in those restored autos!

The Wonderful Radio Installer (AKA Sirius Defender):

http://www.ripoffreport.com/satellite-companies/sirius-xm-radio/sirius-xm-radio-xm-radio-what-ca79d.htm

I am not actually a direct employee of Sirius XM..but I work for a company that sells and installs a lot of them.

The Wonderful Electrical Engineer (and Best Buy Defender):

http://www.ripoffreport.com/miscellaneous-electronics/best-buy/best-buy-warranty-lies-flint-d8fc7.htm

This is not the way best buy became such a success.

The Wonderful Ripoff Report Defender:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/banks/us-bank-us-bancorp/us-bank-us-bancorp-rip-off-f3dda.htm

Let me know if you need any more reminders of your hypocrisy Roz.

We're off to see the Wizard, The Wonderful Wizard of Roz.
You'll find he is a whiz of a Wiz! If ever a Wiz! there was.
If ever oh ever a Wiz! there was The Wizard of Roz is one because,
Because, because, because, because, because.
Because of the hypocritical things he does.
We're off to see the Wizard. The Wonderful Wizard of Roz.

Robert

Buffalo,
New York,
USA

You're Outed Rozzy

#7Consumer Suggestion

Tue, April 20, 2010

The Wonderful Litterbug:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/fast-food-restaurants/mcdonalds/mcdonalds-general-complaint-i-52a25.htm

When called out for his illegal littering, on a busy road, The Great and Powerful Roz rationalized that he really didnt litter because..wait for it.

Normally "food" would be considered organic and not actually be littering...

Only in the Land of Roz, is littering not littering, is rambling with 30 page rebuttals and name calling considered debating and having the last post means a win. LMAO!

The Wonderful Liar (AKA The Cowardly Lyin):

http://www.ripoffreport.com/fast-food-restaurants/mcdonalds/mcdonalds-in-vineland-nj-mcdo-a22ba.htm

There you have it folks. The Wizard of Roz excells at everything, including LYING!

The Wonderful Author:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/banks/wachovia-bank/wachovia-bank-excessive-overd-844c8.htm

I used to teach at a school and wrote a textbook. I have written for a few publications and a home study course but I have not chosen writing as a profession.

Gosh. You wrote a textbook and yet seemingly know nothing about copyright law!

The Wonderful Best Buy Associate (aka Best Buy Defender):

http://www.ripoffreport.com/appliances/best-buy/best-buy-best-buy-warranty-fr-95382.htm

Because in my 6 years associated with BesyBuy..

nor do they want to rip anyone off with intent...I feel they are very ethical and may be why they are surviving while places like Circuit City bite the dust...

Yes..I have been associated with this company for six years...including being a district trainer..so i know how it works...

I have worked with BestBuys across the nation..and there are different cultures in different locations regardless of SOP.

The Wonderful New ROR Editor:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/doctors/black-hawk-plastic-s/black-hawk-plastic-surgery-dr-abe38.htm

Thats our mighty Roz laying into someone who made a rebuttal. Notice the Wizard of Hypocrisy? Of course, he doesnt mention how HE treats ROR posters when they complain about Best Buy! No not at all!

The Wonderful Subway Hidden Tax Finder (AKA thats MY 49 cents!):

http://www.ripoffreport.com/fast-food-restaurants/subway/subway-is-a-5-dollar-foot-lon-9ab86.htm

I would like to submit a "semi" retraction...

A semi retraction? Is that anything like oops or I was mistaken? Naw, couldnt be! This is the Great and Powerful Roz!

The Wonderful Travel Agent (AKA Whats a branded credit card?):

http://www.ripoffreport.com/credit-card-processing-ach-companies/u-s-bank-national-as/u-s-bank-national-association-4b2e2.htm

False advertising comes to mind, which is against the law. If I were in your shoes I would start with a call or letter to the FTC if the bank continues to refuse accountability.

The Wonderful ROR Hijacker:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/banks/us-bank-us-bancorp/us-bank-us-bancorp-rip-off-f3dda.htm

If that wasnt enough heres another example of The Great and Powerful Roz (AKA Chaseboy) hijacking a post! Troll, troll, troll.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/banks/chase-wamu/chase-wamu-wamu-chase-bank-f225b.htm

The Wonderful Auto-restorer and PayPal/Ebay Defender:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/motorcycles/rebecca-sparks/rebecca-sparks-stephanie-wallo-e9de4.htm

Since this is ONE of my businesses, restoring older cars and selling them via online auction nation and WORLD wide,

I wish ROR would go back to the OLD search format which worked much better!

The Wonderful DC Engineering;

http://www.ripoffreport.com/utility-companies/txu-oncar-energy/txu-oncar-energy-txu-my-electr-84c86.htm

I guess this would be sorting out the red, black, and green wires in those restored autos!

The Wonderful Radio Installer (AKA Sirius Defender):

http://www.ripoffreport.com/satellite-companies/sirius-xm-radio/sirius-xm-radio-xm-radio-what-ca79d.htm

I am not actually a direct employee of Sirius XM..but I work for a company that sells and installs a lot of them.

The Wonderful Electrical Engineer (and Best Buy Defender):

http://www.ripoffreport.com/miscellaneous-electronics/best-buy/best-buy-warranty-lies-flint-d8fc7.htm

This is not the way best buy became such a success.

The Wonderful Ripoff Report Defender:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/banks/us-bank-us-bancorp/us-bank-us-bancorp-rip-off-f3dda.htm

Let me know if you need any more reminders of your hypocrisy Roz.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

Guess some just don't understand what the word debate means...

#8Consumer Comment

Sun, April 18, 2010

"There really never was any "debate" regarding this issue."

So, then you agree the banks have been using deception, fraud, manipulation, and failure to disclose in order to take advantage of honest mistakes? And that there are other possible causes to overdraft that keeping an accurate register may not prevent.

If that is the case, then you are correct.

So you agree to that?

"Irresponsible person fails to manage bank account."

I never debated that, so you are correct here as well.

"Responsibility advocates urge overdrafter to change poor account management habits to avoid the fees in the future...a productive course.:"

I agree 100% and never stated otherwise. Correct. I guess I am also an advocate of responsibility, consumer and BANK responsibility. All parties involved share a responsibility, I have said that all along..good we agree.

"You attempt to deflect responsibility away from poor behavior on the part of the account holder and blame the bank, thus doing NOTHING to help the customer avoid the fees."

Well, we were doing good to this point. Since I have never stated the customer should not take responsibility, and I have ALWAYS urged the customer to keep an accurate account, seems by all logic and quite apparent to me, there IS some "debate" here.

So, just like I have to do when debating a point (you do know what the word debate means I hope?), care to present any evidence where I have stated the customer should not be a responsible account holder?

If you need directions on how to "copy and paste" text to present evidence, I will gladly explain. If you can not present evidence of this, you have LOST this debate by default.

"Case closed...debate won by responsibility advocates...as always."

Uhhhh..NOPE. Case still open until proven otherwise. Ball in bank defender court. See last response for more information.

I await patiently.

Truth Detector

Intercourse,
Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.

The "debate" is already won, RonnyG...by RESPONSIBILITY advocates...

#9Consumer Comment

Sun, April 18, 2010

There really never was any "debate" regarding this issue.

Irresponsible person fails to manage bank account.

Responsibility advocates urge overdrafter to change poor account management habits to avoid the fees in the future...a productive course.

You attempt to deflect responsibility away from poor behavior on the part of the account holder and blame the bank, thus doing NOTHING to help the customer avoid the fees.

Case closed...debate won by responsibility advocates...as always.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

Examples of "ignorance" in various context..then, back to the actual debate if anyone still cares

#10Consumer Comment

Sat, April 17, 2010

NOTE: This post is comparatively LENGTHY. No one is forced to read it, or required to respond or comment regarding it. It is for those who CHOOSE or care to learn some facts, and do not mind reading for a minute or two in order to learn something regarding the topic.

If anyone wishes to rebut this information, or debate/discuss it, kindly read it in it's entirety so it doesn't veer off topic, or distort any facts or statements I left..

Note this regards the report, as the OP states.." I think it is ridiculous how they have it set up to steal our money. We really need to band together, talk to our senators or whomever and put a stop to this"

I agree, the if the poster had not overdrafted, perhaps in this case the bank would not have been able to steal her money. So no debate there at all.

How do we prevent this from happening in the future? Take all possible measures to prevent overdrafting, and sue the crap out of the bank if they stole any money from anyone, or took it unjustly.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Truth Detector implies overdraft fees, and the related tactics used to maximize them are being applied as a deserved "punishment", and therefore the banks can use any policies they wish with impunity, since it could be justified as "tough love" in some bizarre sense. I wonder if the banks will use that as their defense in court. I would think in all logic, they will not. Because it is LUDICROUS at the VERY least, among many other things.

And I am sure Truth Detector would love to divert this "debate" he can not possibly win, into what the definition of "ignorant" is, since it seems to be the crux of his reply to me in a futile attempt again, to discredit me.

Although I admit to using the term in it's more informal sense regarding the "I am the Law" post in question, the term ignorance in the context I intended it for, was to simply define his reply overall, which to wit was filled with unfounded nonsense, and therefore very easy to debunk... it does not require repeating, it is all there for anyone to view, unedited, for as long as this site exists.

Now, that said and DONE with, back to the debate, nonsense and diversion free.

The term ignorance can be used to describe something in general, or to described something specific. For example, Robert from Irvine, who even though we have opposing views, at least for the most part, was actually debating the topic at hand with me.

But he has displayed some ignorance as well...and in the sense where ignorance simply means, "lack of knowledge" in a specific area. (yes my posts are long, they have to be since EVERY word I say is scrutinized, so therefore must be explained like I am talking to a 3 year old)

In the actual debate regarding the topic at hand, he used the McDonalds hot coffee case as an example that any case can be brought to trial, hence it takes away credibility of the current lawsuits against the banks, where the defendants attorneys failed to have any parts dismissed, and the suit moves on in it's entirety.

Robert states...

"You do know why every coffee shop now puts "caution: hot" on their coffee cups. It was because someone was too dumb to realize that coffee was actually served hot and burned themselves. So of course an abulance chaser lawyer was able to file a suit and cost the resturant a multi-million dollar settlement. Did the store do anything wrong..No. But in the end who paid?"

Now I stated in reply to that, is this is a reason why many hate lawyers and feel so many lawsuits are frivolous. Meanwhile, few, IF ANY frivolous, lawsuits actually make it to trial. Go ahead..name some??? I wait patiently.. Can't find any that went to trial in recent years...can you?

Where the "ignorance" comes in, can be found by a simple 2 second internet search of the ACTUAL case..which then anyone can discover that what most "believe" about that case, is completely untrue, unfounded, and was more media hype then fact. Since of course the story of a "multi-million dollar" settlement will sell more newspapers then using the actual amount, which was in the half million range, less then McDonalds probably makes in an hour.

ANYONE can find this info on line at most law/legal websites, and they will learn what really happened, the amount actually awarded in the verdict, the fact that it was NOT multi-millions that were awarded, and there was neglect, or has the judge put it "reckless, callous and willful conduct"on Mcdonalds part in this case..as well as the plaintiff being partly responsible ( the court found 20% responsible). If you do further research such as wikipedia, although the final "settlement" was undisclosed, it is known to be under $600,000.

Most won't care to read it because it is lengthy, informative, requires comprehension and attention span, willingness to learn something important that dispels a common "myth", and most notably... proves MY point conclusively, but regardless... here it is in it's stunning glory.

Bear in mind I am not defending someone who is clumsy and wants to blame someone else for it and sue. It is simply to point out that what Robert stated, was "ignorant", in the sense that what he was using inaccurate "fact" and "evidence" against me in the debate. The information was based on.....ignorance, aka lack of knowledge.

I copied the following information from Lectic Law Library's website, but actual FACTS of this case are available all over the internet as well, including Wikipedia. A simple internet research can verify it in seconds.

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case.  No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case.  McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle.  Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992.  Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.)  Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin.  A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas.  She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste.  He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature.  Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees.  He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat.  The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds.  Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially.  Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way.  The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages.  This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill.  The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.


-----
excerpted from ATLA fact sheet.  1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of
California

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

Uhhh..fact vs, STUPIDITY...Truth Detector..

#11Consumer Comment

Sat, April 17, 2010

"The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class" That is basically what an "elitist" believes. How you can call ME that, after a reply the "I am the MORON" left, and then defend it...puts YOU and HIM in a "class" alright...a "class" that thinks those who made a mistake and/or was subjected to a FRAUD and SCAM and RIP OFF..are CRIMINALS? YOU bank defenders are the Elitists, BIG TIME.

"There is nothing quite like someone who has a different OPINION regarding a topic like this labeling the opposing point of view "ignorant" - particularly when that opposing point of view leads to ZERO overdraft fees."

In a "normal" debate yes. I can not debate with a DUNCE. I simply put the IGNORANT, UNEDUCATED,PRESUMPTUOUS, and many other much worse words I could use to describe him, and people like him....in their place.

There is not a THING "I am the IGNORANT FOOL" as ever said based on his opposing "opinion", that can lead to ZERO overdraft fees. And there is nothing I have ever said that can lead to ZERO overdraft fees.

The DEBATE is not about ZERO overdraft fees.

The debate is about the FRAUD used by the banks which many customers are complaining about.

If YOU or ANYONE wishes to debate whether or not the BANK as done anything wrong or not, that is fine. Since THAT is what the debate is about.

WHENEVER the IGNORANT ONE SIDED elitist bank defenders LOSE that debate...what is the FIRST thing they do???

Leave an IGNORANT reply such as "I am the dunce" left, claiming some kind of victory in a debate, where nothing in the reply was ever being debated in the first place. And to make matters worse, imply that every single customer who ever overdrafted, deserved as "punishment", to be ripped off by the bank.

"For the record, "ignorance" is defined as lack of knowledge or education."

But the larger issue here is the use of the term "ignorant" when RonnyG described I am the Law's assertion.

What exactly did I am the Law say that was so "ignorant"?

Almost everything he says is ignorant, uneducated, based on his OPINION with NO evidence provided, and is pure nonsense designed to do nothing but insult people, and spark controversy and anger. How does that help anyone? He is a troll, funny sometimes, but he could not hang in a legitimate debate with a 6 year old, and I think even you know that too... "Truth" detector.

"I am the Law justifiably believes overdraft fees are the equivalent of punishing a child. I would add that they serve as tough love to irresponsible account holders. "

Don't be an IDIOT too. Then I have to explain how I am right...and what will the bank defenders do? Just insult me by saying my posts are too long. Well sometimes to defend against STUPIDITY and nonsense and LIES..takes REASONING and FACTS to be stated.

"I am the Dullard" can believe whatever he wants, but certain things he should keep to himself. Sure, overdraft "FEES" can certainly be construed as a "punishment"..but THAT is NOT what "I am the IDIOT" stated, or implied. He states and implies ANYONE and everyone who has ever overdrafted is on par with a criminal and a child....a little different then how you put it.. "Truth Distorter"

RonnyG's response?

"Ignorance"...which is an elitist's way of saying "Anyone who doesn't agree with me MUST be ignorant".

Because his responses were ignorant, much like yours are.

Anyone can disagree with me and that does not make them ignorant and I would not consider them as such. But if someone is going to debate me..LOSE the debate, and then claim things that are unfounded and stupid just for spite, is a big ignorant baby and not even worthy of an opinion here.

There are plenty who do not agree with me and I would never have to call them ignorant. I know some of you bank defenders LOVE the diversion from the FACTS of the reports and debate, and turn these into post after post of me defending myself and the victims...

But either way, YOU will NEVER win in the end so just either GO AWAY, or stick to the topic and stop being a fact distorting LIAR. Grow up and debate like an educated person, or keep it to yourself. Same with "I am the IGNORANT"

If someone chooses to turn a debate into an "insult" fest, I can hold my own there as well..but anyone wishing to debate my points had better be able to stick to the topic and present facts and evidence. Otherwise it then is no longer a debate..but just a waste of perfectly good internet space.

Truth Detector

Intercourse,
Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.

RonnyG...the elitist...

#12Consumer Comment

Sat, April 17, 2010

There is nothing quite like someone who has a different OPINION regarding a topic like this labeling the opposing point of view "ignorant" - particularly when that opposing point of view leads to ZERO overdraft fees.

For the record, "ignorance" is defined as lack of knowledge or education.

But the larger issue here is the use of the term "ignorant" when RonnyG described I am the Law's assertion.

What exactly did I am the Law say that was so "ignorant"?

I am the Law justifiably believes overdraft fees are the equivalent of punishing a child. I would add that they serve as tough love to irresponsible account holders.

RonnyG's response?

"Ignorance"...which is an elitist's way of saying "Anyone who doesn't agree with me MUST be ignorant".

I would argue that true ignorance is the display of arrogance that assumes everyone else is ignorant by virtue of their differing point of view.

RonnyG, consider thy true colors revealed. Seek guilt redemption elsewhere. We're educating overdrafters here.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

I am the law..SO IGNORANT, it doesn't deserve a response...

#13Consumer Comment

Fri, April 16, 2010

...but it will get one, because THIS is so easy, and going to be SO much fun..now THAT rocks!!! Here goes...I took out the green because it gives me a headache and looks like a little kid did it...

OVERDRAFT FEES ROCK!

"Why would I make such a comment, you ask? Easy. It's for the same reason that you should discipline your child when they do something wrong." It's for the same reason we punish criminals when they break the law."

First off, just because someone overdrafted THEIR account using the DEBIT card, by the means of a SERVICE the bank PROVIDED, and usually did so UNDISCLOSED, does not mean they are a criminal or a bad child.

If the only purpose of overdraft fees is to punish criminals, then by due process anyone charging a fee as a punishment for a crime, had better use a court of law for this.

But guess what? The BANKS are the ones in court for this. Makes you wonder who the true criminals really are, and we all await to see what the banks "punishment" is going to be.

"Overdraft fees should be in place because if people know they can get away with doing something wrong intentionally (as most overdrafters do), they're going to do it consistently and without remorse."

On an ignorance scale of 1 to 10, that reply is a solid 11. How do you come to the conclusion that most overdrafters did it with wrong intentions. How do you back up a statement like that? Where are the facts and evidence?
And what are these "overdrafters" you have created in your mind been consistently doing without remorse? There is no talk of stopping overdraft fees you lummox, there are however law changes going into effect to prevent the banks from automatically enrolling every customer into OD protection with their debit card without disclosure and agreement.

If any customer then CHOOSES to be enrolled into OD protection, then IF they overdraft for ANY reason, they subject themselves to a fee as agreed, and the transaction will be covered by the bank at their discretion. Do you really see a problem with this? If not, what are you yapping about. Who and what are you debating?

"How would you, as a vigilant bank customer, feel if the same person consistently stuck the bank with a negative balance for months on end without fear of punishment?"

Myself, who happens to be a vigilant customer, and I happen not to overdraft, feels that you do not know what you are talking about. Who are these people you speak of that are sticking the banks with negative balances for months without fear of punishment? I have NEVER seen a report here regarding that kind of issue.
Nor does this have anything to do with any debate going on here that I am involved with. Why don't you bring up people who were ripped off by psychics as well. It makes as much sense as whatever nonsensical banter you are spewing here. Seems to me like a sure sign of nothing left for you to debate. You are OUT of gas and rolling down a hill with no brakes and steering.

"These actions, multiplied by hundreds of intentional overdrafters would destabilize the bank, and on a grand enough scale, force it out of business."

What actions? It almost seems you have gone from delusional, to out right insanity. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Is there something happening that we are unaware of that is going to destabilize the banks, other then what the banks OWN actions have already done to destabilize the ENTIRE US economy?

"On a smaller scale, it'd at least force the bank to recoup that money from the good customers by increasing interest rates on credit products (loans, mortgages), lowering interest paid on things like CD's and savings accounts, and have them start charging for free services or increase fees on things like ATM usage, wire transfers, statement fees, website usage, etc. etc."

What would? Do you mean when the bank stops using strategies that got them in trouble in the first place? Yes, I can agree that perhaps the banks will look for other stratgies to make a profit. But unfortunately for them, the fact that the previous policies were for the most part ripping off good customers that perhaps made honest mistakes, then yes, the bank can not do that anymore to the same extent. My heart does not bleed for them.

ANY of the above things you stated that the banks may do, is the banks choice. As long as they are not breaking any laws, or ripping people off, then by all means let them make a profit the good old fashioned way. Provide a service and charge accordingly, and through FAIR lending. What is wrong with that? If one bank charges too much for checks, or has too low a rate on CD's, switch to another bank. No one is forcing you to agree to any terms, are they now?

Bottom line: Good customers shouldn't have to pay the price for the negligent ones.

I agree. But take it one step further. No customer should get a discounted service when fraud and deception was used against other customers to fund it. That will lead to trouble every time.

And if you feel all these "overdrafters" punishment was paying for your free checking, would it really make you feel any better about the BANKS part in this if suddenly every customer never overdrafted again, and the banks then had to find another profit center anyhow? What is it that you want? If anything you should be keeping your mouth shut here if you think people who overdraft are giving you some kind of personal financial benefit. As by pissing them off even more, they are only going to fight harder to recoup what the bank took from them.

Regardless of the fact that there are people out there that are deadbeats, and try to beat the system, it is irrelevant. Those types of people will always be here doing no good. But the policy changes are designed to better protect all customers, it just so happens that the changes will lower some earnings the banks were bringing in from unfair and unethical policies, and prevent them from not disclosing important information. It will ONLY help prevent those from overdrafting that CHOOSE NOT to overdraft, and choose to decline the protection. Some other changes simply end unnecessary policies that had no reason to be applied to debit card users whether they were the most perfect register keeping account holders, or a flake.

Is this really that hard for you to understand?

I am the law

Chicago,
Illinois,
USA

Overdraft fees rock.

#14Consumer Comment

Fri, April 16, 2010

We're so busy yelling about how we're free to voice our opinions on ROR, I'm going to voice one of my own...

OVERDRAFT FEES ROCK!

Why would I make such a comment, you ask? Easy. It's for the same reason that you should discipline your child when they do something wrong. It's for the same reason we punish criminals when they break the law. Overdraft fees should be in place because if people know they can get away with doing something wrong intentionally (as most overdrafters do), they're going to do it consistently and without remorse. How would you, as a vigilant bank customer, feel if the same person consistently stuck the bank with a negative balance for months on end without fear of punishment? These actions, multiplied by hundreds of intentional overdrafters would destabilize the bank, and on a grand enough scale, force it out of business. On a smaller scale, it'd at least force the bank to recoup that money from the good customers by increasing interest rates on credit products (loans, mortgages), lowering interest paid on things like CD's and savings accounts, and have them start charging for free services or increase fees on things like ATM usage, wire transfers, statement fees, website usage, etc. etc.

Bottom line: Good customers shouldn't have to pay the price for the negligent ones.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

Yes, read the "rebuttle" carefully...

#15Consumer Comment

Tue, April 13, 2010

So you can all see how certain people are "debating" themselves. I simply stated facts, and the bank defenders don't like some of the FACTS. So, they are getting a little pissy. The TRUE arrogant ones are taking the bait, and coming out of the woodwork. Which is fine by me..easier to debunk.

Lets review Truth detectors last reply...

"Let me understand what RonnyG is insinuating...the fact that deadbeat overdrafters refuse to admit that THEIR MISTAKES were the source of their demise is "irrelevant"?

Okay, I will help you to understand but I don't know how much slower I can type, or how much simpler I can explain this, but I will try...

What I am not "insinuating", but STATING, is whether deadbeat overdrafters admit their mistakes or not is irrelevant to the debate because I-AM-NOT-DEBATING-ABOUT-DEADBEAT-OVERDRAFTERS-OR-DEFENDING DEADBEAT-OVERDRAFTERS.

The ignorant bank defenders think every bank policy victim is a deadbeat. A deadbeat by definition is one who does not pay their bills/debts. The people here I am defending made honest mistakes and admit it, AND HAVE PAID. So how are they deadbeats??? These clowns are debating another issue altogether, and just get some kind of pleasure by kicking victims when they are down. TRUE COWAREDS BY DEFINITION. Rebut that bank defenders...

"People who spend more money than they have available in their account have done so by their own CHOICE. There is absolutely NO disputing who is responsible for failure to manage an account in a responsible manner."

This doesn't even deserve a response it is so ignorant, but I will anyhow. There is a big difference between someone who overdrafts by choice, and someone of overdrafted by mistake. Now if someone overdrafts by choice, and was OPTED INTO OVERDRAFT PROTECTION BY CHOICE, then they should not complain about a fee for that overdraft.

If someone overdrafts by mistake, error, oversight etc, and was OPTED INTO OVERDRAFT BY CHOICE, they too should not complain because they CHOSE the protection.

If someone overdrafts by mistake, error, oversight, and did not sign up for overdraft protection on the debit card, then they have a right to complain, they have complained, and law changes for the better, and lawsuits have been the result.

Now there are other factors as well which are being dealt with in the courts, but either way, this has nothing to do with who admits what, or who is accusing who of being a deadbeat. What I am defending, is people who made honest mistakes and were FLEECED by the bank. AND who is in COURT NOW as the DEFENDANTS???? THE BANKS, those DEADBEAT BANKS who do not pay there bills and debts. And THAT is where true DEADBEATS end up. As DEFENDANTS in court.

I am sure if the court finds the plaintiffs were the deadbeats, they will dismiss the case. We shall see.

"I Am the Law is 100% correct here. There is NO convincing a fool of his incorrect line of thinking. RonnyG is a Kool-Aid drinker through and through. He forever defends irresponsible behavior on the part of deadbeat banking customers - then has the cheek to blame the BANK for the fact that a few morons can't exercise 3rd grade math skills and keep accurate checking records."

Here is another example of delusion. If ANY of the above was true, can any evidence of this be pasted here? NO, there won't be any. Because I have NEVER defended any irresponsible behavior, I only have point out the irresponsible behavior of the bank which has landed them in court AGAIN as the defendants, and the reasons why.

I have NEVER ONCE stated banking customers should not keep an accurate register. If you can copy and paste ANYWHERE, ANYTIME I have stated this, THEN it would be fact. But it is a BIG lie, last ditch effort to discredit me as I stated in the last post. But it FAILS, because it is a lie. Every report posted on this site has not been removed or edited. I have on occasion stated there are instances where a register would not matter, such as an unauthorized charge, or a check that did not clear when it should have etc, but NEVER did I say anyone should not keep track of their account, that is simply hogwash.

So go ahead, ANYONE, find where I ever stated customers should not keep a register. I agree they should. I have stated OVER and OVER that I AGREE with that. So who are these clowns debating? looks like they have created some kind of deadbeat defender in their heads, and think this is what I do. Vivid imagination, delusion.

"I agree this issue should be put to rest. Banking customers, regardless of RonnyG's inability to comprehend the concepts of math and responsibility or Karl's useless, pointless "Google this!" rants, there is only ONE WAY to avoid paying overdrafts in the future:"

I have never argued about math, I am very good at math as a matter of fact. I have an Electrical Engineering degree. But this debate is not about me. You clowns made it that way by getting personal and insulting EVERYONE who was victim to bank tactics.

Well the issue is being put to rest, as is evident by the changes. I am sure deadbeats and criminals out there will find ways to mess up, and the banks will look for other ways to fleece customers, but once the changes go into effect, you will see a DRASTIC drop in overdrafting with the debit card and complaints regarding as the customers now will be ASKED to sign up for the protection, and if they do not want it, the card will be declined if the account can't cover it and no more overdraft just because someone lost track of a few dollars, or an unauthorized charge, unknown hold or check clearing delay or whatever would have been the cause. Nipped in the bud. That is how you end this, NOW.

True if everyone was perfect and never made a mistake it would force the banks as well to find another means of making a profit. The law changes and lawsuits are simply expediting the process, and better protecting customers by giving them the choice if they want a service or not that can cost them if used. The lawsuits will be investigating and addressing some policies that are unnecessary for ANY debit card user. What is the problem with that?

At the very least it is only fair to apply a service to a customer who is aware they have it, and have signed up for it.

And the fraud and swindle that was thrust on banking customers is going to cost the banks. We all have to pay our debts or we are deadbeats, right folks?

Truth Detector

Intercourse,
Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.

Folks, read this rebuttal from RonnyG CAREFULLY...

#16Consumer Comment

Tue, April 13, 2010

It tells you all you need to know about the world of delusion he lives in:

I Am the Law brilliantly pointed out:

"Personal politics aside, here's what all this arguing is coming down to. Overdrafters KNOW they screwed up (99.99 % of the time). However, it's been my experience that these people WILL NOT admit that they're wrong; at least out loud. It almost physically pains them to say it."

RonnyG replied: Who was arguing that point? Besides, it is irrelevant.

Let me understand what RonnyG is insinuating...the fact that deadbeat overdrafters refuse to admit that THEIR MISTAKES were the source of their demise is "irrelevant"?

I'm going to say what I believe every sane mind is thinking when reading RonnyG's drivel: This guy is utterly CLUELESS...either by choice or per lack of capacity to comprehend simple facts.

People who spend more money than they have available in their account have done so by their own CHOICE. There is absolutely NO disputing who is responsible for failure to manage an account in a responsible manner.

I Am the Law is 100% correct here. There is NO convincing a fool of his incorrect line of thinking. RonnyG is a Kool-Aid drinker through and through. He forever defends irresponsible behavior on the part of deadbeat banking customers - then has the cheek to blame the BANK for the fact that a few morons can't exercise 3rd grade math skills and keep accurate checking records.

I agree this issue should be put to rest. Banking customers, regardless of RonnyG's inability to comprehend the concepts of math and responsibility or Karl's useless, pointless "Google this!" rants, there is only ONE WAY to avoid paying overdrafts in the future:

Be an adult and manage your account like one.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

"Might as well" this, I am the Law...

#17Consumer Comment

Tue, April 13, 2010

STOP....being so ignorant. I agree the back and forth arguing is a bit out of hand, but there is no way it can end on that last reply, which is ludicrous and way out of touch.

Allow me to demonstrate why..

"I think I am the Law but am not" states...

"Personal politics aside, here's what all this arguing is coming down to. Overdrafters KNOW they screwed up (99.99 % of the time). However, it's been my experience that these people WILL NOT admit that they're wrong; at least out loud. It almost physically pains them to say it."

Who was arguing that point? Besides, it is irrelevant.

First off , if you were not so blinded by ignorance, you would notice that many of the posters here who have lodged complaints, openly admit to the mistake, and often take responsibility as well. The REASON they are posting here is to explain how the banks policies contributed to it, and caused EXCESSIVE fees beyond fairness, and how certain terms were not disclosed. Yes, it can help others by warning them what the bank has done WRONG as well. And if people are more aware of what the BANK did WRONG as well, perhaps some will not do the same, and MAYBE some changes can be made so the banks stop doing WRONG as well. So unreasonable or unexpected on a consumer complaint website?

But regardless if an overdrafter admits they screwed up or not..THAT it is NOT what the argument or debate is about. At least I know that is NOT what I am debating about.

Why any arguments are taking place, which you would notice if you actually practiced reading skills instead of just using your typing skills, is that the bank defenders do not like that policy changes are going into effect that are more fair to EVERYONE, and the changes have nothing to do with defending "deadbeats". Because someone making an honest mistake or not understanding the implications of a term or terms that defy "reasonable" in a contract, or if something is not disclosed and it causes unnecessary expense...does not mean they are a deadbeat or irresponsible or any other wonderful names they have been called here. For one to assume no human can make a mistake without being subjected to a swindle or rip off, and then get kicked around and verbally abused is nothing but a brain dead bully, and they will get theirs. What comes around goes around.

What the argument is REALLY about, is the bank defenders can not seem to fathom that some customers were NOT trying to spend money they didn't have. Sometimes a deposit didn't clear in time, or sometimes it was human error or other contributing factors, but the fact is, many were not aware that they were automatically enrolled in OD protection..and that it is reasonable to conclude this is a valid reason to complain.

Why? Because: 1) This has never happened to them before, and/or 2) it WAS NOT disclosed in any agreements they signed, as noted by the Federal Judge in the lawsuits, not just the plaintiffs and others.

So regardless if any customer is at fault for using the card not knowing their balance correctly, but they did not expect the card to be approved in the event it could lead to an overdraft, and the tactics which compound them as well, certainly any deception used by the bank to contribute to the overdraft and fees, should be considered "wrong" and looked into. Or, do we just let the numbers go up and up every year as evident in the FDIC report, do nothing about it but blame the customers, let the banks do whatever they wan until before you know it, half the customers get subjected to these excessive these fees?..or more? When should it be stopped or looked into? Apparently, enough US citizens agree NOW is the time for it to stop, and sure enough, it is going to stop. And this, for some reason rubs the bank defenders the wrong way. Hence, they are extra defensive, bitter, nasty, and trying to debate unrelated points and divert the topic as a last ditch effort to place all the blame on the customer only, and/or to discredit my valid points and hard evidence.

The argument is ALSO about, the fact that the bank defenders can not face the true reason that law changes had to be put into effect, and that lawsuits continue. It is so simple and obvious, and even though they are getting beaten about the face and neck with the TRUE reason by me here, and by the current and coming changes as fact and evidence, a few of them just do not get it.

So here goes, I will spell it out clear and simple...THE-BANKS-HAVE-BEEN-DOING-SOMETHING-WRONG, AND....IT-IS-GOING-TO-COST-THEM. AND ,IT-IS-GOING-TO-STOP. Period.

Imagine that, a simple logical reason for all the "arguing".

And now..maybe we can stop the nonsense and arguing. However if anyone who is not ignorant would like to debate any issues involving THIS topic and not just name calling, presumptions and insulting of posters, personal attacks against myself and the OP, and futile attempts at diversion of the ACTUAL topic... I am willing to partake in a civil discussion/debate.

Otherwise maybe we can consider the matter settled?

Thank you.

I am the law

Chicago,
Illinois,
USA

Might as well stop arguing.

#18Consumer Comment

Mon, April 12, 2010

Wow. This back and forth has really gotten out of control.

Personal politics aside, here's what all this arguing is coming down to. Overdrafters KNOW they screwed up (99.99 % of the time). However, it's been my experience that these people WILL NOT admit that they're wrong; at least out loud. It almost physically pains them to say it.

So, defenders of common sense (or "bank defenders" as overdrafters put it), it's pretty much pointless to continue arguing with these people. You could try to talk sense into them until you're blue in the face and it won't do any good. I say, let them drown in their own negligence.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

It figures Truth detector is a yankees fan...

#19Consumer Comment

Mon, April 12, 2010

RonnyG: How do you know for a fact the check is from the same account?

"Truth: ...because the customers ADMITTED it was at the check-out line. They just tried to justify it by saying "The bank is wrong", "The money is there" or "I made a deposit. It just hasn't cleared yet" (direct quotes)."

Strike for you actually. You stated this happens more times then you can count. What do you do..stand in lines all day interviewing deadbeats, or listening in on their admissions? So what if they did or didn't make a deposit? Who cares anyhow? I am NOT defending these deadbeats you imbecile, so there is NO DEBATE.

I just think its odd that you think you are winning a dabate with me and are not. So what do you do in typical LOSING banks defender fashion?

Divert the topic to nonsense that has nothing to do with the debate..and claim a win. GET REAL.

RonnyG: If the debit card was declined due to lack of funds, then the account lacks the funds, correct? Now, if the customer is going to try to use a check from the same account as you state, wouldn't the check also be declined?

"Truth: Nope...regulations allow a business to run a check through electronically (like an ACH transaction), but not in real time (as is the case with a debit card). Ergo, the check wouldn't be returned until AFTER the deadbeat walked away with the merchandise without paying for it (i.e. STEALING)."

Number one, I already posted in the last reply how check 21 works, 2 to 3 seconds my friend. You are the one that brought it up so you can't have it both ways. I work with a retail business, I know what a reader does. If the check is no good, OR there is insufficient funds, it comes up on the screen and the check is not excepted. Unless you shop in third world countries, which is what is sounds like being there are too many deadbeats for you to count trying to use debit cards and pass bad checks.

Number two, this also AGAIN, has nothing to do with the debate since the law changes and lawsuits AND complaints lodged here, have to do with DEBIT CARD purchases, and ATM withdrawals, not check policies or ACH. So AGAIN, point moot, diversion, bank defender useless tactic, and no win since it is irrelevant to the topic.

RonnyG: You know in this day and age the checks are also put through a reader, and either "approved" or "declined"? You knew that, right? And regardless, why would the cashier care that much either way? If the bank covered it, then the customer is responsible to pay it to the bank plus fees. If the bank doesn't pay it, the customer also has to pay it, and pay a fee to both the bank AND the merchant, or possibly go to jail.

"Ronny, if you're going to debate at the big-boy table, at least bring some facts. The check reader doesn't check a bank account for available funds. It matches the check and customer information against a database to see if any checks have been returned via that customer in the past."

Redundant, see number one in the last reply. Also this is not the big-boy table, since it has nothing to do with the debate. It is a diversion and nonsense banter,

"As for why the cashier should care, that is Common Sense 101. If a business allows deadbeats to steal merchandise from them, they will be in business about as long as it takes an egg timer to ring. Subsequently, the cashier will be in the unemployment line."

Perhaps I can give you this one. Because I now am actually feeling bad for you that this problem is so bad where you live and shop, that the cashiers are afraid to run the check through a reader, that is really sad.

As for civil/legal consequences, we're talking about a small claims suit and/or a fine levied the deadbeat. Is it reasonable to believe that a deadbeat, who is already deficient of funds to pay for a box of trash bags, will EVER pay up on a lawsuit?

Once again, this has nothing to do with the debate, or the lawsuits. Most of the time if someone is passing bad checks all over the place, they are arrested. But you are correct that most likely a store won't bother over a box of trashbags. If someone needs to bounce a check to buy trashbags that is sad as well.

But I ask you, WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING I HAVE BEEN DEBATING?

Whether these law changes were going into effect or not....it has no effect on check users or ACH. Did you miss the ENTIRE debate or something?

And..whether or not the customer has funds or not, the only difference is with the law change, is that it will definitely be DECLINED by the merchant, how is that bad in your case where you live and this crime is so rampant that you can't even count? Maybe these deadbeats will learn to pay with cash? Or try to pass bad checks either way what does this have to do with the debate or anything ?

Try to stick to the topic is you want to debate at the big-boy table please, that is the least that is expected before you can claim a victory.

-->

...and that matters as much as anything you stated to me in your last response..

because ONCE..not make that umpteenth time, you miss the point of the debate..

RonnyG: How do you know for a fact the check is from the same account?

I just think its odd that you think you are winning a dabate with me and are not. So what do you do in typical LOSING banks defender fashion?

Divert the topic to nonsense that has nothing to do with the debate..and claim a win. GET REAL.

Redundant, see number one in the last reply. Also this is not the big-boy table, since it has nothing to do with the debate. It is a diversion and nonsense banter,

But I ask you, WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING I HAVE BEEN DEBATING?

Whether these law changes were going into effect or not....it has no effect on check users or ACH. Did you miss the ENTIRE debate or something?

Try to stick to the topic is you want to debate at the big-boy table please, that is the least that is expected before you can claim a victory.

Karl

Highlands Ranch,
Colorado,
USA

*Truth Detector said: "if you're going to debate at the big-boy table, at least bring some facts." HERE'S A FACT:

#20Consumer Comment

Mon, April 12, 2010

FACT: On May 31st 2008 at 9:13 PM, someone said: "The Collapse Has Been Triggered!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" ('Google' this- THERE IS NO GAS SHORTAGE, and go to the BusinessWeek article and read the comment posted on that date at that exact time.)

FACT: That was about 4 months before the U.S. economy "Melted Down" and needed over $700 BILLION from TAXPAYERS in order to prevent a GLOBAL MELTDOWN. ('Google' this- INSIDE THE MELTDOWN, and watch that Frontline documentary on the web for proof.)

FACT: Anyone can 'Google' this- THE COLLAPSE HAS BEEN TRIGGERED RIP OFF, and go to the- 'GM Credit Card Services' Ripoff Report and read the '1st Update' to that Ripoff Report where the '3rd paragraph' clearly states that- "The Collapse of the U.S. economy is in its infancy." - 9/3/2007

FACT: All of the above came true.

FACT: It's always best to be able to back-up everything you say with HARD FACTS.

Thank You

P.S. "COME CLEAN POEM" and "OIL POEM" are available at the BANK OF AMERICA page of this site. They appear in the Updates section.

Truth Detector

Intercourse,
Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.

RonnyG swings...and MISSES...

#21Consumer Comment

Mon, April 12, 2010

Since he foolishly believes himself to be a "debunker", let's debunk his latest rant. Since I'm a Yankees fan and believe in being fair, let's give him three strikes:

RonnyG: How do you know for a fact the check is from the same account?

Truth: ...because the customers ADMITTED it was at the check-out line. They just tried to justify it by saying "The bank is wrong", "The money is there" or "I made a deposit. It just hasn't cleared yet" (direct quotes).

Strike one...

Truth: Nope...regulations allow a business to run a check through electronically (like an ACH transaction), but not in real time (as is the case with a debit card). Ergo, the check wouldn't be returned until AFTER the deadbeat walked away with the merchandise without paying for it (i.e. STEALING).

Strike two...

Ronny, if you're going to debate at the big-boy table, at least bring some facts. The check reader doesn't check a bank account for available funds. It matches the check and customer information against a database to see if any checks have been returned via that customer in the past.

As for why the cashier should care, that is Common Sense 101. If a business allows deadbeats to steal merchandise from them, they will be in business about as long as it takes an egg timer to ring. Subsequently, the cashier will be in the unemployment line.

Strike three...YOU'RE OUT...

Better luck next time, RonnyG.

As is ALWAYS the case:

Those who are RESPONSIBLE ADULTS do not pay overdraft fees and ALWAYS win.

Those who make excuses, live in delusion, and refuse to grow up and become RESPONSIBLE adults ALWAYS LOSE.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

Response for ramjet...

#22Consumer Comment

Mon, April 12, 2010

You maybe feel you can state you case against ME personally, and then just ignore me and that gives you credibility and takes away all of mine?

I think in all fairness I should be able to respond...

"When this Ronny G. character started posting it seemed like he was a rational poster who was just posting a different point of view, no problem."

Well "this character" has still been posting his point of view. What caused any problems, was the attacks against me personally, and the insulting demeanor towards the OP. So what have I done so irrational?

"There are actually 2 completely separate conversations going on here.

One is stating that the banks should change, that they are evil and on and on. This conversation is not wrong at all but it doesn't address the original posters recommended procedures to keep from paying fees. "

The posters issue is several fold. Now I NEVER disagreed that this poster made a mistake, however the treatment she was given here and the way the so called "recommendations" were stated, is worthy to note as well, but it seems the bank defenders only notice what they want, and ignore ANY wrong they or the banks do, and do not understand reason or compassion in any shape or form.

The poster states the mistake, AND states what the bank did..which was essentially laugh at her while she was crying. Now this is why the automatic OD protection issue is such a problem. Because yes, she may have been more careful and this would not have happened..AND as well, she states and I quote...."and it won't deny your card even if you have a negative balance and they can attack you with all the overdraft fees, unlike any other bank in the world that I have dealt with" So, yes it is easy to blame everything on her, and yes, it is easy to sit behind the computer screen and insult, belittle and be rude and obnoxious to the customer, but if she was not a victim of the auto OD protection sham, which is a large part of the lawsuits and complaints, that AS WELL would have prevented the situation from happening. The card would have been declined, she may have been angered or embarrassed or both, but her money would have been protected from her own error, and AS WELL she would have to learn to better balance the account. THAT IS A GIVEN.

"The other conversation accepts that, although the banks should do things differently, in the real world it's important to learn to understand the rules and what you can do to keep from paying fees. This conversation is also not wrong and is not defending the banks, just how to keep from giving them any of you money, that doesn't really sound like defense to me."

Uhhh..I will give you this point..IF you can go back through this post..and SIMPLY copy and paste ANY evidence, where what you just posted was stated. But it's NOT ganna happen, because NOT A SINGLE bank defender posted it that way, and quite a few were extremely rude in addition. There was no "conversation" on the bank defenders side, just down right scroogeness, if that's even a word.

"Now Ronny G. starts posting l-o-o-n-g dissertations that need an index to read so I don't. They are also repititious and do not address the real problem at all."

No one is asking you to read them, or comment. Many of my responses are long because I am responding to a GANG of bank defenders, not just one or two, and I am simply posting evidence to back up my point, and as is evident, there is a lot involved, it is not as simple as just blaming the customer , telling them they are irresponsible and stupid, use a register, and then the problem goes away. That was already tried by the banks for years, and the problem has been getting worse and worse. I would post the FDIC report, but you would not read it. However if you choose to debate someone, it might require some effort on your part as well.

"Then he starts cussing people out and using immature language that makes him lose all credibility."

"People"? Uhh, scroll back and check again. It was one person. And look what that person said about the OP. So in other words, just because the nasty foul mean spirited Texan shares you views, he can do whatever he wants and it is fine, but I put him in his place, and I am the immature one with no credibility? Okay, I see how it works. Typical of the bank defenders. One sided, biased, unreasonable, fact twisting, and mean.

"He now belongs with Charles and Karl as far as credibility goes. I just ignore his posts as drivel and move on the next one. Too bad."

Is is too bad....that you are a coward who just says your piece and runs. I think I defended myself quite articulately and reasonably. What really is too bad, is that I have to even bother defending myself, when the issue is unethical bank tactics. What I blame myself for is taking the bait and becoming part of the diversion when I should ignore it as well. But I am not a coward, and I will defend myself if need be.

Where credibility REALLY should be lost, is with some of the bank defender responses, and the rude way they insult the OP's.

Not to mention trying to make this debate political. For example Truth Detector stated "You see, folks, RonnyG is one of those bleeding hearts who lives to be an enabler of poor and irresponsible behavior (i.e. spending beyond your means) instead of actually offering constructive advice to avoid the rip-off in the future."

Notice here, Truth Detector admits it's a rip off. So we agree there. But then he accuses me of enabling irresponsible behavior. Where is there ANY evidence I have done so? You won't find any, it's a crock. He also tries to sum me up as a "bleeding heart". He has no idea about who I really am. But I am FAR from a bleeding heart. Yes I have compassion someone who is struggling and gets taken for a bath by the bank for a human error, but at the same time, my heart is certainly not bleeding for the banks. Not with what they have been getting away with.

Now how is it my agreeing with the policy that PREVENTS overdrafting, by choice OR error, enabling in any way shape or form? And how is wanting policies that prevent the bank from charging OD fees to transactions that has the funds enabling in any way shape or form? A cookie to ANYONE who can give those reasonable answers.

Then we have striderQ, who states..."These laws got changed because people whined and cried to their Democratic representatives. And the Dems in true "the government must support the people" pushed the laws through."

This implies that it is somehow bad that the government should support the people. Wow, what a bizarre concept. Someone called a representative actually representing. All politicians were voted in, and hence should represent the people.

Now I am certainly no Dem, but there is a good reason why the Dems are in power now. Need we get into that debate as well ? I think we ALL know why.

BTW, I was a Ron Paul Republican supporter in the last election if that matters to anyone. I am registered Independent, lean conservative in most areas, and consider myself a staunch Libertarian. I believe in personal responsibility, smaller Government, and am against universal socialized health care. As well, I also believe large banks and financial institutions need to be kept in check, or trust me as the day is long, they WILL come after you next. Give them enough power and a long enough rope...well just look what happened already, need I say more?

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

Oh wait, another "lose" for Truth Detector...

#23Consumer Comment

Sun, April 11, 2010

You stated and I quote...

"I have lost count of how many times I have been in line at a store when a deadbeat tried to pay for items with a debit card, have the cashier tell him/her the transaction was declined, then watch the same deadbeat pull out a checkbook to write a check from the same account.

Of course, usually the cashiers are far smarter than deadbeat overdrafters (That alone tells you something about the collective intelligence of overdrafters) and tell these dolts that they have no intention of taking a check from an account that has no money in it. The deadbeats typically make a scene when this happens because they just can't fathom not getting what they want - even if they can't pay for it.

How do you know for a fact the check is from the same account? Are these "deadbeats" your friends and family perhaps? Or did you take the numbers off the debit card, then off the check (which will be different numbers) and match them up at the bank? Oh wait, you could not do that, it would be illegal for the bank to give out that info. So how is it you know for a fact it is the same account? Tell us, or if you can't back up what you use against someone in a debate you claim to "win", then perhaps you should keep it to yourself?

Although none of your "deadbeat" rantings have ANYTHING to do with the debate, I should point out some more of your ignorance, and demonstrate the "holes" in your "story".

If the debit card was declined due to lack of funds, then the account lacks the funds, correct? Now, if the customer is going to try to use a check from the same account as you state, wouldn't the check also be declined? You know in this day and age the checks are also put through a reader, and either "approved" or "declined"? You knew that, right?

And regardless, why would the cashier care that much either way? If the bank covered it, then the customer is responsible to pay it to the bank plus fees. If the bank doesn't pay it, the customer also has to pay it, and pay a fee to both the bank AND the merchant, or possibly go to jail.

I don't know what Check 21 has to do with your argument, as all it does is speed up the transfer, and verify it, which actually protects the merchant in the event of fraud, or helps the consumer with expedited approval if the check is good.

Quoted from Check 21 policy...

"With some Check 21 providers, retailers will find this system to be faster as funds may be transferred much quicker than ACH. eChecks processed using a Check 21 solution are typically accepted in 1-3 seconds and clear the same day or overnight compared to typical Automated Clearing House system (ACH) time frames of 3 to 5 days."

So again how are you or any bank defenders "winning" a debate with me? Especially when posting inaccurate unsubstantiated information, and trying to argue blatantly obvious FACTS to everyone, most of which I agree with?

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

"Always" Truth Detector?

#24Consumer Comment

Sun, April 11, 2010

"Here's why:

By managing your account in a RESPONSIBLE fashion, you ensure that you pay ZERO overdraft fees.

By irresponsibly spending beyond your means, you pay the bank your hard-earned money."

Not only is this untrue, but it has no bearing on the DEBATE. And in regards to "win or lose" in this discussion, is regarding the DEBATE. Where some of you bank defenders have some kind of mental block..is with reasoning. And this is why the banks are VERY fortunate none of you actually represent them legally.

I will try AGAIN, for Lord knows how many times this has been stated, to clarify.

The debate is NOT, and I say this again slowly, the debate is N-O-T about the responsibility the customer holds with managing their accounts. I have never debated or argued that customers should not be responsible.

What you are implying is that it is impossible for any customer to incur an overdraft if they are responsible with the account.

What I am implying is that all customers should manage their account responsibly to help prevent an overdraft from occurring, but regardless, overdrafts WILL occur. And since they WILL occur, any actions the banks have done to encourage it, or compound it resulting in fees using UNNECESSARY, UNETHICAL, UNFAIR , DECEPTIVE, and legally QUESTIONABLE tatics and policies, should be exposed, and changed to better protect ALL customers money.

"Now, on to these new changes...

You think debit cards being exempt from overdraft fees will stop the fees?

I never said that. If you are going to attempt to "win" a debate, it is best to read, comprehend, and understand what your opponent states and implies.

No first off, your statement makes no sense. Since if debits cards were actually "exempt" from overdraft fees, then by the very definition of what the term "exempt" means, it would stop the fees.

"Think again...

This new policy (which doesn't take effect until August 15) only includes debit card purchases. ACH transactions and checks are not included in this new policy."

I believe you are the one that needs to think. I have not only stated EXACTLY what you just did, but have posted a gazillion times copies of the lawsuits, and law changes, AND I have stated it ONLY applies to DEBIT card PURCHASES and ATM withdrawals. So is your point to prove you "won" by agreeing with me?

"Therefore, expect the same deadbeats who always try to spend more money than they have available in their accounts to float checks, fail to log their ACH transactions, and pay overdraft fees."

If it makes you feel any better to call anyone who bounces a check a deadbeat that's one thing, but the changes going into effect are DESIGNED to protect DEBIT card users FROM CHECK/ACH POLICIES. Of course if anyone bounces a check or ACH payment they will get a fee. Why don't you tell us something we don't know?

"How do I know this? History tells me this.

Well if this is happening so many times you lost count, I would reconsider where you live and shop. However, if any customer is spending money with intent they do not have, then by all means they should get a fee, or go to jail if writing bad checks on purpose. Why would ANYONE debate that? Have you EVER seen me debate that? Or are you just looking for an argument with me when I agree? You prove NO point here. You are merely stating obvious FACTS.

"Of course, usually the cashiers are far smarter than deadbeat overdrafters (That alone tells you something about the collective intelligence of overdrafters) and tell these dolts that they have no intention of taking a check from an account that has no money in it. The deadbeats typically make a scene when this happens because they just can't fathom not getting what they want - even if they can't pay for it.

What deadbeats will now do is skip past the debit card altogether and just write a check they believe will not clear in time. Because of Check 21, we know that the check will almost always clear before the deadbeat believes it will."

Look genius, the policy and law changes are to better protect customers from fraud, and honest mistakes. AND, to hold the BANK accountable for it's previous swindling of debit card users.

If a customer insists on spending more money then they have, which is certainly different then an honest mistake, then they will find a way, and pay the fees or worse. So once again what is your point? What does this have to do with anything?

"Same irresponsibility, same result."

Correct. I have said this all along. That these changes do not make an irresponsible customer responsible. What it does it prevent the bank from charging a customer $600.00 for a cup of coffee if they use the debit card. It prevents the bank from automatically enrolling every single customer into overdraft protection ON THE DEBIT CARD. The lawsuits are going after the re-sequencing of transactions on THE DEBIT CARD, which served no purpose for the consumer.

What the changes do, is simply level the playing field in the event of customer error. You know, some people on this earth can make an honest mistake. Not everyone is deadbeats like whereever it is you live. And the good customers that can make an honest mistake, deserve to have some policies that or on the customers side. If the banks were left to do whatever they wanted, eventually a lot more customer would get hit up. Because if you read the FDIC report, you would notice every year how many more customers were getting hit, and how many more billions and billions the banks were taking. So when should it end in your opinion?

"Get this straight, RonnyG:

Regardless of what the nanny squad in D.C tries to do, the only way an account holder can guarantee no overdrafts is to grow up, become an adult, and manage the account in a responsible fashion. That means tracking debits and ensuring credits are available before they try to spend the money.

In the meantime, remember that the person who pays ZERO overdraft fees always, ALWAYS wins these debates."

If you want to claim you won a debate, it is best not to flaunt such ignorance. The FAIR changes are extra protection for EVERY debit card user. The changes never promised to stop ALL fees. The changes simply give the CONSUMER the choice to have OD coverage instead of it being forced them, many times undisclosed, and to stop some of the shenanigans the banks were pulling to unfairly and UNJUSTLY compound fees in the event of an overdraft using the debit card, nothing more, nothing less.

In other words, the bank applying the check policies to the debit card would allow the bank to charge OD fees on transactions that had the funds available at the time of the transaction. No one in their right mind would want a transaction for a soda approved if they knew it would cost them a 35.00 fee, and the banks policy of re-sequencing would say since the hamburger you purchased AFTER the coffee in the morning was more expensive, it must have been more important so we are switching the time around to charge you for the hamburger first. Do you see how silly that sounds? Well that is going to change whether you like it or not. So who "won"?

Because you are MR. Perfect in your mind, and believe you may never ever have an overdraft under any possible circumstance, the changes will still protect you if it did happen as well, and you would then be glad people like me helped make the changes and not just sit on your asses insulting victims.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

"Always" Truth Detector?

#25Consumer Comment

Sun, April 11, 2010

"Here's why:

By managing your account in a RESPONSIBLE fashion, you ensure that you pay ZERO overdraft fees.

By irresponsibly spending beyond your means, you pay the bank your hard-earned money."

I will try AGAIN, for Lord knows how many times this has been stated, to clarify.

What you are implying is that it is impossible for any customer to incur an overdraft if they are responsible with the account.

"Now, on to these new changes...

You think debit cards being exempt from overdraft fees will stop the fees?

I never said that. If you are going to attempt to "win" a debate, it is best to read, comprehend, and understand what your opponent states and implies.

No first off, your statement makes no sense. Since if debits cards were actually "exempt" from overdraft fees, then by the very definition of what the term "exempt" means, it would stop the fees.

"Think again...

"Therefore, expect the same deadbeats who always try to spend more money than they have available in their accounts to float checks, fail to log their ACH transactions, and pay overdraft fees."

"How do I know this? History tells me this.

"Same irresponsibility, same result."

"Get this straight, RonnyG:

In the meantime, remember that the person who pays ZERO overdraft fees always, ALWAYS wins these debates."

Truth Detector

Intercourse,
Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.

Actually, RonnyG, the bank defenders ALWAYS win...

#26Consumer Comment

Sun, April 11, 2010

Here's why:

By managing your account in a RESPONSIBLE fashion, you ensure that you pay ZERO overdraft fees.

By irresponsibly spending beyond your means, you pay the bank your hard-earned money.

Now, on to these new changes...

You think debit cards being exempt from overdraft fees will stop the fees?

Think again...

This new policy (which doesn't take effect until August 15) only includes debit card purchases. ACH transactions and checks are not included in this new policy.

Therefore, expect the same deadbeats who always try to spend more money than they have available in their accounts to float checks, fail to log their ACH transactions, and pay overdraft fees.

How do I know this? History tells me this.

I have lost count of how many times I have been in line at a store when a deadbeat tried to pay for items with a debit card, have the cashier tell him/her the transaction was declined, then watch the same deadbeat pull out a checkbook to write a check from the same account.

Same irresponsibility, same result.

Get this straight, RonnyG:

In the meantime, remember that the person who pays ZERO overdraft fees always, ALWAYS wins these debates.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

left out another response for Robert...

#27Consumer Comment

Sun, April 11, 2010

You stated...

"Now, as to the reason why these suits are filed. A certain "class" of lawyers take the "shotgun" approach. That is they generally try to throw everything but the kitchen sink into the suit. So even if they get 90% of the things dismissed or not ruled on, they could still be successful. On top of that they will file suit after suit, again all it needs is to get ONE through. Then in conjunction with the right judge they can get a positive result."

Well this can certainly be the case when dealing with a major or frivolous lawsuit. It is reasonable to understand why one would not expect lawyers who want to win a case so they can get paid, to not throw as much into a suit as possible, just as the defense will surely do in opposition during trial and pre trial.

However, the plaintiffs case regarding the particular lawsuit in question, is by no means frivolous, over reaching, and no "kitchen sink throwing" is involved. The defenses council failed to have elements of the suit dismissed when using defenses such as "they signed a contract", due to legal contract law reasons the Judge stated which I posted previously.

The charges are simple and to the point.....and only regarding overdraft fee policies as applied to everyday debit card purchases and ATM withdrawals. At this point in the game, it seems logical and obvious it will go to trail, and the plaintiffs will prevail on the majority, if not all the counts.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

Response for Striderq and Robert...

#28Consumer Comment

Sun, April 11, 2010

"Why do you ask questions when you pose the answer in the question?"

It is a part of the debunking process, or more philosophically a form of Socratic questioning. Simply put, it is used a prove a point that is in question, but the answer is actually obvious.

"These laws got changed because people whined and cried to their Democratic representatives. And the Dems in true "the government must support the people" pushed the laws through."

These "people" you speak of are American citizens with rights. Now this can easily turn into a political debate which is not the point of this topic, or this website, but I am game if it helps prove my case.

Even if you are correct in stating the reason the laws got changed is because the Dems pushed it through, does this mean the changes are a bad thing for everyone, other then the banks? Trust me, I am no Democrat, I am actually a libertarian and have voted Republican. But I believe the government should serve two main purposes. One, to protect our country from enemy attacks, and two, to protect it's citizens from large corporations having too much power and control..which would include a financial institution taking advantage of ANY citizen using unfair, unethical and questionably illegal tactics and measures.

Personally I don't care which political party pushes through laws that protect citizens from being ripped off, as long as it gets pushed. We should all be able to agree to that, unless one is on the receiving end of the ripoff.

Again if the majority, vast majority of people can have an account without being accessed OD fees then why can't everyone? Because some refuse to learn how to avoid the fees. If, as you seem to think, OD fees are some evil, dasterdly plot by the banks to steal evryone's money, I can assure you that the banks could come up with a way to get money from everyone. But that is not happening. It's only those that refuse to keep an accurate register and accept responsibilty for their actions."

Speaking of "again", again you miss the point of the complaints, law changes, policy changes, and lawsuits. I have stated this many many times, and will again but try to put it in as simple terms as possible...

It does not matter if ONE customer was subjected to a fee, or 600 Trillion customers were. If the banks were left unfettered to use any tactics or policies they wanted, it would NEVER end until every single customer was stripped of all their money. Just look over the FDIC report if you need proof. The amount of customers subjected to these fees, and the amount of PROFIT the banks were making off these fees were increasing in leaps and bounds every year since these tactics have been being used. Now when do YOU feel it would have been a good time to complain about this? How many customers, or what percentage of customers victimized would have been enough for you to agree that a change is needed by the banks, and not just the customers?

All the changes are simply to help protect the customers money. If opted into overdraft protection by ones own CHOICE, the bank can still charge a fee and permit overdrafts. If someone bounces a check, they still have to pay a fee or NSF. Same with auto bill pay (ach).

The changes have nothing to do with which customers take responsibility or not. The changes can prevent ANY customer from overdrafting with the debit card for ANY reason, and prevent policies designed for check coverage to stop being applied to debit cards which are commonly used for lots of every day small purchases, and to get access to our direct deposits in an expedited way.

You can use the register "reasoning" until the sky turns green, but it is not going to hold up in court or prevent law changes, because it is not the reason for the lawsuits. While I do agree many (not all), but many overdrafts could have been prevented had the register been used correctly, I do not believe this excuses the banks for using policies against customers who make errors, or take advantage of those who do not understand accounting by using deception and tactics which compound the fees for no valuable purpose other then corporate greed. These changes are better protection for ALL customers, responsible, smart, dumb, rich, poor, black, white, handicapped, disabled, student, retired, veteran and on and on.

As far as your statement "I can assure you that the banks could come up with a way to get money from everyone" , this will remain to be seen. Since these changes are in effect, or going into effect regardless of who is against them, we all wait with great anticipation to see what other ways the banks will come up with to get money from everyone. I am sure those ways will be posted on this site in due time.

" By the way, you might want to check your eye prescription, the last letter in my SN is the letter "q" as in quest not the letter "g" as in goof."

I don't need a prescription, my eyesight is 20/20. I just thought is was a g going off memory. Lets not forget how many spell my SN "Ronnie" when it is Ronny. I will be more careful with the last letter of your SN but it has nothing to do with the credibility of anyone's response if they spell an SN wrong, and no reason for you to insinuate my eyes are the problem.

Now Robert...

"Why do they have preliminary trials in criminal cases? How many preliminary hearings in a criminal case got put through to the actual trial, where the defendent was found not guilty? There is a long way between what is basically a preliminary hearing and a final trial. If this was the final say then why not just issue the judgment then and call it a day?"

We were discussing lawsuits, not criminal trials, huge difference, moot point, diversion, irrelevant and waste of time. But here is the difference from Wikipedia and the American Bar Association...

Pre-trial - Lawsuits

The early stages of the lawsuit may involve initial disclosures of evidence by each party and discovery, which is the ordered exchange of evidence and statements between the parties based on what they each expect to argue during the actual trial. Discovery is meant to eliminate surprises and clarify what the lawsuit is about, and perhaps to make a party realize they should settle or drop the claim, all before wasting court resources. At this point the parties may also engage in pretrial motion filing in order to exclude or include particular legal or factual issues before trial, by blocking the other party from presenting a particular witness or arguing a particular legal theory.

Pre-trial Court Appearances in a Criminal Case

Its especially difficult to generalize about this subject, since so much depends on a particular states procedures, whether it typically uses a grand jury to bring charges, etc. Heres the procedure used with some variations in many states in which a prosecutor files charges without a grand jury.

Misdemeanors
The first step is an initial appearance (often referred to as an arraignment), before a judge of a lower court or magistrate, at which

    * The charge is read to the defendant, and penalties explained.
    * The defendant is advised of his/her right to trial, and right to trial by jury if desired.
    * The right to counsel (legal representation) is explained, and the judge or magistrate appoints a lawyer if the defendant requests one and is found to be indigent (too poor to afford a private lawyer).
    * The defendant enters a plea. If counsel has been requested and appointed, or if the defendant indicates that private counsel will be retained, a plea of not guilty is entered. If the defendant enters a not guilty plea, a trial date will be set. If the defendant pleads guilty, either a date will be set for sentencing or the magistrate or judge will impose probation, fines or other sentences immediately. In some cases, the judge or magistrate may allow a defendant to plead nolo contendere, or no contest. In many jurisdictions a plea of no contest is equivalent to a guilty plea, except that the defendant does not directly admit guilt.
    * Assuming the defendant has pled not guilty, the judge or magistrate sets the amount of bail.

Felonies
The process is quite similar here, except that there is the additional step of the preliminary hearing as an additional safeguard warranted by the more serious nature of the charges.

Step 1

As with misdemeanors, the first step is an initial appearance or an arraignment before a judge of a lower court or magistrate, at which

    * The charge is read to the defendant, and penalties explained.
    * The defendant is advised of his/her right to a preliminary hearing and the purpose of that procedure, as well as his/her right to trial and right to trial by jury in trial court.
    * The right to counsel (legal representation) is explained, and the judge or magistrate appoints a lawyer if the defendant requests one and is found to be indigent (too poor to afford a private lawyer).
    * The defendant does NOT enter a plea. The matter is set for preliminary hearing (hearing to establish if a crime has been committed and if there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense(s) alleged in complaint).The judge or magistrate sets the amount of bail.

Step 2

The second step is the preliminary hearing, at which:

    * The government must demonstrate to a judge or magistrate that there is sufficient evidence, or probable cause, to believe the suspect committed the crime with which he or she is charged.
    * Defendants usually must be present at this hearing, although they do not commonly offer evidence in their defense. This procedure has a similar function to grand jury proceedings, in that it is a safeguard against unfettered government action.
    * If the court finds there is no probable cause, the matter is dismissed (this would be the equivalent of a grand jury declining to press charges). If this happens, defendants are released.
    * If the court finds there is probable cause, the matter is transferred to trial court. Many courts use the term bound over, as "the defendant is bound over to the district or circuit court for trial."

-" Okay if this one statement does not prove that you are a "lawyer defender". That you must be somehow involved with the specific laywer you keep posting I really don't know what does. "

I am not defending lawyers at all since no one has offended them as far as I can tell. But in this case the lawyers are working at the risk of not getting paid a dime fighting these huge financial institutions that have virtually an unlimited supply of funding/political clout and representation to fight the suits. And they are fighting to help stop the banks from riping off consumers. Are they expected not to make a nice fee if/when they win? All I was saying is my personal feeling which is I hope they make a lot, because that would mean they won, they won a lot so the customers may get more as well, the bank will learn a lesson (we hope), and more laws may change to better protect ALL banking customers. This is a bad thing how?

"Because if you think it is okay for the laywers to get a multi-million dollar "payday", you have to be a "lawyer defender". Then if you really think that the people who didn't manage their account, in some cases costing them a couple thousand dollars, are going to appreciate getting up to $78 dollars. There has to be something else going on here."

The only thing going on here, is this is how the system works if the plaintiffs can not afford to pay up front for a lawsuit. It is known as a class action..you have heard of that, right? Many of us just want the banks to pay for their ways, and to change a few simple policies, which they seem to be starting to do already. Are some going to be disappointing that they didn't get all of their money back or what they feel is enough? Sure, but certainly would be even more upset if they got nothing back and the banks were just continuing there part in this with impunity.

"Oh and forget the "low balance" arguement, as has been proven many times before if you have a balance of $0.01 as long as you don't spend $0.02 it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to overdraft."

Uhhh, no, only a one sided biased bank defender would say this. My point was, if someone has a high balance, they are probably much less apt to overdraft unless there was fraud, or a very large purchase is made. On the other hand, a poor/financially struggling customer living paycheck to paycheck if fortunate enough to even have a job these days, has a much better chance of overdrafting..as even purchasing everyday necessities such as food, gas, etc can more easily cause an overdraft then a person who buys a burger with their debit card and has $85,000 dollars in the bank. Of course a person who has a large amount in the bank doesn't care too much about these policies, since they believe it will probably never effect them.

But in reality, it could effect them, no one is impervious to these tactics 100% no matter what the register says, that has been proven. So what is so wrong with wanting policy change that can better protect everyone?

I imagine your stance as a biased one sided pig headed relentless bank defender, that since these changes will in nature also better protect irresponsible customers too, that we shouldn't do anything to encourage the changes? That is in a nut shell the implications of your side of this debate.

"Untrue, this customer did not CHOOSE to give this money to the bank"

-" Unfortunatly they did. The choose to do that by NOT keeping a register and managing their account."

And yet ANOTHER typical bank defender diversion. I am NOT going to get into a debate or explain to you, a seemingly intelligent adult, what the word "choose" means. Get real.

"Now, as to the reason why these suits are filed. A certain "class" of lawyers take the "shotgun" approach. That is they generally try to throw everything but the kitchen sink into the suit. So even if they get 90% of the things dismissed or not ruled on, they could still be successful. On top of that they will file suit after suit, again all it needs is to get ONE through. Then in conjunction with the right judge they can get a positive result."

Well what do you feel is the better option? I assume you will say that every customer should just keep a better eye on the register, and let the banks and financial institutions run a muck and impose unethical policies and tactics? Well this is what happened for several years..and look at the result. I have never arugued that a customer should not keep a register, I simply want the banks to have fair policies that do not use deception and tactics in the event of customer error. And this is the way it is done...class action lawsuit, complaints, law changes, bad press etc. Welcome to America.

"You do know why every coffee shop now puts "caution: hot" on their coffee cups. It was because someone was too dumb to realize that coffee was actually served hot and burned themselves. So of course an abulance chaser lawyer was able to file a suit and cost the resturant a multi-million dollar settlement. Did the store do anything wrong..No. But in the end who paid?"

I agree that example this is a good reason to hate lawyers and frivolous lawsuits, since there was certainly no intent by McDonalds to burn or injure the customer. And it is "reasonably objective"to assume that a cup of coffee is going to be served hot. But such is life, we take the good with the bad, and sometimes when good wins, it makes it all worth it.

Now does it bother me that some customers who were irresponsible are going to get the same share as those who made honest mistakes or were defrauded? Of course. And does it bother me that the lawyers will get such a large percentage of the settlement/winning? Perhaps, even though I hope they make a lot.

This situation is one of those where the end justifies the means, and if it can help prevent even one more customer from falling into the trap, it is a good thing, there is a good side to this Robert, and I think you know it.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

Response for Striderq and Robert...

#29Consumer Comment

Sat, April 10, 2010

"Why do you ask questions when you pose the answer in the question?"

It is a part of the debunking process, or more philosophically a form of Socratic questioning. Simply put, it is used a prove a point that is in question, but the answer is actually obvious.

"These laws got changed because people whined and cried to their Democratic representatives. And the Dems in true "the government must support the people" pushed the laws through."

These "people" you speak of are American citizens with rights. Now this can easily turn into a political debate which is not the point of this topic, or this website, but I am game if it helps prove my case.

Even if you are correct in stating the reason the laws got changed is because the Dems pushed it through, does this mean the changes are a bad thing for everyone, other then the banks? Trust me, I am no Democrat, I am actually a libertarian and have voted Republican. But I believe the government should serve two main purposes. One, to protect our country from enemy attacks, and two, to protect it's citizens from large corporations having too much power and control..which would include a financial institution taking advantage of ANY citizen using unfair, unethical and questionably illegal tactics and measures.

Personally I don't care which political party pushes through laws that protect citizens from being ripped off, as long as it gets pushed. We should all be able to agree to that, unless one is on the receiving end of the ripoff.

Again if the majority, vast majority of people can have an account without being accessed OD fees then why can't everyone? Because some refuse to learn how to avoid the fees. If, as you seem to think, OD fees are some evil, dasterdly plot by the banks to steal evryone's money, I can assure you that the banks could come up with a way to get money from everyone. But that is not happening. It's only those that refuse to keep an accurate register and accept responsibilty for their actions."

Speaking of "again", again you miss the point of the complaints, law changes, policy changes, and lawsuits. I have stated this many many times, and will again but try to put it in as simple terms as possible...

It does not matter if ONE customer was subjected to a fee, or 600 Trillion customers were. If the banks were left unfettered to use any tactics or policies they wanted, it would NEVER end until every single customer was stripped of all their money. Just look over the FDIC report if you need proof. The amount of customers subjected to these fees, and the amount of PROFIT the banks were making off these fees were increasing in leaps and bounds every year since these tactics have been being used. Now when do YOU feel it would have been a good time to complain about this? How many customers, or what percentage of customers victimized would have been enough for you to agree that a change is needed by the banks, and not just the customers?

All the changes are simply to help protect the customers money. If opted into overdraft protection by ones own CHOICE, the bank can still charge a fee and permit overdrafts. If someone bounces a check, they still have to pay a fee or NSF. Same with auto bill pay (ach).

The changes have nothing to do with which customers take responsibility or not. The changes can prevent ANY customer from overdrafting with the debit card for ANY reason, and prevent policies designed for check coverage to stop being applied to debit cards which are commonly used for lots of every day small purchases, and to get access to our direct deposits in an expedited way.

You can use the register "reasoning" until the sky turns green, but it is not going to hold up in court or prevent law changes, because it is not the reason for the lawsuits. While I do agree many (not all), but many overdrafts could have been prevented had the register been used correctly, I do not believe this excuses the banks for using policies against customers who make errors, or take advantage of those who do not understand accounting by using deception and tactics which compound the fees for no valuable purpose other then corporate greed. These changes are better protection for ALL customers, responsible, smart, dumb, rich, poor, black, white, handicapped, disabled, student, retired, veteran and on and on.

As far as your statement "I can assure you that the banks could come up with a way to get money from everyone" , this will remain to be seen. Since these changes are in effect, or going into effect regardless of who is against them, we all wait with great anticipation to see what other ways the banks will come up with to get money from everyone. I am sure those ways will be posted on this site in due time.

" By the way, you might want to check your eye prescription, the last letter in my SN is the letter "q" as in quest not the letter "g" as in goof."

I don't need a prescription, my eyesight is 20/20. I just thought is was a g going off memory. Lets not forget how many spell my SN "Ronnie" when it is Ronny. I will be more careful with the last letter of your SN but it has nothing to do with the credibility of anyone's response if they spell an SN wrong, and no reason for you to insinuate my eyes are the problem.

Now Robert...

"Why do they have preliminary trials in criminal cases? How many preliminary hearings in a criminal case got put through to the actual trial, where the defendent was found not guilty? There is a long way between what is basically a preliminary hearing and a final trial. If this was the final say then why not just issue the judgment then and call it a day?"

We were discussing lawsuits and how the lawyers are paid, not criminal trials, huge difference, moot point, diversion, irrelevant and waste of time.

As far as the lawyers getting a huge paycheck, fine with me and most of the customers that were victim. You see, not all of them expect to get all of their money back, but they simply want the banks to stop, and do not even understand how they were getting away with it in the first place. Personally I hope the lawyers make plenty. And whatever the customers recoup, will be appreciated as most of the victims are struggling financially as it is, which is why they have to keep a low balance.

-" Okay if this one statement does not prove that you are a "lawyer defender". That you must be somehow involved with the specific laywer you keep posting I really don't know what does. "

I am not defending lawyers at all since no one has offended them as far as I can tell. But in this case the lawyers are working at the risk of not getting paid a dime fighting these huge financial institutions that have virtually an unlimited supply of funding/political clout and representation to fight the suits. And they are fighting to help stop the banks from riping off consumers. Are they expected not to make a nice fee if/when they win? All I was saying is my personal feeling which is I hope they make a lot, because that would mean they won, they won a lot so the customers may get more as well, the bank will learn a lesson (we hope), and more laws may change to better protect ALL banking customers. This is a bad thing how?

"Because if you think it is okay for the laywers to get a multi-million dollar "payday", you have to be a "lawyer defender". Then if you really think that the people who didn't manage their account, in some cases costing them a couple thousand dollars, are going to appreciate getting up to $78 dollars. There has to be something else going on here."

The only thing going on here, is this is how the system works if the plaintiffs can not afford to pay up front for a lawsuit. It is known as a class action..you have heard of that, right? Many of us just want the banks to pay for their ways, and to change a few simple policies, which they seem to be starting to do already. Are some going to be disappointing that they didn't get all of their money back or what they feel is enough? Sure, but certainly would be even more upset if they got nothing back and the banks were just continuing there part in this with impunity.

"Oh and forget the "low balance" arguement, as has been proven many times before if you have a balance of $0.01 as long as you don't spend $0.02 it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to overdraft."

Uhhh, no, only a one sided biased bank defender would say this. My point was, if someone has a high balance, they are probably much less apt to overdraft unless there was fraud, or a very large purchase is made. On the other hand, a poor/financially struggling customer living paycheck to paycheck if fortunate enough to even have a job these days, has a much better chance of overdrafting..as even purchasing everyday necessities such as food, gas, etc can more easily cause an overdraft then a person who buys a burger with their debit card and has $85,000 dollars in the bank. Of course a person who has a large amount in the bank doesn't care too much about these policies, since they believe it will probably never effect them.

But in reality, it could effect them, no one is impervious to these tactics 100% no matter what the register says, that has been proven. So what is so wrong with wanting policy change that can better protect everyone?

I imagine your stance as a biased one sided pig headed relentless bank defender, that since these changes will in nature also better protect irresponsible customers too, that we shouldn't do anything to encourage the changes? That is in a nut shell the implications of your side of this debate.

"Untrue, this customer did not CHOOSE to give this money to the bank"

-" Unfortunatly they did. The choose to do that by NOT keeping a register and managing their account."

And yet ANOTHER typical bank defender diversion. I am NOT going to get into a debate or explain to you, a seemingly intelligent adult, what the word "choose" means. Get real.

"Now, as to the reason why these suits are filed. A certain "class" of lawyers take the "shotgun" approach. That is they generally try to throw everything but the kitchen sink into the suit. So even if they get 90% of the things dismissed or not ruled on, they could still be successful. On top of that they will file suit after suit, again all it needs is to get ONE through. Then in conjunction with the right judge they can get a positive result."

Well what do you feel is the better option? I assume you will say that every customer should just keep a better eye on the register, and let the banks and financial institutions run a muck and impose unethical policies and tactics? Well this is what happened for several years..and look at the result. I have never arugued that a customer should not keep a register, I simply want the banks to have fair policies that do not use deception and tactics in the event of customer error. And this is the way it is done...class action lawsuit, complaints, law changes, bad press etc. Welcome to America.

"You do know why every coffee shop now puts "caution: hot" on their coffee cups. It was because someone was too dumb to realize that coffee was actually served hot and burned themselves. So of course an abulance chaser lawyer was able to file a suit and cost the resturant a multi-million dollar settlement. Did the store do anything wrong..No. But in the end who paid?"

I agree that example this is a good reason to hate lawyers and frivolous lawsuits, since there was certainly no intent by McDonalds to burn or injure the customer. And it is "reasonably objective"to assume that a cup of coffee is going to be served hot. But such is life, we take the good with the bad, and sometimes when good wins, it makes it all worth it.

Now does it bother me that some customers who were irresponsible are going to get the same share as those who made honest mistakes or were defrauded? Of course. And does it bother me that the lawyers will get such a large percentage of the settlement/winning? Perhaps, even though I hope they make a lot.

This situation is one of those where the end justifies the means, and if it can help prevent even one more customer from falling into the trap, it is a good thing, there is a good side to this Robert, and I think you know it.

Robert

Irvine,
California,
U.S.A.

More proof...

#30Consumer Comment

Sat, April 10, 2010

But there is a process to filing a suit. If the suit had no merit, would it not be thrown out during the dismissal stages? Why was it not in this case?

- Why do they have preliminary trials in criminal cases? How many preliminary hearings in a criminal case got put through to the actual trial, where the defendent was found not guilty? There is a long way between what is basically a preliminary hearing and a final trial. If this was the final say then why not just issue the judgment then and call it a day?

As far as the lawyers getting a huge paycheck, fine with me and most of the customers that were victim. You see, not all of them expect to get all of their money back, but they simply want the banks to stop, and do not even understand how they were getting away with it in the first place. Personally I hope the lawyers make plenty. And whatever the customers recoup, will be appreciated as most of the victims are struggling financially as it is, which is why they have to keep a low balance.

- Okay if this one statement does not prove that you are a "lawyer defender". That you must be somehow involved with the specific laywer you keep posting I really don't know what does.

Because if you think it is okay for the laywers to get a multi-million dollar "payday", you have to be a "lawyer defender". Then if you really think that the people who didn't manage their account, in some cases costing them a couple thousand dollars, are going to appreciate getting up to $78 dollars. There has to be something else going on here.

Oh and forget the "low balance" arguement, as has been proven many times before if you have a balance of $0.01 as long as you don't spend $0.02 it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to overdraft.

Untrue, this customer did not CHOOSE to give this money to the bank

- Unfortunatly they did. The choose to do that by NOT keeping a register and managing their account.

Now, as to the reason why these suits are filed. A certain "class" of lawyers take the "shotgun" approach. That is they generally try to throw everything but the kitchen sink into the suit. So even if they get 90% of the things dismissed or not ruled on, they could still be successful. On top of that they will file suit after suit, again all it needs is to get ONE through. Then in conjunction with the right judge they can get a positive result.

You do know why every coffee shop now puts "caution: hot" on their coffee cups. It was because someone was too dumb to realize that coffee was actually served hot and burned themselves. So of course an abulance chaser lawyer was able to file a suit and cost the resturant a multi-million dollar settlement. Did the store do anything wrong..No. But in the end who paid?

Striderq

Columbia,
South Carolina,
U.S.A.

Ronny, Ronny, Ronny...

#31General Comment

Sat, April 10, 2010

Why do you ask questions when you pose the answer in the question? These laws got changed because people whined and cried to their Democratic representatives. And the Dems in true "the government must support the people" pushed the laws through. Again if the majority, vast majority of people can have an account without being accessed OD fees then why can't everyone? Because some refuse to learn how to avoid the fees. If, as you seem to think, OD fees are some evil, dasterdly plot by the banks to steal evryone's money, I can assure you that the banks could come up with a way to get money from everyone. But that is not happening. It's only those that refuse to keep an accurate register and accept responsibilty for their actions.

By the way, you might want to check your eye prescription, the last letter in my SN is the letter "q" as in quest not the letter "g" as in goof.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

Another correction for Striderg...

#32Consumer Comment

Sat, April 10, 2010

"The lawyer wins because they get paid no matter what."

Not true with most lawsuits which are done on a contingency basis. Certainly the lawyers would not take on these class action lawsuits if they expected to lose because not one plaintiff is paying them a dime.

Now there are other cases as well where a lawyer or a team of lawyers may take on a case without charging solely for the publicity.

So it is not a true statement, the lawyers do not get paid no matter what in lawsuits. If victims had to pay for lawsuits out of pocket "no matter what", 99.9% of them would never even make it to trial.

"Paying a lawyer on contingency means that the plaintiff agrees that the attorney's fee will be determined by the amount of the settlement awarded to the plaintiff, should the case be won in the plaintiff's favor. If the plaintiff does not win the case, the attorney will receive no fee"

The downside to this of course, is the attorney fees are going to be much higher/% of the settlement going to them. However, since in most cases the plaintiffs can not afford to pay for the suits, this is the way it is done. This is how the "system" works in America, like it of not. Is it a perfect system? No, but much better then nothing because if the banks and other financial institutions were left to run rampant and unfettered with greed, we absolutely would be in a depression right now, not just a horrible recession they helped cause.

Karl

Highlands Ranch,
Colorado,
USA

"COME CLEAN POEM"....

#33Consumer Comment

Sat, April 10, 2010

is available the BANK OF AMERICA page of this site. It appears in the Updates section to a 'Bank of America' Ripoff Report.

*Anyone can 'Google' this- BROCK O'BOMB-A POEM, and that should take you to where "COME CLEAN POEM" is posted, correct?

Thank You

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

More "ping pong" with the bank defenders...

#34Consumer Comment

Sat, April 10, 2010

It's not really a matter of win or lose this "debate", but who is posting actual facts, and who is ONLY here for the sole purpose of provoking controversy, and insulting those who were victims to bank tactics and simply lodged a complaint here.

Okay, back to debunking..

Edgeman first...

"Once again you confuse the events that occur within the world inside of your head with what goes on in the real world. Out here I have no "gang". I do not know you or anybody else in these threads. What have I "said" that isn't true? Care to answer that?"

Glad to answer anything but first off..you use the term "once again" like so many other bank defenders do, when there was NEVER a first time that anything was proven as far as events going on my my head, vs. what is apparent to anyone who is living in reality.

The reason I use the term "gang", is because there are more then one of you debating with me and mocking the customer, and unwilling to hold the bank responsible for their part in this, or totally failing to acknowledge the bank even played a part. I presented plenty of evidence to prove the contrary, some of you simply refuse to acknowledge it, bottom line.

From a dictionary definition it is not so unreasonable to consider the bank defenders as a gang..or "ganging up" ie: Verb phrase

gang up on, Informal. (of a number of persons) to unite in opposition to (a person); combine against

As far as what you say that isn't true, is when you state I have created a world inside my head, when I CONSISTENTLY leave evidence here to back up what I state. So how is it proven "true" what you say? My biggest issue however with you and the other bank defenders is not so much anything said is un-true, but irrelevant to the complaint, or not any help, which I clearly point out over and over, and leave evidence as such. Telling a customer that is complaining about overdraft fees and policies that the only answer is not to overdraft, is redundant. The complaints are posted here to warn others of tactics the banks have been using such as in this case where the online account said the charges were pending, so she though they were taken out. A mistake?, Yes, but if the bank was not using unnecessary policies and tactics, the mistake would not have cost this customer $420.00 in fees plus $8.00 a day. Perhaps you and some other bank defenders think this is reasonable "punishment" for an honest mistake, but sorry, some of us want to hold the banks accountable as well, not just the customer.

"Once again i do not have a gang. I simply do not think that people should be paying overdraft fees to the banks. I would also remind you that it was only a few months ago when I challenged you to find threads where I treated the OP with insulting behavior and you admitted that you couldn't find any. In a recent Chase thread you wrote that your problem with the bank defenders (a strange term at best) wasn't with their advice but rather how they treated the OPs. By your definition, you shouldn't have a problem with me."

There goes the "once again", again. Did I say gang more then once? As far as what I stated, perhaps for the most part, you are not as rude to the posters in most cases, at least compared to the others who seem to have the same opinions but state it quite differently. My biggest gripe with you is the constant attempts to discredit me, and the constant diversions of the topic. So yes, I sometimes have a problem with you..but I think it is more that you have a problem with me.

"The thing is Ronny, you are the one who repeatedly cried out for civil behavior and yet you always find an excuse to revert to your true character. It is entirely your right to be a hypocrite. Just don't do so while pretending to be one of the good guys."

I am not pretending to be anything. I am just posting corrections or opposing views, and on occasion will resort to rude measures, but only when justified. I see no justification in belittling and insulting posters who lodge complaints here, or getting personal. So I put those who do, in their place. Call that a bad guy, it makes no difference to me. As far as my true character, glad you think you can diagnose character over a forum. But as is self evident, I defend posters who I feel were cheated by the bank, and I leave advice if applicable to help make policy changes and/or possible means to recoup some losses. If the topic is being diverted which nonsense and insults and provocation, where does one expect it will lead?

"I have yet to see you debunk the fact that the vast majority of account holders do not pay overdraft fees and that responsible account management is the key to avoiding said fees. Your "debunking" tends to be the notion that a customer should not be held to the agreement that they made with a bank."

My debunking, is to show the bank played a part and it is not only the customers fault. I do that very well I might add.

"Actually, I'm not sure if most of the OPs even bother to read the long and tedious rebuttals that the regulars make to each other."

Perhaps not, perhaps some do, but when others google the name of their bank and the words rip off, swindle, lawsuit, scam etc...they most likely will end up here, so it is important that information is accurate and all sides of the argument are offered so the site doesn't come off as a joke or biased, which due to this redundant banter, it may to some. But I can back up my statement with facts so perhaps it helps.

"The fact that you tend to view a forum as some kind of conflict is very interesting.

It doesn't have to be that way. It is just what I have come to expect here. And look what happened, I got plenty of conflict. If I wasn't attacked and personally insulted and attempted to be discredited for nonsense, then perhaps we could leave our comments, and let others decide who is right. I am just one of those that does not like to roll over and die. If those refuse to even acknowledge fact and try to divert topics and discredit me with nonsense, I will typically get the last word. And those that show no compassion for someone who is going through a trying time by insulting them, they can't really complain if someone points that out.

Now Truth Detector...

"...and the "bank defenders" win...again..."

Nope. They didn't.

"To all reading this ridiculously long thread, allow me to translate Ronny's jargon a bit:

Bank defender = Responsibility advocate

You see, folks, RonnyG is one of those bleeding hearts who lives to be an enabler of poor and irresponsible behavior (i.e. spending beyond your means) instead of actually offering constructive advice to avoid the rip-off in the future."

If someone incurs an overdraft because of an error, they were not necessarily irresponsible or trying to spend beyond their means. Those kind of presumptuous insults are what got me started posting here in the first place defending bank policy victims. I certainly believe in personal responsibility, AND I believe the banks have a responsibility as well. Is that so wrong?

"Of course, we all know how his approach ends: With more and more morons coming here to complain that the bank has somehow wronged them because THEIR mistakes resulted in charges THEY AGREED TO when they signed their terms and conditions."

Well calling people who signed a contract with a bank morons certainly adds no credibility to your argument. Perhaps some were not the smartest, and perhaps some were; There is no law against not being the smartest, but there are laws that can protect those from being taken advantage of by any contract law, and at the very least, it is unethical to take advantage of the mentally challenged or "not so smart. " Regardless, a Federal Judge as agreed that the contract is not a valid reason to dismiss the suits, so perhaps you know better then a Judge but regardless, changes are happening that will better protect ALL customers money, smart or dumb. I left plenty of evidence and information to back this up so even I am getting sick of repeating it, but am forced to because some do not seem to be getting it, why is that?

"The reality is, unless a consumer takes responsibility for his/her own finances and stops spending more money than he/she has available in his/her account, NOTHING will change. That isn't reflective of Ronny's pie in the sky world of fantasy. It's living in the REAL WORLD."

I have never argued that people should not take responsibility for their finances. If you were living in the real world, you would not state that, or could you provide ANY evidence I have ever said that. I am just pointing out the obvious indisputable facts...

1) The banks HAVE been auto enrolling every customer into OD protection, not all customers signed ANYTHING stating they wanted OD protection on their debit card usage.

2) Most banks have been re-sequencing debit card transactions for the sole intent of compounding fees, and hence being able to "legally" charge overdraft fees (or justify) to transactions that actually had the funds available at the time of the transaction. For what reason? In case the burger purchase was more important then the soda? Bank busted.

3) That excessive check clearing times and unreliable statements have contributed to overdrafting unnecessarily. These were not customers that intended to use money they didn't have, it was shady tactics and unnecessary policies once again that actually contributed to the fees.

4) Many customers who complain here regarding this issue are not asking for money or a handout, and take responsibility if they realize they messed up. They are simply explaining what happened to them, and the banks part in it. And to demonstrate how the banks should NOT be allowed to get away with it...

And look at the results...change, for the better, for everyone. Because as perfect as the bank defenders think they are, you never know if an unauthorized charge, bad or delayed check, unknown hold etc could cause an overdraft if you were running the account low. Now with the changes, you are fully protected and the card will have to be declined if the account will be brought into the negative giving you ample chance to figure out where the "mistake" is.. without it costing hundreds of dollars. Sounds fair to me. And if you signed up for OD protection by choice fully aware of the ramifications, at least when all the banks stop the re-sequencing, you will only have to pay for the legitimate overdraft AS AGREED TO IN THE CONTRACT, imagine that?

Now Striderg...

"Ronny asked two questions.

Why are the laws changing? Not necessarily because the banks are doing anything wrong (legally or ethically) but because enough people have complained and cried to their representatives. And since the minority of people pay the majority of OD fees, this is a case of the minority causing new laws to be passed that will affect everyone."

Okay...then this leads to another question. Why and how can a minority cause new laws to be passed..unless the laws are preventing some form of wrong-doing?

"Why are there so many lawsuits? Because anyone can find a lawyer willing to take money to file any case. The lawyer wins because they get paid no matter what. Secondarily is the enablers that post to sites like this telling the OPs that they were taken advantage of and that the best way to recover their money is to file a lawsuit, usually a class action lawsuit so the court may order the banks to change their way of doing business. Class action lawsuits, if won, get about one or two fee cahrges for each customer and the lawyers walk away with a huge financial paycheck."

But there is a process to filing a suit. If the suit had no merit, would it not be thrown out during the dismissal stages? Why was it not in this case?

As far as the lawyers getting a huge paycheck, fine with me and most of the customers that were victim. You see, not all of them expect to get all of their money back, but they simply want the banks to stop, and do not even understand how they were getting away with it in the first place. Personally I hope the lawyers make plenty. And whatever the customers recoup, will be appreciated as most of the victims are struggling financially as it is, which is why they have to keep a low balance.

Do these customers need to be extra careful? Of course they do. But at the same time, it is a lot easier to be exposed to the unethical policies if you live paycheck to paycheck and have no financial cushion, as many simply do not these days. And for the bank to take advantage of them is unconscionable, as most simply made the mistake of trusting the bank with their direct deposits.

And THAT is the reason the lawsuits were not dismissed on any grounds or defense the banks lawyers could come up with. The reason for all the lawsuits seems apparent...the banks were doing something wrong. Is that even a possibility in your world?

"But if the OPs follow the suggestions of the "bank defenders" they would actually wind up with more money. This post itselfs shows a $420 OD fees and $8 per day that the OP chose to give to the bank. What could they have done with that money if they kept an accurate register?"

Untrue, this customer did not CHOOSE to give this money to the bank. But even if not keeping a register is the reason this happened .. telling the customer that now is a day late and $420.00 dollars short. I have nothing against anyone advising a customer to keep an accurate register, as I have to do this with several and it is time consuming. But in the event of an overdraft due to a mistake, insulting and belittling the customer does not a bit of good but provoke anger and controversy.

If not for the banks unethical, unfair and unnecessary policies and unscrupulousness, this customer would not be in this boat as well, register or not. How is it wrong to point this out and request change?

Striderq

Columbia,
South Carolina,
U.S.A.

Reasons why...

#35General Comment

Fri, April 09, 2010

Ronny asked two questions.

Why are the laws changing? Not necessarily because the banks are doing anything wrong (legally or ethically) but because enough people have complained and cried to their representatives. And since the minority of people pay the majority of OD fees, this is a case of the minority causing new laws to be passed that will affect everyone.

Why are there so many lawsuits? Because anyone can find a lawyer willing to take money to file any case. The lawyer wins because they get paid no matter what. Secondarily is the enablers that post to sites like this telling the OPs that they were taken advantage of and that the best way to recover their money is to file a lawsuit, usually a class action lawsuit so the court may order the banks to change their way of doing business. Class action lawsuits, if won, get about one or two fee cahrges for each customer and the lawyers walk away with a huge financial paycheck.

But if the OPs follow the suggestions of the "bank defenders" they would actually wind up with more money. This post itselfs shows a $420 OD fees and $8 per day that the OP chose to give to the bank. What could they have done with that money if they kept an accurate register?

Truth Detector

Intercourse,
Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.

...and the "bank defenders" win...again...

#36Consumer Comment

Sat, April 03, 2010

To all reading this ridiculously long thread, allow me to translate Ronny's jargon a bit:

Bank defender = Responsibility advocate

You see, folks, RonnyG is one of those bleeding hearts who lives to be an enabler of poor and irresponsible behavior (i.e. spending beyond your means) instead of actually offering constructive advice to avoid the rip-off in the future.

Of course, we all know how his approach ends: With more and more morons coming here to complain that the bank has somehow wronged them because THEIR mistakes resulted in charges THEY AGREED TO when they signed their terms and conditions.

The reality is, unless a consumer takes responsibility for his/her own finances and stops spending more money than he/she has available in his/her account, NOTHING will change. That isn't reflective of Ronny's pie in the sky world of fantasy. It's living in the REAL WORLD.

Edgeman

Chico,
California,
U.S.A.

Ronny...

#37Consumer Comment

Fri, April 02, 2010

"No meltdown, As stated, I was just having some fun with the Joker. But in typical bank defender fashion, you think anything you say has merit, even though it is not true, nor can be proved and is based on conjecture or imagination, mostly just a tactic of deception, not unlike the banks themselves."

Once again you confuse the events that occur within the world inside of your head with what goes on in the real world. Out here I have no "gang". I do not know you or anybody else in these threads. What have I "said" that isn't true? Care to answer that?

"Has far as a "civil discussion", go back to the top, you know, the beginning of this post...and read how "civil" the bank defenders have been. Plenty of hostility provocation, insinuation, and belittling by your little "gang" of self appointed "advocates of responsibility"...oh, hold on a minute, I am laughing too hard to continue..."

Once again i do not have a gang. I simply do not think that people should be paying overdraft fees to the banks. I would also remind you that it was only a few months ago when I challenged you to find threads where I treated the OP with insulting behavior and you admitted that you couldn't find any. In a recent Chase thread you wrote that your problem with the bank defenders (a strange term at best) wasn't with their advice but rather how they treated the OPs. By your definition, you shouldn't have a problem with me.

The thing is Ronny, you are the one who repeatedly cried out for civil behavior and yet you always find an excuse to revert to your true character. It is entirely your right to be a hypocrite. Just don't do so while pretending to be one of the good guys.

"Okay, better now.... Nothing new for the bank defenders, it is part of their modus operandi to cause diversions and provoke argument. I simply deliver what they want, you would think the bank defenders would love me."

Really? It looks as if that is what you do.

"Now to clear this up, especially with the texan, or so is claimed, that was not debate or discussion. I was me ripping someone a new butt hole, and debunking them as I do with most of these bank defenders, when warranted."

I have yet to see you debunk the fact that the vast majority of account holders do not pay overdraft fees and that responsible account management is the key to avoiding said fees. Your "debunking" tends to be the notion that a customer should not be held to the agreement that they made with a bank.

"All in good fun, but I hope it gets the message to the people who were ripped off and came here to complain, that not everyone is going to attack them. Just a half a dozen or so of the same schmucks, and once in a while a new one comes out of the woodwork, like this texas person, what an ignorant moron and anyone who read his replies and would disagree...belongs in the same category. Actually I am a little suspect that the texan is someone who posts here under another name as well, I have no proof but recognize the ignorance, and they know who they are."

Actually, I'm not sure if most of the OPs even bother to read the long and tedious rebuttals that the regulars make to each other.

"There, done defending myself, so who's next"

The fact that you tend to view a forum as some kind of conflict is very interesting.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

...Striderg again...

#38Consumer Comment

Fri, April 02, 2010

"is very simple. As the so called "bank defenders" have stated time and time again is to keep an accurate register. It's as simple as that. Doesn't take rocket science or a doctorate, simple elementary addition and subtraction."

No one is claiming it is rocket science, and the innuendo that someone who overdrafted can't perform elementary addition and subtraction, is belittling and provoking. The term "bank defender" is not applied to someone willing to help a customer with good intent, it is someone who seems to get some kind of perverted pleasure out of hostile replies and insulting those that have lodged a complaint, just because said bank defender claims it was 100% the customers fault, and is blind to the deceptive policies and tactics of the bank.

I agree that I have on occasion seen civil responses that seem to be left with good intent..but with replies such as..(and I quote from this very post)...

"Anyone ever notice that most stories about OD fees usually involve an impoverished customer crying and supernaturally inhumane behavior by the bank employees? I've noticed most of them also have some sort of plea for patriotic or religious support. Are these overdrafters copying and pasting this material off of some pro-overdrafting website or what?"

"Geez, Rose. You're playing the handicap card, huh? Well, it was either that one or the race card. Rose, despite being confined to a wheelchair, you seem to at least have enough intelligence to use the internet, so I'd assume you have enough intelligence to not spend money you don't have. Even if a bank would intentionally let you overdraft your account (and I'm not saying USB doesn't allow you to do this), managing the balance is still your responsibility. Stop blaming the bank for something you admit you did.

"

Now perhaps the bank defenders find it acceptable to talk to someone they don't even know like that, I feel it is wrong. Just like myself and many others feel some of the banks policies are wrong.

For the self righteous arrogant replies, they are negated. If someone wants to help a consumer if they really feel the ONLY problem was keeping an accurate register, surely there is a better approach or just to use common decency and respect for another human being. The people that complain here are going through a hardship. They are angry. Perhaps many made mistakes and don't understand what the banks policies have done, which the ones who did find out I hope would be more careful..as well as participate in the lawsuits if they believe the banks tactics have caused additional fees, contributed to the fees, or caused the compounding of fees.

If the banks were truly doing nothing wrong and this was all the customers fault, why would the laws be changing? Why would there be all these lawsuits? Why are the banks changing policies now? Why do we see so many of the identical type of complaints?

This site has potential to be a civil place to discuss these issues and help people, but if you kick a wounded dog..what do you expect will be the result? If you provoke and belittle those who feel victimized and have financial and/or other hardships and came here to warn others, what do you think that does to help or give advice any credibility?

I am probably wasting my time trying to reason with the more arrogant bank defenders, but I would not have a problem with them if they weren't so heartless and lacked an ounce of decency and compassion, or could state their side with tact...and I certainly would not vilify the banks if they were truly doing nothing wrong.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

Edgemen THE bank defender du jour

#39Consumer Comment

Fri, April 02, 2010

No meltdown, As stated, I was just having some fun with the Joker. But in typical bank defender fashion, you think anything you say has merit, even though it is not true, nor can be proved and is based on conjecture or imagination, mostly just a tactic of deception, not unlike the banks themselves.

Has far as a "civil discussion", go back to the top, you know, the beginning of this post...and read how "civil" the bank defenders have been. Plenty of hostility provocation, insinuation, and belittling by your little "gang" of self appointed "advocates of responsibility"...oh, hold on a minute, I am laughing too hard to continue...

Okay, better now.... Nothing new for the bank defenders, it is part of their modus operandi to cause diversions and provoke argument. I simply deliver what they want, you would think the bank defenders would love me.

Now to clear this up, especially with the texan, or so is claimed, that was not debate or discussion. I was me ripping someone a new butt hole, and debunking them as I do with most of these bank defenders, when warranted.

All in good fun, but I hope it gets the message to the people who were ripped off and came here to complain, that not everyone is going to attack them. Just a half a dozen or so of the same schmucks, and once in a while a new one comes out of the woodwork, like this texas person, what an ignorant moron and anyone who read his replies and would disagree...belongs in the same category. Actually I am a little suspect that the texan is someone who posts here under another name as well, I have no proof but recognize the ignorance, and they know who they are.

There, done defending myself, so who's next?

Ramjet

Somewhere,
Michigan,
U.S.A.

Lost all credibility

#40Consumer Comment

Fri, April 02, 2010

When this Ronny G. character started posting it seemed like he was a rational poster who was just posting a different point of view, no problem.

There are actually 2 completely separate conversations going on here.

One is stating that the banks should change, that they are evil and on and on. This conversation is not wrong at all but it doesn't address the original posters recommended procedures to keep from paying fees.

The other conversation accepts that, although the banks should do things differently, in the real world it's important to learn to understand the rules and what you can do to keep from paying fees. This conversation is also not wrong and is not defending the banks, just how to keep from giving them any of you money, that doesn't really sound like defense to me.

Now Ronny G. starts posting l-o-o-n-g dissertations that need an index to read so I don't. They are also repititious and do not address the real problem at all.

Then he starts cussing people out and using immature language that makes him lose all credibility.

He now belongs with Charles and Karl as far as credibility goes. I just ignore his posts as drivel and move on the next one. Too bad.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

Robert from Buffalo is correct...

#41Consumer Comment

Thu, April 01, 2010

To stop "feeding" this troll. Because if these replies to the people who lodge legitimate complaints here were not so hostile, insulting and belittling, I would have no cause to be rude back to them.

As far as my sarcastic and insulting response to Texas Investigative Svcs, I was just giving back what was dished out by him or her, the same thing, only 100 fold, except for other then the insults, I based my information on actual facts, not just make stuff up in a feeble attempt to mock disabled and poor people who were victimized by bank tactics and unethical, deceptive policies.

Lets say Texas is right and all of these people who lodge complaints here are "idiots". So then it would hold that the banks are taking advantage of "idiots" and since they are "idiots", it means the banks did not do anything wrong.

Now I may not be a financial wizard or banking "expert" as others claim to be here, but I do have common sense and logic, and can articulate it.

I say it is wrong for the bank to take advantage of ANYONE, whether an idiot, a disabled person, a poor person or a rich person. So if anyone here it calling posters idiots and other names, and blaming them because the bank took advantage of them, I have no mercy on what they get back. And I also believe what comes around goes around so regardless of the nonsense that goes on here, those that do wrong and those that are defending wrong, will get theirs one way or the other, and this includes the banks and those that defend the banks in a rude, condescending, insulting and belittling fashion, mark my words.

If someone can not show compassion for another who was overcharged by a bank to this extent and to be so disrespectful, regardless if initially caused by a customer error, then why should any of us show them any respect or compassion?

Edgeman

Chico,
California,
U.S.A.

Re: The private world

#42Consumer Comment

Thu, April 01, 2010

Ironically enough, Ronny wrote this in the post above his little meltdown:

"Bottom line is we can have a civil debate about a complaint, or leave advice without resorting to hostile and condescending behavior, and sure enough it will have merit."

Nobody should be surprised about this. We've seen Ronny call out for civil discussion more than once. Each and every time he reverts back to his true character. When called on his hypocrisy he usually claims that he had to do it because of somebody else.

Striderq

Columbia,
South Carolina,
U.S.A.

The way to avoid overdraft fees...

#43General Comment

Thu, April 01, 2010

is very simple. As the so called "bank defenders" have stated time and time again is to keep an accurate register. It's as simple as that. Doesn't take rocket science or a doctorate, simple elementary addition and subtraction.

As far as Jim, Robert, Edgeman, Stacy and others go, I have seen posts by all of them where they give it to the bank. But the majority of the posts on this site concerning overdraft fees are caused by the OP not keeping a register.

I guess we can coin a new name. If the people that explain how to avoid OD fees are lumped together as "bank defenders" we can now call those people that post that all the fees are the banks fault and the bank is nothing but an evil corporation as "bank villifiers".

Karl

Highlands Ranch,
Colorado,
USA

*RONNY G, DON'T FORGET TO SING "HANKY-PANKY SONG"....

#44Consumer Comment

Thu, April 01, 2010

It should be sung to the tune of- "THE HOKEY POKEY".

To sing "HANKY-PANKY SONG", simply 'Google' this- STEAK DINNER POEM, and that should take you to where it is posted, correct? (You can always go to the 'Bank of America' page of this site to find that song, which appears in the 'Updates' section.)

Thanky You

Robert

Buffalo,
New York,
USA

The private world.

#45Consumer Suggestion

Thu, April 01, 2010

This is another complaint that has been completely HIJACKED by Ronnie G.

lets have some fun with this joker...

Ad Nauseum? More like nausea you are spewing here. It's not a matter of "making a profit" you neanderthal.

you do know America is a free country, right you f**king back asswards mountain hillbilly goat f**king freak).

perhaps you better go back to sister or uncle f**king or whatever it is you mountain folk do for kicks.

Okay ignoramus

perhaps you should go back to shucking corn or whatever it is you do for a living.

Listen carefully Buford

even a hick like you can understand

So although there, Hoss

By the way ol "Jed"...

"Now ifin you can a learnin to red proberly like"..you would notice THIS

And guess what there Cletus???

So go back to a milkin or shooting road signs or whatever it is you normally do..you have NO place here unless you grow a brain.

STOP FEEDING THIS TROLL!!!

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

Who is this TexASS Investigative Svcs person?

#46Consumer Comment

Thu, April 01, 2010

What an arrogant bag of "fresh springtime scent" hiding behind the cloak of the internet. lets have some fun with this joker...

Texa*s Investigative Services stated..."They all say in a nutshell. I messed up and the Bank should have been understanding that I am an Idiot and give me my Money back because I don't think it's right for them to make a profit off of a Poor Unemployed, Disabled, etc. Person, and IF I can make enough people side with me we can force a Private Business (The Bank) to Change it's policies and give me my money back because............................. Ad Nauseum!"

Ad Nauseum? More like nausea you are spewing here. It's not a matter of "making a profit" you neanderthal. It's a matter of the means. Now it is fact according to the FDIC report that the poor/unemployeed and disabled and very young have paid a disproportionate amount of these fees, but you are acting like a big spoiled d**k to think it is some kind of personal attack against you that they would like some restitution and/or changes due to unfair and unethical policies.

And by the way, it's not a matter of "think" the people can force a "private" business (which by the way uses PUBLIC funds to bail them out when they f**k up) and is back and insured by the Fed, it's a matter of principle and rights as an American. (you do know America is a free country, right you f**king back asswards mountain hillbilly goat f**king freak).

Now as far as the CURRENT lawsuits, the judge listened to the banks defense during the dismissal stage, and it failed. So unless you think you are smarter or more adept to the law then a Judge, perhaps you better go back to sister or uncle f**king or whatever it is you mountain folk do for kicks.

"You would have faired better by pleading your case to a bullfrog."

"Faired" What does that mean? Regardless, I think the only one talking to bullfrogs, is you since it would not be unexpected of a back a*s country bumpkin such as yourself.

"You ADMIT that you KNEW what the overage Charges would be."

Okay ignoramus. The report is right there over on your right side (opposite of where you sit when driving your pick up truck) during rebuttal. Where does this poster state they knew what the charges would be?

"Then You feel you were slighted by simple advice that EVERYONE on here has given you" Keep a better eye on your balance" Know before you spend."

Uhhh, I think this poster feels slighted for being charged $420.00 in fees less then $80.00 worth or transactions. Unless you have some magic mountain voodoo spell or something to view the statement of this poster, perhaps you should go back to shucking corn or whatever it is you do for a living.

"If you only have 100 in the bank and spend 101 it is still an overage that you will be charged for. When you use your Debit card (Even as a credit card) A Hold is put to insure the merchant is paid. It may not be transfered out of your account UNTIL the merchant closes his sessions for the day. No Matter, you swiped the card to spend 101, KNOWING you only had 100, and KNOWING what the Penalities are if you overdraft your account."

Listen carefully Buford...the complaint is not about being charged a fee for going one dollar over, which most banks nowadays will forgive as per policy changes anyhow. But once again, where do you have any documentation that this customer "knowingly" overdrafted? The customer clearly states so even a hick like you can understand..that and I quote.... " I looked online at my account and it said the charges were pending and showed my balance with them taken out, so I thought they were taken out"..

So although there, Hoss, this customer made a mistake, it does nothing to back up all your insinuation (you know that word I hope), that anything was done knowingly or with malfeasance, (ohhh another big word) or intent.

"If you put 1/2 the effort into keeping your check book register balanced as you do trying to get money out of a bank for your mistake.. You could be a Gazillionaire."

Sung to the tune of the Beverly Hillbillies theme song:..."well the next thing you know ol' Jeds a gazillionaire"..

By the way ol "Jed"...nowhere in this complaint do I read this customer asking for a dime back. "Now ifin you can a learnin to red proberly like"..you would notice THIS is what the OP stated...and I quote....

"I think it is ridiculous how they have it set up to steal our money. We really need to band together, talk to our senators or whomever and put a stop to this."

And guess what there Cletus??? That is EXACTLY what is happening. So go back to a milkin or shooting road signs or whatever it is you normally do..you have NO place here unless you grow a brain.

Thank you,

Signed Ronny G.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

response for Striderg..

#47Consumer Comment

Thu, April 01, 2010

It seems the order of some posts got scrambled here..or "re-sequenced". The difference is on this site is was a glitch, when the banks do it, it is with intent.

It is irrelevant which bank you work for if it is not the regarding the bank in question during rebuttal of a complaint against that bank. However, I did state I have not personally seen a CSR of a bank in question respond on this site. I also stated that doesn't mean it has not happened, but I still stand that I have not noticed it, and simply request evidence to prove the contrary. Not that difficult of a request.

The reason some posters accuse bank defenders such as Robert, Jim, Edgeman and Stacey of working for the bank, is because it is a logical assumption. Although personally I do not believe any of them work for the bank, I can understand the assumption. For someone to come here and irrationally defend the banks so passionately, one would wonder why anyone would do this for no personal gain. The rudeness, belittling, presumptuousness and innuendos, or otherwise insensitive replies only add to the assumption, since often when they call the bank, the CSR tells them exactly the same BS and nonsense. So can you really blame a poster who does not understand what these half a dozen or so bank defenders do here, to think they are actual employees? I think it is a reasonable assumption.

And in closing, I state the majority of those that are lodging complaints here would easily quit giving their money to the bank if the banks policies were less deceptive and more fair. I also believe if the banks policies were less deceptive and more fair, that we would not be here now, and the lawsuits would not have made it through, and the feds would not of had to step in.

I also agree that some customers have not been as careful as they should have been with their account, and they hold some responsibility. But that does not make them stupid, criminals or take away their rights to complain if they were treated unfairly. If as some of the bank defenders state, they are really trying to help these customers, if the approach was done with respect and integrity, there would be less debate. Once these bank defenders start in with the attitudes and belittling and rudeness, their advice is worthless by default, even if it was good advice or left with good intent.

An analogy would be like what Karl does here. It makes people like myself who mean well look like I am a nut case. The ONLY thing I have in common with Karl, is that I side with some posters who lodge complaints..if I feel the complaint has some merit. Karl on the other hand is really a bit off kilter, no doubt.

Now with some of the arrogant and nasty attitudes of some bank defenders, unfortunately it places anyone who defends a bank into a category, and the category is not going to be named a pretty word. Bottom line is we can have a civil debate about a complaint, or leave advice without resorting to hostile and condescending behavior, and sure enough it will have merit.

Karl

Highlands Ranch,
Colorado,
USA

"CREEPY POEM" and "SPAM DINNER POEM" were recently released right here at the #1 site in the world- RipoffReport.com (*In order to read both poems simply.....

#48Consumer Comment

Thu, April 01, 2010

'Google' this- BROCK O'BOMB-A POEM, and that should take you to where "CREEPY POEM" is posted.)

Then 'Google' this- STEAK DINNER POEM, and that should take you to where "SPAM DINNER POEM" is posted, okay?

Thank You

******************************MORTGAGE ALERT*****************************

*Make sure to read all of St. Clair's Ripoff Reports at the MERRILL LYNCH page of this site for some valuable information if you have a mortgage.

Texas Investigative Svcs

Houston,
Texas,
United States of America

You answered

#49Consumer Comment

Sun, March 28, 2010

You answered every one of your Questions in your response.

They all say in a nutshell. I messed up and the Bank should have been understanding that I am an Idiot and give me my Money back because I don't think it's right for them to make a profit off of a Poor Unemployed, Disabled, etc. Person, and IF I can make enough people side with me we can force a Private Business (The Bank) to Change it's policies and give me my money back because............................. Ad Nauseum!

You would have faired better by pleading your case to a bullfrog.

You ADMIT that you KNEW what the overage Charges would be.

Then You feel you were slighted by simple advice that EVERYONE on here has given you" Keep a better eye on your balance" Know before you spend.

If you only have 100 in the bank and spend 101 it is still an overage that you will be charged for. When you use your Debit card (Even as a credit card) A Hold is put to insure the merchant is paid. It may not be transfered out of your account UNTIL the merchant closes his sessions for the day. No Matter, you swiped the card to spend 101, KNOWING you only had 100, and KNOWING what the Penalities are if you overdraft your account.

If you put 1/2 the effort into keeping your check book register balanced as you do trying to get money out of a bank for your mistake.. You could be a Gazillionaire.

Texas Investigative Svcs

Houston,
Texas,
United States of America

You answered

#50Consumer Comment

Sun, March 28, 2010

You answered every one of your Questions in your response.

You would have faired better by pleading your case to a bullfrog.

You ADMIT that you KNEW what the overage Charges would be.

Then You feel you were slighted by simple advice that EVERYONE on here has given you" Keep a better eye on your balance" Know before you spend.

If you put 1/2 the effort into keeping your check book register balanced as you do trying to get money out of a bank for your mistake.. You could be a Gazillionaire.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

Texas Investigative Svcs???

#51Consumer Comment

Sun, March 28, 2010

What do you investigate exactly? Not that it matters, but with such an "official" sounding name you must be someone of great stature..or just another bank defender perhaps? regardless, lets review your reply and shine some light on it...

"You deposit $100 in your account.

You spend $101 on a purchase Knowing you only have $100 in the account.

You pay a Service Charge on the Overage."

The word "knowing" that you use here, implies intent. Now while I agree if this customer overdratfed they are subject to a fee, but how can you state with any integrity that this customer did this "knowingly"? It may not make any difference as far as bank policies are concerned, but if you are going to post a rebuttal or advice or whatever it is you are doing here, it is not going to give you any credibility if you are being presumptuous. If you are going to imply this customer did anything wrong with intent that discredits the report, it would be reasonable that you present some evidence.

From what I read, the customer did overdraft..but thought the charges were pending. In the context of that statement, it would seem apparent the customer did not know they overdrafted, hence your reply is irrelevant.

"This is stated in your Initial Paperwork when you opened the account, It is repeated each time you receive an Account Change notification as required by Law."

Subject to interpretation and if there is a breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the eyes of the law. This "Initial paperwork" you speak of, even if a binding contract this or any customer signs, does not mean the bank can do anything it pleases with impunity..even if the contract states it can.

In previous class action lawsuits the banks have tried to use the "terms" as a defense, and it does not always go in their favor. In current lawsuits, the banks tried during the dismissal stage of the lawsuit to use this as grounds for dismissal, and it was a fail.

In past lawsuits, that defense also has failed...

The essence of the good faith covenant is objectively reasonable conduct. Badie v. Bank of Am., 67 Cal. App. 4th 779, 796, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 273, 284 (1998) (banks addition of an entirely new term to credit card account holders by sending a notice of change of terms requiring ADR along with their account statements was not objectively reasonable even though account agreement gave bank unilateral and non-negotiable right to change every aspect of performance required under it); Lazar v. Hertz Corp., 143 Cal. App. 3d 128, 141, 191 Cal. Rptr. 849, 857 (1983).

"Being Unemployed, Disabled, Mentally Unstable, etc. ad naseum does not exempt you or anyone else from these charges."

This is true. However, whether employed or unemployed, disabled or not, you have the same rights as the next person to lodge a complaint if you feel you were overcharged (the definition of a ripoff by the way), dealt with unfairly or unethically, or simply want a policy or terms of a contract changed. That is the way we get things done in this country.

"The Bank is in business. They Loan you the Overage amount to cover your purchase so you will not be embarrassed at the Walmart Checkout line trying to buy your Items."

This statement is ludicrous. If the banks use this as a defense they are toast on the spot. Does anyone in their right mind honestly believe the banks are charging these fees as a favor to the customers so they can avoid embarrassment? Do you think this customer for example would have lodged a complaint if the debit transactions were simply declined..and said instead they would rather have paid $420.00 in fees for less then $80.00 in charges? A joke.

I may not be able to predict the outcome of the lawsuits, but one thing I would bet my home and car on..that the banks are not going to lack the gumption to use as a defense that any of the policies where put in place to prevent embarrassment. I could not believe the banks attorneys would be the stupid.

"You are required to REPAY the loan amount PLUS time Penalities (Read your account agreement AGAIN) FIRST!"

I will give you this point..IF you can show me anywhere in the checking account agreement that overdraft protection was a "loan" agreement. Oh, I know technically it is a loan, but would any customer actually agree to a loan at 2-3000% interest? Where in the agreement does it state the percentage rate of this so called "loan"?

"Get Money Management Counciling (Usually provided for Free by most Banks)."

No doubt many customers could use this service. However, the banks need an ethics counciling service as well. Since this is apparently not offered, the Feds have to step in and force it upon them, Congress is acting, and the lawsuits continue.

Striderq

Columbia,
South Carolina,
U.S.A.

Worthless preemptive strikes

#52General Comment

Sun, March 28, 2010

Ronny,

The reason I'm listed in this report as a consumer is that I do not work for US Bank. I have posted responses on several different banks and other companies. When I post on one concerning my employer then I post as an employee. Shouldn't be too hard to figure out. But it is kind of funny that posters such as Robert, Jim, Edgeman, Stacy and others are often accused of working for the bank (or other company they're commenting on). But if you review your postings and hysterical ramblings, I believe that you'll figure out what bank I work for. Just like I hope that the majority of people complaining about overdraft fees figure out how to keep a register and quit giving their money away.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

Response to Robert from Buffalo...

#53Consumer Comment

Sat, March 27, 2010

You are correct that the banks are not just gonna sit back and lose revenue. Anyone who disagrees with that is a fool.

However, where you are wrong is by trying to blame any customers for this. The bank is charging for services and "fair" lending because...they are a BUSINESS..correct? Don't the bank defenders always remind us of this?

So, do you expect them not to make any profit at all? Or, do you expect everything you want from a bank to remain the same and they make all their profit by swindling a "minority"?

I already know the answer as you clearly imply it. However this has nothing to do with Socialism Robert. It has to do with Capitalism. The bank is a business we all can agree. However, like any business in this country, if they are doing anything unfair, unethical, shady, illegal, questionable etc... they face lawsuits, complaints, the Feds and bad press. And it doesn't matter if it is a minority or majority or even one person they wrong, in this free country, people have rights as well..not just the banks.

So if you are unhappy when the bank raises your rates or whatever, come back here then to lodge your complaint...just make sure the complaint is against the right party.

I know you feel your rates are going up because the "lazy" minority as you say can't manage their accounts..but the real reason your rates are going up..is because the banks were "busted", and now the gravy train of auto enroll OD protection, and unnecessary re-sequencing is approching it's last stop. If the banks were doing no wrong to begin with, why would ANYTHING be changing now? Think about it.

Texas Investigative Svcs

Houston,
Texas,
United States of America

Cry me a River

#54Consumer Comment

Sat, March 27, 2010

Managing your Accounts 101

You deposit $100 in your account.

You spend $101 on a purchase Knowing you only have $100 in the account.

You pay a Service Charge on the Overage.

This is stated in your Initial Paperwork when you opened the account, It is repeated each time you receive an Account Change notification as required by Law.

Being Unemployed, Disabled, Mentally Unstable, etc. ad naseum does not exempt you or anyone else from these charges.

The Bank is in business. They Loan you the Overage amount to cover your purchase so you will not be embarrassed at the Walmart Checkout line trying to buy your Items.

You are required to REPAY the loan amount PLUS time Penalities (Read your account agreement AGAIN) FIRST!

If you do not repay the Loan amount and Charges the bank MAY add aditional fees until your account is brought into a Positive Amount.

If you do not want the bank to take your Money for Legitimate Fees, use a Check Cashing service and Pay THEIR Fees.

Your comment "I thought they were taken out" is not a defense to your overdraft situation.

Get Money Management Counciling (Usually provided for Free by most Banks).

Robert

Buffalo,
New York,
USA

Worth repeating.

#55Consumer Comment

Sat, March 27, 2010

"In the case of overdraft, 93 percent of the fees are generated by just
14 percent of the customers who exceed their balances five times or more
a year, according to a 2008 study by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Three-quarters of customers are not charged overdraft fees at all, the
study found".

If anyone thinks the banks are just gonna sit back and LOSE this revenue without trying to restore the money stream, he/she is on a cloud.

ALL BANK CUSTOMERS can expect increases in account service fees, credit interest rates, and new fees to make up the lost revenue stream.

My credit card has had the SAME INTEREST RATE for over 10 years, but I suspect it will go up after this summer.

Any one looking for a mortgage, auto loan, etc. can expect interest rates to go up on new credit lines.

In other words, those of us who manage our money can expect increased bank charges to appease the MINORITY of fools who either can't, or in many cases, WON'T (too lazy) to manage their money-and then cry a river of tears when they pay the price for their laziness.

Welcome to the United Socialist States of America.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

And yet another preemptive strike..

#56Consumer Comment

Sat, March 27, 2010

Since I have been though this enough to know what to expect, I might as well respond first, since I would of had to anyhow.

The bank defenders are going to read the article about the BofA policy changes..ignore the essence of it, and pick out a few points that in reality is nothing but gasping for air as if drowning. So let's get this out of the way.

Excerpts from the article...

"Bank officials said that effective this summer, customers who try to make purchases with their debit cards without enough money in their checking accounts will simply be declined. Debit purchases account for roughly 60 percent of overdrafts at Bank of America, the nations largest issuer of debit cards."

What the bank defenders will takeaway from this statement, is that they were right to place all the blame on the customer since they should not have tried to make purchases without enough money in their checking accounts.

On the surface, that is true. However what separates right from wrong in most cases, is intent, or as the law may view it "objectively reasonable conduct".

Was it the intent of the customer to overdraft the account and pay hundreds of dollars at 35 dollars a pop for soda and coffee and lunch? OR...was there possibly a chance that there was INTENT by the BANK to encourage use of the card by not letting customers know there were automatically enrolled in overdraft protection?...AND, to compound these fees by statement manipulations, re-sequencing the times and orders of transactions and other tactics?

Now of course the fees would have been avoided had the customer not overdrafted in the first place..no argument there. BUT..does this excuse the bank from it's part in the swindle? Many feel it does not, hence ligation, and the Feds needed to intervene.

What our customers kept telling me is just dont let me spend money that I dont have, said Susan Faulkner, the banks deposit and card product executive, who said the overdraft changes were part of a broader push to build trust among its customers. We wanted to help them avoid those unexpected overdraft fees.

The bank defenders will love the first part of this statement because in their eyes it proves the point that the fees are the customers fault for spending money they don't have, and why should the bank "babysit" their accounts and actions?

But the second part of this statement is critical. "build trust among it's customers", and "help then to avoid those UNEXPECTED fees" These were stated by a BANK executive ..I am simply quoting. Think about that a little, it is clear to me the bank is not accusing these customers of wrong doing, but changing policies to build trust. So perhaps the bank realizes that they were untrustworthy before the change? Obvious?

There has been considerable consumer and political outcry against overdraft fees on deposit accounts. Over the last decade, the fees have become a major source of revenue for banks as they realized they could make more money by covering consumer overdrafts, offering a short-term loan for a fee, than in denying them.

Speaks for itself. The bank was clearly using those policies as a profit center..not to "protect" us, as they often will say to customers who call and ask why a cup of coffee for a buck fifty was approved when the account was depleted.

But as reports surfaced of customers incurring hundreds, even thousands, in overdraft fees, often for purchases of just a few dollars like a cup of coffee, regulators and lawmakers stepped in. As of July 1, the Federal Reserve will require that banks obtain a customers consent before they can charge them overdraft fees for A.T.M. transactions and debit purchases; many banks now automatically enroll customers.

Doesn't seem too complicated or unfair to anyone..does it now?

In anticipation of the new Fed rule, some banks have begun marketing campaigns to encourage their customers to opt in to overdraft protection to keep the dollars flowing.

Of course they will, which will cause problems leading too more of....

Several bills have been introduced in Congress that would go beyond the Feds rules on overdraft fees.

^ This. And more class actions.

Bank of America, by deciding to scrap overdraft charges on debit card purchases instead, is hoping to bolster its reputation with consumers at a time when anger at banks for their role in the financial crisis remains high.

You think?

Martin Eakes, chief executive for the Center for Responsible Lending, called Bank of Americas decision a very big deal.

Martin is very perceptive.

If Bank of America can forgo the fee income and do the right thing by their customers, this should be seen as a direct challenge to the other big banks to match and do the same, said Mr. Eakes, who serves on a Bank of America advisory council, an unpaid position.

Key words here..."right thing", which in all logic tells us there must have been a "wrong thing" happening...make sense?

Of course, because of the new federal rule that requires customers to opt in to overdraft protection, all the big banks are anticipating a sharp drop in revenue once it goes into effect this summer.

How will they make it up?

But Mr. Eakes said that because of Bank of Americas size, it might have still charged hundreds of millions of dollars in overdraft fees even if most of its 37 million debit customers in the United States dropped out of overdraft protection.

This is correct bank defenders. So you don't have to worry too much. There will still be fees, the changes are simply going to cut down on most of the unjust ones..fair is fair.

Banks are rethinking their policies on consumer products like credit cards, mortgages and debit cards to comply with new laws and regulations and the continued economic malaise. In the past, a relatively small number of customers generated such enormous fees from overdraft charges and penalties on credit cards that they subsidized free checking and generous rewards programs for the majority of customers.

AH HAAAA!! Off the backs of the victims, they were able to subsidize free checking and rewards programs. Now this is what I think most bank defenders are truly concerned about. But..some claim while in debate with me that they are trying to help these customers by teaching them how to keep a register and avoid overdrafting. So, does it really matter how this swindle ends? Whether by all customers becoming "responsible" and educated enough to manage their accounts properly, or by the bank changing some policies to help protect their account? Seems to me either way the banks stand to lose a lucrative source of income. My feelings are some customers need to be more careful, AND the banks need to be trustworthy. Not reaching for anything unrealistic.

Personally, I don't mind paying a fee for checking, I believe a service rendered should be paid for. Also keep in mind that once all the banks either choose to..or are forced to cease the swindles, that it will be very competitive for these banks to get and keep customers..and the fees for checking will be kept in "check" so to speak..so do not worry too much. But do be prepared for the banks to find other schemes. And they may be coming for you next.

In the case of overdraft, 93 percent of the fees are generated by just 14 percent of the customers who exceed their balances five times or more a year, according to a 2008 study by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Three-quarters of customers are not charged overdraft fees at all, the study found.

Another point the bank defenders love to throw around. Only a small percentage blah blah...but the way I see it, is if this was nipped in the bud after the FIRST customer was subjected to the tactics, we would not be here now.

At the risk of this being an extreme analogy, is anyone less guilty of a crime or wrongdoing just because the victims were only a small percentage of a population? In other words, if someone goes on a killing spree, does it matter to the victims if he killed 1% of the population, or 25%? The FDIC study states 3/4 of customers were not charged overdraft fees. So is the cup 1/4 full..or 3/4 empty?

I will say one thing. If left unfettered, the greed would be out of control. Just look at the stats, the fees were increasing every year by leaps and bounds. When was it going to end? perhaps the banks were going for a full blown depression since they weren't satisfied enough with the worst recession in modern history?

So yes, I agree the minority of banking customers have been subjected to overdraft fees, albeit it is still a large number of people and at the cost of billions and billions, but would it make the bank defenders feel any better if it was 50% that were subjected? 60%? When would it have been enough that they admit some wrong doing is going on that may not be only the fault of the customer.

But the collapse in consumer credit, combined with new rules limiting banks ability to make money on credit cards and overdraft fees, has prompted banks to experiment with fees that reach a broader set of customers, like annual fees on credit cards and monthly fees on checking accounts.

Unfortunately, this is the result of when a bank can not make money any other way. So go on and blame the poor and old for the conditions..but I would recommended reading "The Quants" by Scott Patterson if you really want to know what has destroyed this once great economy. And you will learn how we the people are nothing but a number, a statistic, part of a formula..as a living being we mean nothing to these greedy monsters, nothing at all. And while these "mathematicians" gamble away hard working peoples 401K's, the banks were saved by these same very hard working tax payers. Yeah..some of us are pissed. And some us say the banks did wrong. And some of us say that customers were victims of tactics. And some of us are suing. And the Feds are finally moving. Maybe things will turn around.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

It might be over for you Jeanski....

#57Consumer Comment

Sat, March 27, 2010

..but it doesn't mean you are 100% right.

You stated the point "we're" trying to make ("we're" being the bank defenders I assume) is the bank did not do wrong. Well I say they have, and this is why there are so many complaints and lawsuits, and that some banks have been starting to make changes on thier own. The VERY simple fair to all changes I have been harping since day one of me joining this forum. The banks are no angels and I think you know that and just won't admit it out of silly pride.

Next you state you have overdrafted and paid dearly for it. All that tells us is that you have overdrafted, it does not explain the situation or details, therefore no one can say if any additional fees were the brought on due to unfair and unethical bank policies or not.

What is a simple fact is that the banks policies that even the banks themselves will say as a defense, which are designed to protect large CHECK transactions, have been unscrupulously applied to DEBIT card users. The policies such as re-sequencing and excessive deposit clearing times and holds..as well as automatic overdraft protection does NOT do anything to "protect" the average debit card user these days, it only fleeces a percentage of their customers money from the customers pockets, into the banks.

For example (you see I like to back up what I state with examples) Bank of America, which as been slammed with complants and lawsuits against them, is actually making some changes on their own. Here is something copied and pasted from BofA themselves, which THEY announced the other day in it's entirety.

Bank of America to End Debit Overdraft Fees

In a move that could bring an end to the $40 cup of coffee, Bank of America said on Tuesday that it was doing away with overdraft fees on purchases made with debit cards, a decision that could cost the bank tens of millions a year in revenue and put pressure on other banks to do the same.

Bank officials said that effective this summer, customers who try to make purchases with their debit cards without enough money in their checking accounts will simply be declined. Debit purchases account for roughly 60 percent of overdrafts at Bank of America, the nations largest issuer of debit cards.

Banks are bracing for a new federal rule that will require them to get permission from account holders before providing overdraft services for debit purchases and A.T.M. withdrawals. That change was already expected to wipe out billions of dollars in overdraft revenue for the banks.

The bank will continue to provide overdraft protection, for a fee, for checks and automatic payments, say to a biller that debits money from an account each month. Consumers who try to exceed their balance when making an A.T.M. withdrawal are already being notified that they will be charged a $35 overdraft fee if they choose to proceed.

Last year alone, banks generated about $20 billion from overdraft fees on debit purchases and A.T.M. transactions, and $12 billion more by covering checks and recurring bills, according to Moebs Services, an economic research firm.

In anticipation of the new Fed rule, some banks have begun marketing campaigns to encourage their customers to opt in to overdraft protection to keep the dollars flowing.

Several bills have been introduced in Congress that would go beyond the Feds rules on overdraft fees.

The banks overdraft policy will take effect on June 19 for new customers and in early August for existing ones. Overdraft protection will still be available, typically for a fee of $10, to customers who link their checking accounts to savings accounts or credit cards.

Bank officials declined to say how much money the bank earned from overdraft fees, but anecdotal evidence suggests it had been a multibillion-dollar business for the bank.

Consumers have shown a willingness to incur overdrafts if its covering mortgage Bankrate.com and one of a handful of analysts and consumer advocates briefed by Bank of America on its new policy. They dont want to incur overdrafts on everyday purchases. payments or car payments, but not to cover a hot dog and a soda, said Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at

Martin Eakes, chief executive for the Center for Responsible Lending, called Bank of Americas decision a very big deal.

Most major banks continue to charge overdraft fees on debit purchases, though some have modified their policies to appease critics. Some banks do not allow overdrafts for debit purchases or A.T.M. withdrawals.

It was not known on Tuesday how other banks would react to the change in Bank of Americas overdraft policy.

Told of the change late Tuesday, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase declined to comment. A spokeswoman for Wells Fargo said the bank was still working on its overdraft plan as it relates to the new federal rules and was not yet prepared to release the details.

So as you can plainly see, they are starting to do exactly what they are being sued for NOT doing..what timing, wouldn't you say? Now these changes are fair to all..and still the customer must be responsible since auto bill pay and CHECKS are still subject to fees if the customer messes up. And THAT to me is fair, I have no issue at all with it whatsoever.

As far as the end of your statement where you state "and dont use deposited funds until I know theyve cleared", part of the problem is the statement manipulations are set up with INTENT, so that some customers will think they have cleared, but have not. And these cases are EXACTLY why I consistently state that a register is not always 100%. There are other situations where a register does not help, such as unauthorized or unknown holds some merchants, gas stations, restaurants/pubs etc may do that can cause problems, and as witnessed on this very site, have. It has happened to me personally and I can tell you first hand, at that point the register was as worthless as the paper it was printed with.

Now I want ALL the bank defenders to get this point CLEAR once and for all..this is not to say customers should not use a register, they should by all means. But it is simply do demonstrate that it is not the answer every time. The answer is a combination of responsible accounting by the customer, and fair and ethical policies by the bank that can give lower income and low balance customers a fighting chance.

As far as me mistaking the word "paid" for "payed", I give you that point. However, I do not claim to be perfect and I certainly was not an English teacher. Now if you wish to discuss Electrical Engineering, have at it but I doubt you know a farad from a coulomb. I did take creative writing courses and have done my fair share of editing, and I can say that there are people out there a heck of a lot smarter then you or I, that misuse and misspell words. It has nothing to do with their credibility as a writer, teacher, professor or rocket scientist, it is simple human error. Just as happens to banking customers. The difference is a simple spelling or grammatical error may bring a little ridicule at worse, but an honest banking error wipes some people out financially, and with the current economic conditions, this is not the best time for the banks to be taking advantage of customer errors this way.

Next you claim you haven't seen the bank defenders bash anyone? Apparently you do not read these reports through, or do not comprehend hostility, belittling, and condescending expression. But I have no need to present evidence, it is self evident to anyone who reads through these reports.

As far as referring to the bank defenders as "defenders of personal responsibility and common sense", that is fine as long as they are not hostile, and actually use common sense. And I would like to be known as "defender of banks to cease abusive policies". Fortunately, the courts and the Feds are handling that one on a grander scale, and we will all see that everything I have stated regarding this topic since day ONE..is all happening before our eyes.

Now, anyone care to have at it WHY these changes are happening if the banks were doing "no wrong". If not...NOW, case closed.

Jeanski

Hamburg,
New York,
U.S.A.

More to RonnyG

#58Consumer Comment

Fri, March 26, 2010

RonnyG says: What is the purpose to telling someone who has a complaint about the banks policies that "the bank did no wrong? " You know d**n well the bank has done wrong. Actually, the bank DID NOT do wrong, and that is the point were trying to make.

Now honestly..I do not know how old you are..but you may be old. Because you are living in a time when CHECKING account customers got a paycheck and cashed it..or their employer would cash it..and a few bills a month were payed by check. So in that situation going back to like the nineteen f**king sixties, perhaps it some of these policies were actually a benefit to banking customers.

In the nineteen f**king sixties I was a child. I am now 53, divorced, and live paycheck-to-paycheck, so managing my money effectively is crucial. I, too, have overdrafted for stupid mistakes and paid dearly for it. Thats why I use cash instead of my debit card for small purchases (a common suggestion of the defenders), and dont use deposited funds until I know theyve cleared.

And as a teacher, I know that payed is actually paid. If you were a teacher (as you stated you were) youd know that too J

The thing is, the complaints that are flowing in..are from DIFFERENT customers. The Bank Defenders albeit only half a dozen of so..are ALWAYS here to bash the poster. I havent read where any of the bank defenders have bashed anyone. They merely point out the obvious.

Rather than referring to us as bank defenders Id like to suggest we be referred to as defenders of personal responsibility and common sense. A little longer, but more accurate.

My participation in this discussion is over. I've said what I have to say.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

And speaking of "preemptive"....

#59Consumer Comment

Fri, March 26, 2010

I might as well strike now while I have the time, and am on a roll, since I expect the onslaught to continue regardless.

Lets look at a few examples of how the bank defenders have tried to discredit me, twist the truth and facts, and sideline (or detour) the subject at hand.

For one example, we can use Striderq's previous response where he titles it "Ronny misses agin" , the word "agin" (which I assume was meant to read "again"), implies I have "missed" before. Are there any examples to prove that statement.? Any documentation? I await.

Now this reply was in reference to my statement "however an actual consumer relations representative from a bank, as far as I know...has NEVER responded or rebutted to a complaint about their bank of employment. "

Stridergs attempt to prove that I "missed", is by claiming he is a bank CSR that has responded here..or to quote.."I know because I'm one of them". Yet, he responds as a "consumer", not an employee. So in REALITY, who actually "missed" in this situation? Bank defender Modus operandi= truth twist and fact distortion, proven once again and backed up as self evident.

So, in this last example I do not believe I "missed" anything, and we are back to square one..which can be easily settled... Does anyone have any physical evidence that someone from THE bank that is the subject of a report, where a currently employed customer service representative has responded to a complaint lodged against their bank? Perhaps there is a case or two, perhaps not, but as I previously stated quite clearly, that as far as I know, none have responded.

I have had my share of heated debates with the Bank Defender "Edgeman", whom I have dubbed among other things, the voice of reason for the Bank Defenders. And this is because although for the most part I disagree with his views, he does articulate better then others, and at least appears to have been exposed to higher education.

What he tends to do in his attempts to discredit me, among trying to convince us that there is a world I am creating inside my head, is nit pick apart portions of my responses which really have nothing to do with the complaint at hand, such as how I articulate, my writing syle, grammar, sarcasm, figurative speaking, typographical errors, and commonly known cliche's I may use on occasion.

For example, I may use a cliche such as "this is a Democracy". What he will do since he is essentially out of gas and getting shredded in trying to debate the actual issue, is try to discredit me by stating this is not a Democracy, it is a Republic, therefore implying I do not have enough intelligence or historical/political/trivial knowledge to respond here and be taken seriously.

Now although it was simply used as a figure of speech more or less to prove a point, it actually is up for debate. Since whether we are actually a Republic or a Democracy is politically and definitively confusing and now that many feel our goverment is out of control..it is fodder for debate. Most would agree however, that our form of government is actually both a Democracy and a Republic.

These kind of diversions and tactics are common bank defender moves when they are clearly losing the legitimate debate and are simply out of steam. Otherwise the only debate/discussion here would be the banks policies, at least that is a logical assumption.

So when the bank defenders say things like "Ronny is wrong again" etc..you can rest assured if they can present evidence of this, I would defend myself, or concede. But it is just a diversion and a bunch of unfounded nonsense so those who read this, judge for yourself who is on the right side.

Now, as far as these lawsuits and "Mr. Docket #"... my neighbor Robert, I think the banks are in for a rough time. This Judge seems to really know the law and can see the plaintiffs side. Now of course there is legal interpretations to deal with and decisions, and the bank may put up a good fight. But lets look into some history, and see where the banks may fail this time, with this judge...

Now as most bank defenders use as a defense, is the contract the consumer signed. The bank tried to pull this defense at the dismissal stage. The Judge didn't go for it stating "Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing".

Without going into the specifics the judge stated, some of which is in the previous post..lets look at a few sections of the California causes of Action, which is easy for me to access sections being I live in CA and my room mate is a UCLA law student, plenty of legal literature in this house.

Historically and according to the sections I read, this will most likely destroy that defense if the bank uses it, which they will most likely. Although I can not predict, nor can anyone what will happen, I have an idea how this Judge will view it...

4:10   DEFINITION

In every contract there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by each party not to do anything which will deprive the other parties of the benefits of the contract, and a breach of this covenant by failure to deal fairly or in good faith gives rise to an action for damages.

In this section I believe will justify the damages awarded, or contribute to it. I believe it will not be too difficult for plaintiffs defense to prove they were dealt with unfairly, or not in good faith by the defendants. The bank may "claim" the "benefits" of the related parts of the contract are to "protect" the customers by processing large transactions first which are important, such as a mortgage payment. We will see how this works when the plaintiffs ask which was the most important transaction..the coffee or the burger?"

4:33c   Joint Ventures

In a joint venture, the parties owe one another the duty of fair, open, and honest disclosure. They cannot secure or accept secret gains by connivance, deceit, or suppression of facts.

Connivance is the act of conniving or conspiring, especially with the knowledge of and active or passive consent to wrongdoing or a twist in truth to make something appear as something it is not.

Ah...twist in truth, where have we heard that before?

Regardless, if the plaintiffs counsel has any problem proving any conniving, deceit or suppression of facts by the banks it would be amazing. I hope I do not have to list any..as I have already time and time again on this forum.

4:32a   Scope of Duty

The precise nature and extent of the duty imposed depends on the contractual purposes.

Some legal history...

The essence of the good faith covenant is objectively reasonable conduct. Badie v. Bank of Am., 67 Cal. App. 4th 779, 796, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 273, 284 (1998) (banks addition of an entirely new term to credit card account holders by sending a notice of change of terms requiring ADR along with their account statements was not objectively reasonable even though account agreement gave bank unilateral and non-negotiable right to change every aspect of performance required under it); Lazar v. Hertz Corp., 143 Cal. App. 3d 128, 141, 191 Cal. Rptr. 849, 857 (1983).

Done for now..unless anyone else wants to show how I "missed".

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

More info for Robert regarding the class action lawsuits..

#60Consumer Comment

Thu, March 25, 2010

A Miami federal judge has denied requests by the nation's biggest banks to dismiss a class action suit by checking account customers who claim they are being charged abusive overdraft fees on debit cards.

Senior U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King's 50-page ruling Thursday keeps alive a closely watched consumer lawsuit that could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars and is shining a national spotlight on what plaintiffs lawyers say are egregious bank practices.

"It's a really important decision because these banks fought long and hard to get this knocked out at the dismissal stage," said Bobby Gilbert, a partner at Alters Boldt Brown Rash Culmo in Miami and co-lead counsel on the case with Bruce Rogow, "The entire order is a major step forward for us ... allowing us to proceed to the discovery stage."

Miami attorney Barry Davidson of Hunton & Williams, who represents Wachovia, declined comment, as did Aaron Schur of Aaron & Porter in San Francisco, who represents Bank of America.

King's order granted some of the banks' motions to dismiss in some cases, such as claims brought under consumer protection laws in Massachusetts, New Mexico, California, Oregon, Montana, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin. But some of the rulings were without prejudice, allowing customers to re-file their claims.

"The few areas where the court granted their motion without prejudice, they pale in comparison to the overall tenor of the order," Gilbert said.

Five class action suits alleging excessive overdraft fees were transferred last June to King. The multidistrict litigation has grown to include cases in nearly every state involving most of the nation's largest banks, Gilbert said.

Defendants including Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, Wachovia, JPMorgan Chase and SunTrust are accused of deliberately manipulating the order of transactions on debit cards through special computer software -- and in some cases sitting on transactions for days -- to maximize overdraft fees.

A similar suit against BankAtlantic is pending in Broward Circuit Court before Judge Jeffrey Streitfeld. That bank was sued in state court because all its customers are in Florida, Gilbert said.

If the suits are successful, he said damages could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, pointing to a recent report by the Center for Responsible Lending indicating U.S. banks generated $24 billion in overdraft fees in 2008. Studies have shown the amount of a transaction that causes an overdraft is typically lower than the bank's fee for permitting the transaction when customers have insufficient funds in their accounts. The typical fee has been running $35, but some banks have lowered the fee in recent years as more attention was paid to their practices.

The controversy over overdraft fees has already produced some changes. Bank of America announced last week that it would stop charging overdraft fees on debit cards this summer. Instead, customers will be able to use the cards only if they have enough money in their accounts. It's unclear if other institutions will follow the banking giant's lead.

The banks filed a 100-page omnibus motion to dismiss last December, arguing private citizens don't have standing to bring such claims and federal pre-emption bars consumers from suing banks based on federal banking regulations, among other arguments.

Oral arguments were held two weeks ago. King set aside most of the banks' arguments, ruling federal law does not pre-empt state law in overdraft cases.

"Plaintiffs do not ask the court to tell the banks how to order transactions but simply that the ordering must be carried out as contemplated by the covenant of good faith and fair dealing," King stated in his order. "There are a number of cases supporting the proposition that when one party is given discretion to act under a contract, said discretion must be exercised in good faith."

King also disregarded defense arguments that customers voluntarily entered into a contract with banks and agreed to overdraft protection terms, including the fees. He sided with plaintiffs in their view that the disparity in sophistication and bargaining power between customers and their banks "is obvious," and customers did not know they had the option to decline the overdraft protection service.

If the litigation is successful, it would accomplish for consumer groups what Congress could not. A House bill that died in 2007 would have increased regulation of overdraft programs.

-->

..or for anyone else who is interested... Here is some current updates, and a statement regarding Bank of America soon declining debit card usage if the funds are unavailable..some kind of preemptive move and a wise decision by them in my opinion, brought on by the complaints, recent pressure from congress, negative press and pending lawsuits. Changes are coming, and will continue, no thanks to those who would rather us do nothing but blame ourselves and live in fear a mistake can continue allow the banks to swindle us. Keep the complaints coming.

Overdraft Fees Suit Stays Alive in Federal Court

Julie Kay

Daily Business Review

March 16, 2010

Miami attorney Barry Davidson of Hunton & Williams, who represents Wachovia, declined comment, as did Aaron Schur of Aaron & Porter in San Francisco, who represents Bank of America.

"The few areas where the court granted their motion without prejudice, they pale in comparison to the overall tenor of the order," Gilbert said.

A similar suit against BankAtlantic is pending in Broward Circuit Court before Judge Jeffrey Streitfeld. That bank was sued in state court because all its customers are in Florida, Gilbert said.

Oral arguments were held two weeks ago. King set aside most of the banks' arguments, ruling federal law does not pre-empt state law in overdraft cases.

If the litigation is successful, it would accomplish for consumer groups what Congress could not. A House bill that died in 2007 would have increased regulation of overdraft programs.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

I have moved to "debunk" city..

#61Consumer Comment

Thu, March 25, 2010

..and it's a fun place to live.

Lets start with Striderq...

"Actually Ronny, there are bank employees involved in the Customer Service area that respond to postings on their bank and other banks to try to explain what's happened and how to avoid the fees. I know because I'm one of them."

Well what I stated was "however an actual consumer relations representative from a bank, as far as I know...has NEVER responded or rebutted to a complaint about their bank of employment".

What "as far as I know" means, is that as long as I have been frequenting this site, I have not seen an actual rebuttal from a customer relations representative of a bank in question. Does that mean it has never happened? No, but if you are one of them, I ask, which bank is it for?..and what is your current position with this bank? Simple question.

"The interesting part is the advice that I can provide to avoid overdraft fees is the same as the so called "bank defenders". In most, not all but most, cases the fees complained about here are indeed the fault of the OP. By not keeping a register and by not knowing the balance of their account and then overspending. In very few cases the bank is at fault and in all cases I've read involving true bank error the OP has posted that the bank has corrected the error by returning the fees."

Is it the OP's fault that the bank approves DEBIT card transactions when the funds are unavailable? Is it the OP's fault that the bank has re-sequenced all of their DEBIT card transactions? Is it the OP's fault that the statements are manipulated? Another simple question. I know the typical bank defender response will be "then why did they sign to this in the agreement?" Playing devils advocate, I will agree they singed this agreement although in some cases it may not have been policy at the time the account was initially opened. Either way, does anyone believe there is a good reason not to change these policies other then the financial gain it has given the banks off the poor, very young and old US citizens?

As Robert has pointed out, the advice given by the "bank defenders" will keep a person from being charged any overdraft fees. How exactly will any of your advice help a person avoid any fees?

Irrelevant to this debate. The complaints are NOT...let me say this again S-L-O-W-L-Y so even a 2 year old can comprehend it...the debate and complaints are NOT about being charged an overdraft fee for a legitimate overdraft. The issue, debate, and complaints are about the banks tactics of maximizing fees by using policies that are a "guise" by the bank in an attempt to make us believe these policies protect customers..when actually it is nothing but a cash cow for the bank to take advantage of honest mistakes...and to swindle a percentage of customers out of money by using tactics which are unnecessary and for no other purpose then to maximize fees unjustly. The bank defenders of course will always use the terms booklet as a defense..but to many of us this does not mean it is right. If you BANK DEFENDERS think it is wrong that some of us are willing to devote time and effort for what we believe is simply right, then that is okay...continue your abuse which only adds salt to the wounds and makes us even more inspired to make changes.

Now on to Jeanski...

"RonnieG says: My definition of a bank defender is in the behavior and context of those who post here against those who lodge complaints. There are only a small handful of bank defenders vs. the number of complaints, and: Bank Defender: (noun), One who trolls online to respond to those who have been ripped off by a banks unfair, unethical and unnecessary policies, usually done in a condescending and belittling fashion."

"I read the threads carefully to see just what you might mean by this. It seems that the negativity that almost always ensues in these threads starts with the OP not liking the advice given by others. As a matter of comparison, I often respond to posts about for-profit schools because higher ed is my profession. I usually receive a thank you from the OP for providing valuable advice on how to solve the problem. I suspect that those of us who also post on banking issues expect that maybe - just maybe - an OP will respond with, Gee, no one ever explained it that way. Thanks.

I will not argue that good advice is good advice. But do you see anyone thanking you here? If not..perhaps it is time to reconsider your approach. I too have been a teacher, and when I was, there was no way on this Earth I would have found the kind of time you have to come here and redundantly argue points which really are not going to help anyone, even if left with good intent. Care for your students, as that is what your employer is paying you for and you may find more reward than whatever it is you are seeking here. Which if left up to me..will be to continually debunk most responses.

"Im not sure how to take your comment about trolling. If you mean searching around for something interesting then, OK, Im guilty, But honestly, the length and number of your posts far out weighs the combined total of mine, Staceys, I am the law, and Robert."

Just the fact that you classify yourself along with "I am the Law", is enough to prove my point about what a "Bank Defender" is. The difference between myself, and what I consider "trolls", is that this website is dedicated to giving those who were ripped off, or feel they were ripped off a chance to voice their complaint. As well, the company or person the complaint is lodged against, can respond or rebut. I have been a victim of these banks tactics and know others who have as well and I have decided to devote some of my free time to expose what I know these banks do, and attempt to make a change at the source, which has been happening.

What is the purpose to telling someone who has a complaint about the banks policies that "the bank did no wrong? " You know d**n well the bank has done wrong. The customers in most cases who are complaining know d**n well they over-drafted as well. So again I ask..what are you BANK DEFENDERS gaining from this? Why would you waste you time here to defend these banks?

"As you stated previously: "Ripoff Report is a worldwide consumer reporting Web site and publication, by consumers, for consumers, to file and document complaints about companies or individuals" As I peruse the daily posts, I find that most of them are just that - complaints about companies or individuals that truly ripped off a consumer. The majority are for companies that only a minority will potentially deal with. But these bank posts are a little different. I have yet to read a post in which the bank was truly at fault and ripped off the consumer. Yes, the OD and re-sequencing polices may seem unfair, unethical and unnecessary, but the fact remains that banks are a money-making operation and theyre probably not going to change their practices in any substantial way. There are other forums for voicing ones opinions - namely, government regulatory agencies, congressmen, etc. Posting things here isnt going to change anything - except, perhaps (and with great hope), an OPs behavior."

Your ignorance SHINES brightly on this one.

Perhaps you do not have the ability to put yourself in the place of someone who by a human mistake, purchased a coffee or diapers or gas or whatever and had overdrafted. As far as their understanding, the overdraft should cost approx. $35.00 or thereabouts.

Now due to the banks policies that are supposed to "protect" them..has actually elevated the fee from $35.00 to several hundred..which may financially devastate them for months..or possibly life change.

How do you justify this to a ledger or register? By the time you snide bank defenders come to the "rescue" with your profound advice, it is way way too late. The only way to really put an end to this..is if the banks change their policies. Now perhaps some of you may ask.."who is this Ronny G guy to tell the banks how to run their business?"

I am a consumer and a banking customer. And a citizen of the USA. If I truly didn't care, I would not be here now dealing with arrogant banks defenders who attack me personally in droves.

I agree with your statement: I personally believe that banks should be held to a higher standard then a TV infomercial since they are insured by the FDIC, have a lot of control over our economic conditions, and have been bailed out multiple times at the cost of billions in tax payer dollars.

Thank you for agreeing to what should be a given in this society.

I also agree, to a point, with: There is no reason we should fear our banks and take all these extra precautions when all the bank needs to do is simply decline DEBIT card transactions if the funds are unavailable, and cease the useless and completely unnecessary re-sequencing of our DEBIT card transactions.

Please note the underlined phrase. since when is keeping a check register an extra precaution? Before online banking, EVERYBODY had to keep a register to know their balance. Its just common sense! Online banking is wonderful if used responsibly, but the problem with most of the OPs is that they just want to blame the banks for their own irresponsibility. I think thats what irks the bank defenders so much - the lack of personal responsibility.

I am also glad you agree to a point. However have you EVER seen me state one time, that someone should not keep a register?? If so...you or any of the bank defenders can simply copy and paste it..post it here..and watch me with egg on my face.

The thing is..you won't find it. Because I keep a register (well actually six), and believe every banking customer should and have NEVER stated otherwise. The constant accusations that I am some kind of whack job or advocate of irresponsibility is unfounded, and a royal crock.

I totally believe everyone should be equally responsible for their accounts. I just also happen to believe the banks are swindling customers and have been keeping policies designed to protect check users as a guise to "fee" into oblivion DEBIT card users.

Now honestly..I do not know how old you are..but you may be old. Because you are living in a time when CHECKING account customers got a paycheck and cashed it..or their employer would cash it..and a few bills a month were payed by check. So in that situation going back to like the nineteen f**king sixties, perhaps it some of these policies were actually a benefit to banking customers.

But now these days paychecks are often direct deposit, and most bankers are using the debit card in lieu of cash for every day small purchases. Now if you can explain to me like I am a two year old..how re-sequencing or automatically enrolling every debit card user into courtesy overdraft protection does ANY good for these customers, I will concede and bow to you. And if you can explain why the online transactions and bank statements in general are in a state of flux and inconsistent..as well as often stated by the bank defenders on this very site "unreliable", that there is any reason not to want this to change?..we all await with open minds for the answer.

I cant speak for the other defenders, but I, too, feel compassion for those who are victims of banking policies. But have you ever noticed how many of the posts reference how the overdrafting has gone on continuously? Whats the definition of stupidity? Doing the same thing the same way expecting to get a different result. Or, as the studly Tony DiNozzo said, If you always do what youve always done, youll always get what youve always got.

Actually, that is the definition of "insanity". The thing is, the complaints that are flowing in..are from DIFFERENT customers. The Bank Defenders albeit only half a dozen of so..are ALWAYS here to bash the poster. I have for some reason decided to side with some of these posters when I feel they have grounds for complaining and are belittled and knocked by the bank defenders. I am fortunate that I am in a financial situation where I can afford the time, but to me this is an important issue. It is only a matter of a few small changes in the way these banks conduct business that can end it all. Is it really so wrong of me to side against the banks? Dig deep into your soul and tell me I am wrong.

Until people take responsibility for their own finances, I stick by what Ive said - learn to manage a check register and take responsibility for your own money. Get revenge on the banks by NOT overdrafting!

The thing is, most people are taking responsibility, or at least admit to their mistake. Yet they were subject to unfair and unethical policies nonetheless. Do I agree that many customers could have prevented the fees by using more caution? Of course. But at the same time, I am simply holding the banks responsible and accountable for their part, and apparently so is the media, congress and soon to be seen again, courts. So there is more then one way to skin this cat.

But what is more realistic? And be honest. That due to the Bank Defenders responses here that no one will ever overdraft again?...or, that if the banks make a few policy changes, that the overdrafts and excessive fees due to re-sequencing and manipulation will be avoidable before they can even happen? Think hard and answer with sincerity and I will respect your reply.

And now again..Robert...

"I read the threads carefully to see just what you might mean by this. It seems that the negativity that almost always ensues in these threads starts with the OP not liking the advice given by others."

For many months now, it seems to me that most of the "negativity" on these types of posts is from Ronnie G. This hypocrite tries to come on to the OP as though he's Mr. Conviviality, but he normally starts off picking for an argument with some name calling; bank defender and the like.

Don't waste your time feeding this troll.

Oh, BTW, How's that lawsuit you posted about MONTHS AGO coming along? Have a case/docket number yet? No? I didn't think so.

It seems I stuck a nerve with Robert, and he is taking everything so personally. However, I would LOVE for him to copy and paste where I have done anything but come to the defense of posters regarding overdraft fees, or have responded to belittling and condescending responses by bank defenders.

If the term Bank Defender is found offensive to you..then simply cease defending the banks..and you will not be considered as such. Or reap what you sow..that simple.

I do not know why you have this obsession with docket and case numbers..but you can find out more info by contacting Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Michael W. Sobol, [415-956-1000] or Bruce S. Rogow, [954-767-8909], they are the attorneys for the plaintiffs against the defendants Bank of America, Wachovia, U.S. Bank, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank and others. Any victims of said overdraft fees brought on by statement manipulations, re-sequencing, "overdraft protection" or a combination thereof can submit their complaints to plaintiffs counsel at the above..or google [www.bank-overdraft.com], I put it in brackets in hopes it won't be redacted by this site..but if it is just google or search "bank overdraft fee class action lawsuits" and there will be no shortage of results.

Ramjet again...

"Ronnie keeps sayng 'The banks should do this--The banks should do that-- They should change' etc. ad nauseam.

The fact is, we live in the real world and as much as they 'should' do things your way, the fact is that they don't. So if, or until they change, you would do well to follow some of the simple advice you get free here."

First off..it's "Ronny" not Ronnie.

That aside, if the people of this country always believed that way..we would be under the rule of a King or Queen right now, or worse. The fact is, we have the power and most importantly... the FREEDOM to make changes if we are willing to stand up and fight for them. Coming here to debate and argue redundantly with you bank defenders is a small price to pay. The results are what matters in the long run. And if you are up on current events, the fact is changes are taking place that are more fair to the consumer, and will continue to do so..unless we allow the swindles to continue. Sure, some will only complain, and some will only rebut, defend the banks, and blame the posters..but some of us will actually take action, and that is the way we get results.

"You can believe that if the banking rules change, these same 'defenders' will modify the way they are doing business now to work within any new rules and they still won't pay fees."

That is all well and good. We will see what the bank defenders do when the banks are no longer legally allowed to take advantage of the young, poor and elderly, and come after YOU. We will see soon enough.

"Suck it up, admit you need to change what you're doing and avoid all the fees."

I do not have any fees so I do not understand why you addressed this to me. As a matter of fact, I have maintained an open account with Chase for almost a year now..with a grand total of .05 cents in the account. They must love me since I asked if I should close the account, and they told me not to.

you can still b***h all you want, but you won't be paying massive fees while you're doing it.

What are you suggesting these posters do to get back the massive fees they are paying? And what do you suggest can be done to prevent others from paying these "massive" fees that do not read these reports and hence to not get subjected to the "profound" advice by the bank defenders? Or do we do nothing but wait until they are fleeced, come here to complain, and THEN tell them to keep a register? Some of you actually seem on the surface to have a degree of compassion, intelligence and reasonableness, but reality is what is lacking.

Ramjet

Somewhere,
Michigan,
U.S.A.

But this is real life

#62Consumer Comment

Wed, March 24, 2010

Ronnie keeps sayng 'The banks should do this--The banks should do that-- They should change' etc. ad nauseam.

The fact is, we live in the real world and as much as they 'should' do things your way, the fact is that they don't. So if, or until they change, you would do well to follow some of the simple advice you get free here.

You can believe that if the banking rules change, these same 'defenders' will modify the way they are doing business now to work within any new rules and they still won't pay fees.

Suck it up, admit you need to change what you're doing and avoid all the fees.

you can still b***h all you want, but you won't be paying massive fees while you're doing it.

Robert

Buffalo,
New York,
USA

Not the OP

#63Consumer Suggestion

Wed, March 24, 2010

"I read the threads carefully to see just what you might mean by this. It seems that the negativity that almost always ensues in these threads starts with the OP not liking the advice given by others."

For many months now, it seems to me that most of the "negativity" on these types of posts is from Ronnie G. This hypocrite tries to come on to the OP as though he's Mr. Conviviality, but he normally starts off picking for an argument with some name calling; bank defender and the like.

Don't waste your time feeding this troll.

Oh, BTW, How's that lawsuit you posted about MONTHS AGO coming along? Have a case/docket number yet? No? I didn't think so.

Jeanski

Hamburg,
New York,
U.S.A.

RonnieG

#64Consumer Suggestion

Wed, March 24, 2010

RonnieG says: My definition of a bank defender is in the behavior and context of those who post here against those who lodge complaints. There are only a small handful of bank defenders vs. the number of complaints, and: Bank Defender: (noun), One who trolls online to respond to those who have been ripped off by a banks unfair, unethical and unnecessary policies, usually done in a condescending and belittling fashion.

I read the threads carefully to see just what you might mean by this. It seems that the negativity that almost always ensues in these threads starts with the OP not liking the advice given by others. As a matter of comparison, I often respond to posts about for-profit schools because higher ed is my profession. I usually receive a thank you from the OP for providing valuable advice on how to solve the problem. I suspect that those of us who also post on banking issues expect that maybe - just maybe - an OP will respond with, Gee, no one ever explained it that way. Thanks.

Im not sure how to take your comment about trolling. If you mean searching around for something interesting then, OK, Im guilty, But honestly, the length and number of your posts far out weighs the combined total of mine, Staceys, I am the law, and Robert.

As you stated previously: "Ripoff Report is a worldwide consumer reporting Web site and publication, by consumers, for consumers, to file and document complaints about companies or individuals" As I peruse the daily posts, I find that most of them are just that - complaints about companies or individuals that truly ripped off a consumer. The majority are for companies that only a minority will potentially deal with. But these bank posts are a little different. I have yet to read a post in which the bank was truly at fault and ripped off the consumer. Yes, the OD and re-sequencing polices may seem unfair, unethical and unnecessary, but the fact remains that banks are a money-making operation and theyre probably not going to change their practices in any substantial way. There are other forums for voicing ones opinions - namely, government regulatory agencies, congressmen, etc. Posting things here isnt going to change anything - except, perhaps (and with great hope), an OPs behavior.

I agree with your statement: I personally believe that banks should be held to a higher standard then a TV infomercial since they are insured by the FDIC, have a lot of control over our economic conditions, and have been bailed out multiple times at the cost of billions in tax payer dollars.

I also agree, to a point, with: There is no reason we should fear our banks and take all these extra precautions when all the bank needs to do is simply decline DEBIT card transactions if the funds are unavailable, and cease the useless and completely unnecessary re-sequencing of our DEBIT card transactions.

Please note the underlined phrase. since when is keeping a check register an extra precaution? Before online banking, EVERYBODY had to keep a register to know their balance. Its just common sense! Online banking is wonderful if used responsibly, but the problem with most of the OPs is that they just want to blame the banks for their own irresponsibility. I think thats what irks the bank defenders so much - the lack of personal responsibility.

I cant speak for the other defenders, but I, too, feel compassion for those who are victims of banking policies. But have you ever noticed how many of the posts reference how the overdrafting has gone on continuously? Whats the definition of stupidity? Doing the same thing the same way expecting to get a different result. Or, as the studly Tony DiNozzo said, If you always do what youve always done, youll always get what youve always got.

Until people take responsibility for their own finances, I stick by what Ive said - learn to manage a check register and take responsibility for your own money. Get revenge on the banks by NOT overdrafting!

Striderq

Columbia,
South Carolina,
U.S.A.

Ronny misses agin

#65General Comment

Wed, March 24, 2010

Actually Ronny, there are bank employees involved in the Customer Service area that respond to postings on their bank and other banks to try to explain what's happened and how to avoid the fees. I know because I'm one of them. The interesting part is the advice that I can provide to avoid overdraft fees is the same as the so called "bank defenders". In most, not all but most, cases the fees complained about here are indeed the fault of the OP. By not keeping a register and by not knowing the balance of their account and then overspending. In very few cases the bank is at fault and in all cases I've read involving true bank error the OP has posted that the bank has corrected the error by returning the fees.

As Robert has pointed out, the advice given by the "bank defenders" will keep a person from being charged any overdraft fees. How exactly will any of your advice help a person avoid any fees?

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

The answer to everything...

#66Consumer Comment

Wed, March 24, 2010

..is not always knocking others and blaming those who are lodging complaints.

Sometimes, there is a case where the banks or any company is using deception and lack of ethics as a means to pillage their customers. Do they get them all? Not always, but the banks have got plenty.

Why anyone wants to defend these thieves is beyond me but so be it..some just think they are better then others and will always find a way to blame the consumer.

Now while I am not a one sided pig headed bank defender I am open minded enough to agree "some" customers are having trouble keeping track of their expenditures. And I do agree as well that if a fee is applied due to an overdraft, it is within the banks right to charge said fee.

However, until ALL bank customers are given the opportunity to opt out of OD protection, or not automatically enrolled, and until all banks stop the nasty policy of re sequencing transactions and statement manipulations, I will hold the BANK responsible and accountable for every penny they charge that was the result of these policies. Because regardless of the farce these bank defenders wish everyone would believe..which is the ONLY way to prevent these fees is to keep a ledger..it is not going to help the unaware future victims the banks will continue to pillage.

A few simple changes in the banks policies, along with of course the consumer being extra careful, could put an end to these types of complaints. But to say each and every customer that is exposed to these fees can't handle an account, or is irresponsible is insulting and ignorant, it is simply not the case.

The thing that is REDUNDANT actually, is myself going back and forth with the bank defenders or whatever they wish to be called..when it really won't sway any opinions. The bank defenders will always support each other, those who were victimized will agree with my side, and no reasoning will change that either way.

However, being that the banks themselves are changing policies, and new laws are going into effect soon that will apply to all banks and financial institutions..it is quite apparent the tables are turning, and that is an indisputable FACT.

Billy56

Leadwood,
Missouri,
United States of America

U too

#67Consumer Comment

Wed, March 24, 2010

They done me the same way on top of that ,I paid my house off I had with them and they charged me 27,000 dollars for paying my loan off early and the loan was only 30,000,talk about a rip off they are a joke and need to be stopped.

Stacey

Dallas,
Texas,
U.S.A.

Bravo!!

#68Consumer Comment

Wed, March 24, 2010

I could of not said it any better folks!!

I see it as refusing to accept responsibility for one's OWN actions period!! Stop playing the victim and learn to manage your own account - the 80s are over (the decade of me me me)

Grow up - If you cannot manage a bank account deal in cash

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

Responses for all Bank Defenders...

#69Consumer Comment

Wed, March 24, 2010

Jeanski first...

Your definition of bank defender is not exactly how I would define it. My definition of a bank defender is in the behavior and context of those who post here against those who lodge complaints. There are only a small handful of bank defenders vs. the number of complaints, a given, however an actual consumer relations representative from a bank, as far as I know...has NEVER responded or rebutted to a complaint about their bank of employment.

Definition-

Bank Defender: (noun), One who trolls online to respond to those who have been ripped off by a banks unfair, unethical and unnecessary policies, usually done in a condescending and belittling fashion. Most, but not all bank defenders claim to advocate responsibility, yet feel we should do nothing to hold the banks accountable or responsible since it is always the fault of the customer in their eyes. The bank defenders do this for what seems to net them no personal or monetary gain per say, other then the satisfaction derived from thinking their response proves they are "better" then the victims of the tactic(s).

If you are proud to be the above definition...fine, then you are a proud bank defender. I can live with that if you can.

Now on to Robert...

Apparently you are suggesting that I am one of these ""Promoters of Irresponsibility". Can you state where I have ever promoted irresponsibility? Just because I have some compassion for the victims and understand the banks part in this and consistently expose it, does not in any way imply I advocate irresponsibility.

And I have stated more then once on this site, that anyone who falls for the banks tactics once they are aware of what these banks do, I then no longer hold just the bank responsible. What it often comes down to, is the bank taking advantage of an honest mistake, or policies that are really no more then a swindle. I personally believe that banks should be held to a higher standard then a TV infomercial since they are insured by the FDIC, have a lot of control over our economic conditions, and have been bailed out multiple times at the cost of billions in tax payer dollars.

Does this make me a bad person or wrong or all the other wonderful things I have been called by the bank defenders? The personal attacks against me in a feeble attempt by some bank defenders to discredit me, is simply laughable. But in reality this is a sad situation for many people and although I DO agree many of the situations could have been avoided had the customers been better informed or memorized/fully understood the terms etc. most of these situations could have and WOULD have been avoided in the first place if not for the banks tactics and unnecessary blatant ripoff policies designed to take advantage of,and which not coincidentally disproportionately effects the elderly, poor and very young.

The reason I continue to post on the lawsuit cases, and of course I am involved being a bank customer of some banks that are defendants in these cases..is I want a few simple changes to go into effect that are fair..fair to EVERY SINGLE banking customer..bank defenders included. There is no reason we should fear our banks and take all these extra precautions when all the bank needs to do is simply decline DEBIT card transactions if the funds are unavailable, and cease the useless and completely unnecessary re-sequencing of our DEBIT card transactions.

More comprehensive and unfettered statements would not hurt either as it is too easy for some people to lose track when making many small transactions. Should the consumer be more careful? Sure, no argument there, but we should feel the bank is on our side. If they can only make a profit by ripping off people who make mistakes..they are absolutely no better then a swindle..or TV infomercial, and THIS is why all the complaints, lawsuits, pressure from congress, and negative press. And this is why I continue to expose the truth.

The common bank defender status quo of saying "well most customers do not overdraft" means nothing to the MILLIONS of those who have for one reason or another. And if it was to happen to you, I am sure you would want to complain when the banks policies turned an honest $35.00 mistake, into a $200-$300 or often greater expense.

So this is my motive for being a banking policy victims consumer advocate..what was yours again?

Now Ramjet...

"Why in the world would a bank be stupid enough to get into a ridiculous exchange on this web site."

No ridiculous "exchange" would be necessary. The bank would only need to respond once..even to acknowledge there is an upset customer with a complaint lodged here would be a decent gesture. But these days in most of these cases using the term decent with bank would be an oxymoron.

I do know if any of my businesses had a complaint lodged against them here, I would use my freedom of speech to explain here. Part of the premise of this site is to give the persons or business a chance to be heard as well. How a business handles complaints, is a good sign of how they conduct business overall. The banks response is NADA..that to me speaks volumes. But perhaps it can also mean they are instructed not to say anything since it has been, is continuing to be, and will continue to be in litigation until all the appropriate changes are made. One thing for sure..they are certainly getting plenty of emails from this website..and many many many more from customers who do not post their complaints here.

1. These people who are unable to manage their accounts are a small minority of their customers, they should spend their time and effort with the rest of us.

It does not matter if it was only one person, and it does not matter that you consider yourself the self appointed judge and jury deciding who is or is not able to manage an account, but the fact is around 50 million customers have been effected, to the tune of nearly 40 billion dollars in 09 alone. Do people make mistakes? Certainly, but at what cost is fair and reasonable? Oh wait..Fair and reasonable mean nothing to most bank defenders, my bad for even mentioning it.

2. It would not matter what they say, these people are obviously unable to grasp simple procedures that would solve their problems. They don't list to anyone else, why would they listen to bank representatives?

They would listen..but honestly what can the banks possibly say in defense other then what the bank defenders here already say? However, I do not believe the banks would want to say this on a public forum, it makes them look as heartless and unethical as they are, and I am sure they are well aware that it is not good for business to spread this truth.

3. They would just be beat up on no matter what they say.

Probably, we are in agreement here. They are too cowardly to take the beating here..but not too cowardly take money in excessive fees from their customers who make honest mistakes or become victim to swindling policies that do nothing to actually "protect" anything but the officers bonuses. Yes, I would expect a good beating would be dished out.

4. Why would they even try to eliminate this great source of free money?

They wouldn't if it was left up to them of course. However the relentless lawsuits, negative press, congress and complaints are starting to make changes, and they will continue to, mark my words.

5. These people are incapable of carrying on a civil discussion.

"These people"? I have seen certain bank defenders be quite a bit more uncivil then a person who is angry because the bank gouged two weeks worth of paychecks because a few small items were approved while the account was negative. Read though most of the bank reports..especially US Bank, and you will see who is uncivil..and who it is turning these complaints into arguments or unrelated debates.

I expect the responses to this post will prove item 5.

Have I been uncivil? Is the truth uncivil now?

Forget what you want to call the 'Bank Defenders', open up your feeble minds and do what they say whether you like it not. You WILL miraculously cease to have any more overdraft charges.

Now this is mildly uncivil, sarcastic, belittling and condescending. I think anyone hit with these fees are well aware that avoiding an overdraft will prevent overdraft fees. If you read the report..you might not need to call others feeble minded..but suddenly become aware of the issue.

I am absolutely certain however, that they will not do this, they will continue to whine, they will not change their procedures, and they will continue to unnecassarily pay astonomical fees.

Glad you are so certain what everyone else will do. And if someone chooses to continue in ways that cause overdraft fees, then they may lose some rights to complain here. But here is one thing we can all be certain of...

1) Some banks have already started changing these unethical, unfair policies

2) All banks will be soon

3) Lawsuits are going to continue

4) Until certain policies are changed to better protect the consumers money controlled by the bank, you WILL continue to see complaints here against the banks, and you will see the same few bank defenders here doing what they do...for what reason is still not completely clear...but they will do it nonetheless.

Now that's just crazy man!

Edgeman

Chico,
California,
U.S.A.

#8...

#70Consumer Comment

Wed, March 24, 2010

I'll add one to Jeanski's list:

8 Does not see any reason to pay a bank unnecessary overdraft fees. Would prefer to spend a few minutes here and there managing their accounts and not pay any overdraft fees.

Ramjet

Somewhere,
Michigan,
U.S.A.

Why would a bank respond

#71Consumer Comment

Wed, March 24, 2010

Why in the world would a bank be stupid enough to get into a ridiculous exchange on this web site.

1. These people who are unable to manage their accounts are a small minority of their customers, they should spend their time and effort with the rest of us.

2. It would not matter what they say, these people are obviously unable to grasp simple procedures that would solve their problems. They don't list to anyone else, why would they listen to bank representatives?

3. They would just be beat up on no matter what they say.

4. Why would they even try to eliminate this great source of free money?

5. These people are incapable of carrying on a civil discussion.

I expect the reponses to this post will prove item 5.

Forget what you want to call the 'Bank Defenders', open up your feeble minds and do what they say whether you like it not. You WILL miraculously cease to have any more overdraft charges.

I am absolutely certain however, that they will not do this, they will continue to whine, they will not change their procedures, and they will continue to unnecassarily pay astonomical fees.

That's just crazy man!

Robert

Irvine,
California,
U.S.A.

Full Disclosure?

#72Consumer Comment

Tue, March 23, 2010

A question was asked...

So, I have a question. and it is simple. What is the reason/motive that these BANK DEFENDERS devote so much of their time here to defend these banks against the consumers who do SPECIFICALLY what this site is designed for..to simply lodge their complaint?

- That question has been asked and answered several times. But if you want to try and infer that us "bank defenders" are here for some other purpose other than to try and asist people in keeping this from happening again, that is your choice.

However, one question that has not been answered and it invloves the reason that the "Promoters of Irresponsibility" may be posting here. If I recall correctly, when our friend from Hollywood started posting he made it very clear that a)He wanted to file a class action lawsuit, and b)Had a couple of lawyers who are very interested in this.

So tell all of us here what is the reason you continue to post information on these cases. Could it be that it is in fact you that has a financial interest in posting here? Perhaps you are tied to the lawyers office, perhaps you may even be trying to become the "lead plaintif". After all by your logic no one would be posting here unless they had some alternate motive. So what is yours?

Jeanski

Hamburg,
New York,
U.S.A.

Definition of "Bank Defender"

#73Consumer Suggestion

Tue, March 23, 2010

A "bank defender" (noun) is one who engages in the following:

1. Promotes the conscientious use of a check register, and continuous monitoring of one's funds

2. Does NOT rely on ATM, telephone, or internet to determine his/her account balance

3. Typically does not spend more than s/he has in his/her account unless fully prepared to pay the exorbitant OD fees

4. Reads the terms and conditions of the account s/he has opened

5. Fully acknowledges that banks are a money-making business and are not likely to return OD fees just because I screwed up.

6. Doesn't blame the bank when they (a) accidently overdraft, (b) can't feed their children because the bank "stole" money from them, (c) pay OD fees because one debit was posted before another (see item 2 above) and (d) don't have instantaneous access to a deposit (cash or otherwise).

7. Wishes non-bank defenders would read 1-6 above and take appropriate action.

And last, but not least, we don't care about googling anything Karl posts!

PROUD TO BE A BANK DEFENDER!!!!!

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

The term "bank defender", is self descriptive.

#74Consumer Comment

Mon, March 22, 2010

Although anyone may have the "right" to post their "opinion" here..it is NOT the intent of this website. A small handful of arrogant trolls have decided to become self appointed moderators of this website, and so called advocates of responsibility, yet blatantly ignore the true purpose and intent of this website.

The INTENT of this website, is for those to lodge complaints..or as stated on this websites homepage..

"Ripoff Report is a worldwide consumer reporting Web site and publication, by consumers, for consumers, to file and document complaints about companies or individuals"

Now although whether I personally may disagree with replies or rebuttals posted here, it does not mean I ignore the rights of anyone to reply or rebut. However one may ask..why is it with all the bank complaints on this site...do you not ever hear from the actual banks consumer relations dept to reply or rebut regarding a complaint against them?

The wonderful thing about this website, and the United States of America, is our freedom of speech. Now why with this right, AKA the First Amendment, do these banks not respond? This website clearly states...

"If you are a business with one or more reports filed against you, you can make it right. If handled correctly, Ripoff Report(s) filed against you can actually help improve your credibility and reputation. We offer you the opportunity to file a REBUTTAL to any report. (See the RESPOND rebuttal box at the end of the specific Ripoff Report you wish to comment on). Every company receives complaints, but how they handle those complaints separates good business from bad business."

Now the last part I underlined, says it all. The ironic thing is, most of these BANK DEFENDERS..who apparently have NOTHING better to do then troll these sites to defend the banks and belittle the VICTIMS, basically state on this website, identically word for word what the banks tell them when they call. However, there is no way it would be a smart business move for any actual bank employee to treat a customer this way and respond in such a condescending manor on a public forum. Because surely that would not be good for business or their already hurting reputations.

So, I have a question. and it is simple. What is the reason/motive that these BANK DEFENDERS devote so much of their time here to defend these banks against the consumers who do SPECIFICALLY what this site is designed for..to simply lodge their complaint?

Stacey

Dallas,
Texas,
U.S.A.

Great!!

#75Consumer Comment

Mon, March 22, 2010

Now Ronny from Lala Land is calling me a "bank defender" - please how ignorant are you??? I know how to manage my account with a little thing called credits and debits - First year Freshman Accounting teaches that

Oh BTW I do not bank at ANY large branch bank but with a small West Texas bank since I worked on my FIRST College Degree - Hey if the bank screws up then that is on them - But if YOU spend more than you have in your account than I suggest you GROW UP and take responsibility for your own actions

Jees get over yourself and get off your pity pot

Amanda

Lincoln,
Nebraska,
U.S.A.

Same thing happened to me in Nebraska

#76General Comment

Sun, March 21, 2010

This happened to me. I didn't call them. I went into the office and said I wanted to cancel my account. The employee in the lobby asked why and I told her the truth. That I made a mistake on my account and I would never be able to afford all the overdraft charges so I just wanted to cancel it until I can pay it back. I had made a two dollar mistake and was charged over 100 at that time that I realized the mistake. She referred me to another person in the back. I told her I understood their policy and it was totally my fault for screwing it up. Because, I was honest with her she reversed all charges of the overdrafts so I wouldn't have to cancel my account. I never had had a problem with my acct before that had happened. You have to be careful about US Bank because they have the pending charges and available balance thing. But, if you are honest with them from the start they will help you to correct it. Have you walked into one of their branches and sat down with someone?

Robert

Irvine,
California,
U.S.A.

Hold On...

#77Consumer Comment

Sun, March 21, 2010

no one wants or cares for your opinions already,

- This is a PUBLIC web site. Just as you can post your opinion, other people can post theirs.

There will be people here who will tell you how to avoid this situation in the future. Unfortunatly there will be people who will tell you exactly what you want to hear. They will use terms such as "bank defender"(which seems to be one of their favorite phases), they do this in order to try and discredit any suggestions people post. Unfortunatly because they are telling you what you WANT to hear in your mind that will justify your thoughts. So you will probably ignore any other advise. But just as unfortunate, is that their comments will do nothing to help you avoid these fees in the future.

my card was taken and used without my knowledge, and the bank refused to reverse any of the charges.

- What? No where in your original report or your other updates was there even a hint of this. So either you just left this little bit of information off in the first place which is very unlikely. Or you are outright lying trying to bring more sympathy and attempt to deflect the cause away from you. This would not be the first time people continue to post "additional" information about their situation. I wouldn't be surprised that in your next update you state that your car crashed into your house right after you lost your job a day before. Extreme..yes, but it does make me wonder what will the next piece of "additional" information you will post about your situation.

As to your original report, and the information that some people feel is "helpful". There are new regulations and policies that deal with Point-of-Sale Transactions. This WOULD NOT have helped you in this situation. Because at the time you made the debits your account balance was positive. So they would not have been declined. Once a debit is authorized(pending) by regulations it CAN NOT be declined, even if that now puts you into an overdraft situation. As to the transfer, again not knowing how exactly you did this, it may be allowed to go through because the policies are generally only covering point-of-sale and ATM transactions. Also, every bank POSTS transactions highest to lowest, and will never post on a weekend or holiday.

To avoid this in the future the two simplest things you can do that just about guarantee you will not overdraft. The first is to keep a written register and write down every transaction as you make it. Then never even attempt to spend more money than you have available.

Jim

Orlando,
Florida,
USA

You Just Don't Get It, Rosie? Do You?

#78Consumer Comment

Sun, March 21, 2010

YOU overdrafted the account whether you like to hear that or not. YOU did this because YOU kept on using an ATM card WITHOUT HAVING A CLUE of your actual balance because YOU don't have the maturity to keep written records of YOUR account usage.

You can blame the bank all you wish. You can find fault with all of us who responded by telling you exactly what got you into this mess and how you can change it all in a heartbeat...if only YOU would finally act maturely with your finances.

Now, go ahead and continue in YOUR very obvious sub-prime thinking and help the bank make even a bigger profit off YOUR overdraft fees.

You're another sorry example consumer financial stupidity!

Jeanski

Hamburg,
New York,
U.S.A.

Rebuttal

#79Consumer Comment

Sun, March 21, 2010

Rose, if you don't want anyone's opinion on your story then you're posting in the wrong place. That's what ROR is for. "I am the law" makes a legitimate point - YOU are responsible for managing your balance. The bank didn't steal anything - you let them take it by not keeping a register, and by spending more than you have. You should be glad that you aren't charged with theft.

As for the other bank you mentioned, my bank works the same. That is, my card is declined if I don't have the funds. But US Bank gave you a copy of their policies when you opened the account, and you're responsible for understanding them.

Your best revenge is to manage your account more carefully so that you never overdraft. According to a statistic I read somewhere, 10% of account holders are responsible for 90% of the OD fees. So the 90% of us who are doing it right (and not overdrafting) are probably worth listening to.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

Class Action Lawsuit info...

#80Consumer Comment

Sun, March 21, 2010

Sorry, the lawsuit info was redacted by this site but you can find info by searching US Bank class action lawsuit. A few may come up so look for the more recent one. I believe Oct 09 is most current. If the info below posts it is a link so try clicking it.

Industry News: Class Action Lawsuits Filed Against Bank of America (NYSE:BAC), Wachovia (NYSE:WFC), U.S. Bank (NYSE:USB), JPMorgan Chase (NYSE:JPM) and Citibank (NYSE:C) Over Overdraft Fee Policies

You may not get all or any of your money back, but the lawsuits are just a part of what have been slowly bringing change to some of these unfair and unethical policies.

Good Luck.

Ronny g

North hollywood,
California,
USA

Pay no mind to the bank defenders..

#81Consumer Comment

Sun, March 21, 2010

Stacey is bad enough..but that "I am the Law" character would push you down a flight of stairs in your wheelchair rather then admit this bank could do any wrong.

You are not alone. Click on or copy and paste a link below..or google US BANK COMPAINTS...interesting reading about this bank. Everything from customer complaints, employee complaints; consumer abuse; discrimination; scandals; fraud; embezzlement; incompetence, securities fraud..you name it..this bank has done it, and perhaps invented a few new ones.

(((Redacted)))

And contact either of the below to join a class action lawsuit against this bank. If you did not wish the card transactions to be approved if the funds were unavailable, and you would have preferred the transactions to have been declined rather then the bank charge fees as a "courtesy" to cover it..you have grounds for joining the suit.

Bank customers assessed overdraft fees who wish to learn more about this litigation should visit (((Redacted))) where they can submit their complaint to plaintiffs counsel.
Contacts

(((Redacted)))

CLI CK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.

Stacey

Dallas,
Texas,
U.S.A.

Karl gets an F

#82Consumer Comment

Sun, March 21, 2010

I don't read your idiotic poems because they are crap just like your google this

Grow up get a life

I approved this message

Stacey who is afraid of nothing but stupid people

Karl

Highlands Ranch,
Colorado,
USA

*ROSE, THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO GET THEIR PLEASURE BY.....

#83Consumer Comment

Sat, March 20, 2010

voicing their opinions about many of the Ripoff Reports posted at this site.

Some opinions turn out to be right, and others turn out to be wrong. Don't let it bother you. Just shrug it off, like I do. You can even write poems and post them under some of the Ripoff Reports. (Stacey doesn't like to read any of the poems. I think she's scared of the truth.)

*Anyone can 'Google' this- BROCK O'BOMB-A POEM, and read that poem and all the others posted under that Ripoff Report, right?

And anyone can 'Google' this- RIP OFF REPORT BANK OF AMERICA PAID A FRAUDULENT CHARGE TO MY CREDIT CARD, and read all of the poems posted under that Ripoff Report as well, correct?

Good luck to you, Rose.

Rose

sherwood,
Oregon,
United States of America

You opinated people keep to yourselves

#84Author of original report

Sat, March 20, 2010

All you people with nothing better to do than give you opinions. You know what they say Opinions are like a-holes everyone has one and they all stink!!!!!!! no one wants or cares for your opinions already, you no nothing of what happened, my card was taken and used without my knowledge, and the bank refused to reverse any of the charges. Geeze are all you people working for the bank and have guilt?

I am the law

Chicago,
Illinois,
USA

Nope, still your fault.

#85Consumer Comment

Sat, March 20, 2010

Geez, Rose. You're playing the handicap card, huh? Well, it was either that one or the race card. Rose, despite being confined to a wheelchair, you seem to at least have enough intelligence to use the internet, so I'd assume you have enough intelligence to not spend money you don't have. Even if a bank would intentionally let you overdraft your account (and I'm not saying USB doesn't allow you to do this), managing the balance is still your responsibility. Stop blaming the bank for something you admit you did.

brent

Snell,
Virginia,
United States of America

Old News

#86Consumer Comment

Sat, March 20, 2010

Thanks for your report, but really it is old news. Banks have been using this same strategy for ten-fifteen years; that's why you get negative comments.

Your best bet is to get a low cap credit card that fits your monthly budgetary needs, pay off that CC each month, and toss the ATM card in your desk drawer.

Rose

sherwood,
Oregon,
United States of America

Mr who thinks he is the law Chicago

#87Author of original report

Sat, March 20, 2010

No one wants your presupposition about anything, if I were well-off would I be bemoaning about the bank taking all of my money? No I wouldn't. I have a college degree but because of some drunk driver I am in a wheelchair and unable to work now and need every penny to feed my child.

You and your big words are a joke. I really hope something like this happens to you. You seem like a really irascible person. You are not the law, you are a inferior person with nothing better to do than sit on your big fundament and make fun of other peoples predicaments. No one said the bank person was supranaturally rude, you did.

Get off your high horse ignoramus and take those weiners out of your mouth and be indubitable . I don't desiderate or need your opinion. I'm sure your a lonely old man with nothing better to do than deride people, Wa Wa Wa I'm laughing at you now. Why don't you take your opinions where the sun doesn't shine.

Rose

sherwood,
Oregon,
United States of America

US Bank

#88Author of original report

Fri, March 19, 2010

No this is not off a website, this is what really happened to me and I am just trying to let people know.

I am the law

Chicago,
Illinois,
USA

Is this off of a website?

#89Consumer Comment

Fri, March 19, 2010

Anyone ever notice that most stories about OD fees usually involve an impoverished customer crying and supernaturally inhumane behavior by the bank employees? I've noticed most of them also have some sort of plea for patriotic or religious support. Are these overdrafters copying and pasting this material off of some pro-overdrafting website or what?

Stacey

Dallas,
Texas,
U.S.A.

Uh huh

#90Consumer Comment

Thu, March 18, 2010

Did you keep a check register of all the purchases you made?? Never EVER rely on online, atm or phone balances because they are not accurate - and NO I do not work for ANY bank - I learned from my faults to keep a check register - I suggest you do the same

Reports & Rebuttal

Complaint Review: US BANK - US BANCORP - Portland Oregon

US BANK - US BANCORP Rip off artists Portland, Oregon

*Consumer Comment: Uh huh

*Consumer Comment: Is this off of a website?

*Author of original report: US Bank

*Author of original report: Mr who thinks he is the law Chicago

*Consumer Comment: Old News

*Consumer Comment: Nope, still your fault.

*Author of original report: You opinated people keep to yourselves

*Consumer Comment: *ROSE, THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO GET THEIR PLEASURE BY.....

*Consumer Comment: Karl gets an F

*Consumer Comment: Pay no mind to the bank defenders..

*Consumer Comment: Class Action Lawsuit info...

*Consumer Comment: Rebuttal

*Consumer Comment: You Just Don't Get It, Rosie? Do You?

*Consumer Comment: Hold On...

*General Comment: Same thing happened to me in Nebraska

*Consumer Comment: Great!!

*Consumer Comment: The term "bank defender", is self descriptive.

*Consumer Suggestion: Definition of "Bank Defender"

*Consumer Comment: Full Disclosure?

*Consumer Comment: Why would a bank respond

*Consumer Comment: #8...

*Consumer Comment: Responses for all Bank Defenders...

*Consumer Comment: Bravo!!

*Consumer Comment: U too

*Consumer Comment: The answer to everything...

*General Comment: Ronny misses agin

*Consumer Suggestion: RonnieG

*Consumer Suggestion: Not the OP

*Consumer Comment: But this is real life

*Consumer Comment: I have moved to "debunk" city..

*Consumer Comment: More info for Robert regarding the class action lawsuits..

*Consumer Comment: And speaking of "preemptive"....

*Consumer Comment: More to RonnyG

*Consumer Comment: It might be over for you Jeanski....

*Consumer Comment: And yet another preemptive strike..

*Consumer Comment: Worth repeating.

*Consumer Comment: Cry me a River

*Consumer Comment: Response to Robert from Buffalo...

*General Comment: Worthless preemptive strikes

*Consumer Comment: Texas Investigative Svcs???

*Consumer Comment: You answered

*Consumer Comment: You answered

*Consumer Comment: "CREEPY POEM" and "SPAM DINNER POEM" were recently released right here at the #1 site in the world- RipoffReport.com (*In order to read both poems simply.....

*Consumer Comment: response for Striderg..

*Consumer Comment: Who is this TexASS Investigative Svcs person?

*Consumer Suggestion: The private world.

*Consumer Comment: *RONNY G, DON'T FORGET TO SING "HANKY-PANKY SONG"....

*General Comment: The way to avoid overdraft fees...

*Consumer Comment: Re: The private world

*Consumer Comment: Robert from Buffalo is correct...

*Consumer Comment: Lost all credibility

*Consumer Comment: Edgemen THE bank defender du jour

*Consumer Comment: ...Striderg again...

*Consumer Comment: Ronny...

*Consumer Comment: ...and the "bank defenders" win...again...

*General Comment: Reasons why...

*Consumer Comment: More "ping pong" with the bank defenders...

*Consumer Comment: "COME CLEAN POEM"....

*Consumer Comment: Another correction for Striderg...

*General Comment: Ronny, Ronny, Ronny...

*Consumer Comment: More proof...

*Consumer Comment: Response for Striderq and Robert...

*Consumer Comment: Response for Striderq and Robert...

*Consumer Comment: left out another response for Robert...

*Consumer Comment: Actually, RonnyG, the bank defenders ALWAYS win...

*Consumer Comment: "Always" Truth Detector?

*Consumer Comment: "Always" Truth Detector?

*Consumer Comment: Oh wait, another "lose" for Truth Detector...

*Consumer Comment: Response for ramjet...

*Consumer Comment: RonnyG swings...and MISSES...

*Consumer Comment: *Truth Detector said: "if you're going to debate at the big-boy table, at least bring some facts." HERE'S A FACT:

*Consumer Comment: It figures Truth detector is a yankees fan...

*Consumer Comment: Might as well stop arguing.

*Consumer Comment: "Might as well" this, I am the Law...

*Consumer Comment: Folks, read this rebuttal from RonnyG CAREFULLY...

*Consumer Comment: Yes, read the "rebuttle" carefully...

*Consumer Comment: Overdraft fees rock.

*Consumer Comment: I am the law..SO IGNORANT, it doesn't deserve a response...

Consumer Comment: ROSE, THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO GET THEIR PLEASURE BY.....

Consumer Comment: "CREEPY POEM" and "SPAM DINNER POEM" were recently released right here at the #1 site in the world- RipoffReport.com (In order to read both poems simply.....

Consumer Comment: RONNY G, DON'T FORGET TO SING "HANKY-PANKY SONG"....

Consumer Comment: Truth Detector said: "if you're going to debate at the big-boy table, at least bring some facts." HERE'S A FACT: