US BANK Can you say...scam? Rocklin, California

is only available at this site. Just type in 581744 and it appears in the comments section at Ripoff Report #581744.

WELCOME TO AMERICA- ONE MASSIVE LIE THAT IS BEING EXPOSED ALL OVER THE WORLDWIDE WEB IN POEMS AND IN SONGS THAT ARE ALL TRUE

is available in the comments section at this Ripoff Report.

Happy Holidays 

was submitted at this website on October 5, 2011.

Just type in 269041 at this site to see if it is available in the consumer comments section at Ripoff Report #269041.

Thank You

***CREDIT CARD ALERT: Don't forget to type in 271454 at this site and read Betty's Ripoff Report for valuable information if you have a credit card in the USA.

ANYONE CAN GOOGLE THIS!

ANNOYING LITTLE TROLL POSTS IRRELEVANT POLITICAL BULLCRAP POEMS ON ROR! THIS PERSON SHOULD GET A LIFE.

TYPE IN THIS CODE ON THE WEBSITE FOR PICTURES OF KARL'S MOM!

69

is available in the consumer comments section at this Ripoff Report. It appears at 'Consumer Comment #73'.

Thank You

***BANK CD ALERT: Make sure to type in 453956 at this site and read Jim's Ripoff Report for valuable information if you have money invested in a CD at any of the publicly held banks in America, like Wells Fargo.

Love Dove,

"Beware people, beware.... Rip offs, Rude, ATM's outdated, Hold on checks, Daily fees, BAD BAD SERVICE."

Ok, I won't speak to the "rude" "bad service"or "outdated ATM" parts, but it sounds like you're a new customer with USB. If you're wondering why the ten day hold on new accounts called , you can blame the idiots in government for that. All new accounts/banks do that. It's not specific to USB. Federal law requires that banks disclose this information to the customer. (It's called Reg. CC) This, along with their fee schedule, is included in the account documents that you signed when you opened the account.  

is available at this website!

Just stay at this site and type in- WELLS FARGO, and it appears in the consumer comments section at Ripoff Report #411913.

Thank You

***CREDIT CARD ALERT: Don't forget to type in 271454 at this site and read Betty's Ripoff Report for valuable information if you have a credit card.

Love Dove,

"Beware people, beware.... Rip offs, Rude, ATM's outdated, Hold on checks, Daily fees, BAD BAD SERVICE."

Ok, I won't speak to the "rude" "bad service"or "outdated ATM" parts, but it sounds like you're a new customer with USB. If you're wondering why the ten day hold on new accounts called , you can blame the idiots in government for that. All new accounts/banks do that. It's not specific to USB. Federal law requires that banks disclose this information to the customer. (It's called Reg. CC) This, along with their fee schedule, is included in the account documents that you signed when you opened the account.  

will be submitted in the consumer comments section at this website soon.

Just type in- BANK OF AMERICA, to see if it is available.

Thank You

***CD ALERT: Don't forget to type in 453956 at this site and read Jim's Ripoff Report for valuable information if you have a CD at any of the big banks, like Wells Fargo, and spread it all over the web at sites like Twitter & Facebook!

Love Dove,

"Beware people, beware.... Rip offs, Rude, ATM's outdated, Hold on checks, Daily fees, BAD BAD SERVICE."

Ok, I won't speak to the "rude" "bad service"or "outdated ATM" parts, but it sounds like you're a new customer with USB. If you're wondering why the ten day hold on new accounts called , you can blame the idiots in government for that. All new accounts/banks do that. It's not specific to USB. Federal law requires that banks disclose this information to the customer. (It's called Reg. CC) This, along with their fee schedule, is included in the account documents that you signed when you opened the account.  

US Bank is truely a rip off bank. They are not professional, and have the worse customer service ever. They are honestly out to rip you off in every which way possible. I deposited a check five days ago and the check has already cleared on the other end, but US Bank will not release my funds until the ten day hold is up. After many phone calls and transfers, the end result was a slap in the face. No one was able to help me, and what gets me the most, was the attitude behind every customer service rep and manager.

I am very disappointed I switched banks for driving convenience, but as soon as this check clears I will close my account with US BANK. Never again, will they earn my business. I do not recommend US BANK to anyone.

Beware people, beware....

• Rip offs


• Rude


• ATM's outdated


• Hold on checks


• Daily fees


• BAD BAD SERVICE

has been composed and will be submitted at this website in the consumer comments section soon!

Just stay at this site and type in- BANK OF AMERICA, to see if it is available.

Thank You

***BANK ALERT: Make sure to type in 453956 at this site and read Jim's Ripoff Report for valuable information if you have a CD at any of the big banks, like Wells Fargo, and spread it all over the web at sites like Twitter & Facebook!

I wish USB would give some fee money back to overdrafters, but on the promise that they use it to buy a gun to shoot themselves with. It's called "improving the gene pool by eliminating the stupid and weak".

is available in the consumer comments section at this Ripoff Report.  It appears as 'Consumer Comment #19'.

Thank You

***MORTGAGE ALERT: Make sure to stay at this site and type in the following and read the Ripoff Reports for valuable information if you have a mortgage in the USA-

MERRILL LYNCH
LITTON LOAN
BANK OF AMERICA
WELLS FARGO

Hello,

I've been victim of this stuff myself so I know what I'm talking about. US Bank, Wellsfargo, TCF, it doesn't matter. If it's not a credit union, then they are all playing the same game: transaction manipulation. They rearrange transactions to make them "occur" in such a way in order to attain more fees. Customers who have never experienced such a thing are probably the lucky ones who always maintain a healthy balance on their account. Some of us, however, live paycheck to paycheck. Most of the time I'm able to do everything just fine but occasionally something falls through the cracks--and then a terrible headache in fees ensues when it should only have been one or two.

I have witnessed myself that if you're hovering toward a low balance, AND if you're routinely low until that next paycheck comes--the banks DO keep track of this. I believe they have the ability to push certain transactions through faster just to get their fee before the next deposit hits. I don't have any proof other than my own experiences. Heck, the banks have made it pretty much impossible for people like me to have a case because of the rearranging of transactions and dates. What the author said about suddenly all of the prior transactions going in the red--I am with her. She wasn't out "spending" money she didn't have. Rather one transaction didn't have enough $ and it happend to be a debit card purchase so the bank back tracked and did what they could to get as many fees out of the "one" as they possibley could. It happens all of the time and those of us with lower bank account balances are often their easiest targets.

The only real protection, I guess, is to opt out of overdraft protection as suggested earlier. This still doesn't relieve some of the fees or some of the sneaky games the banks will play, however.

Ever sense I've had my "Ready Debit" prepaid account, nearly ALL of my financial miseries have disappeared. Ready Debit doesn't play any games and they don't back-track transactions. They list things how and when they happened accurately and this is what I like.

was submitted at this website on August 12, 2011.

Just stay at this site and type in- BANK OF AMERICA, to see if it is available in the consumer comments section.

Thank You

***MORTGAGE ALERT: Don't forget to type in 481508 at this site and read St. Clair's Ripoff Report for valuable information if you have a mortgage in the USA and spread it all over the web at sites like Twitter & Facebook!

is available at this Ripoff Report!

It appears at 'Consumer Comment #73'.

Thank You

***PRESIDENTIAL ALERT: Don't forget to type in all of the following and read the Ripoff Reports for important Presidential and Vice Presidential information-

OBAMA
BUSH
CLINTON
REAGAN
d**k CHENEY

is available at this Ripoff Report in the consumer comments section. It appears as 'Consumer Comment #19'.

Thank You

***MORTGAGE ALERT: Don't forget to type in all of the following and read the Ripoff Reports for valuable information if you have a mortgage in the USA-

MERRILL LYNCH
GMAC
PHH MORTGAGE
LITTON LOAN
HAMP
COUNTRYWIDE
MORTGAGE

is available at this website!

*Just type in- OBAMA, and it appears in the consumer comments section at Ripoff Report #724174.

P.S. Anyone can type in 724174 at this site and that will take you to Ripoff Report #724174.

Thank You

Out of curiousity, Karl, why do you keep posting all these political poems on ROR? Are you on some sort of commission program each time someone reads them or what? Why don't you post this stuff on a political blog instead. No one on ROR is looking to discuss politics. (at least in great detail)

was submitted at this website on May 3, 2011.

*Just stay at this site and type in 724176 to see if it has been posted in the consumer comments section at Ripoff Report #724176.

Thank You

P.S. Don't forget to type in- OBAMA, and read all of the Ripoff Reports for valuable information.

WELCOME TO THE WHITE HOUSE- ONE BIG JOKE

OVERDRAFT POEM

My money's all gone
The bank's CEO laughed
I call it theft by deception
He says it's a bank overdraft
We can't afford salmon or tuna
Gotta go catch us some carp
The bank's CEO keeps laughing
Government still throwing 'em TARP
That's the taxpayer's money
They're getting richer each day
While we're all fishing for carp
They're eating lobster and fillet
Obama said he's for us
Said it in last year's campaign
Now we're losing our jobs
While CEO's sip their champagne
What's going on in this country
Seems as though everyone lied
No more salmon or tuna
Only carp that's deep-fried
Overdraft poem is over
Got me a fish that's a bitin'
I'll fillet it and deep-fry it
And I'll never stop fightin'.

End.

Anyone can stay at this site and type in 502469 and go to 'Consumer Comment #18' at Ripoff Report #502469 to see that "OVERDRAFT POEM" was also posted on November 9, 2009.

Thank You

WELCOME TO THE PUBLICLY HELD BANKING SYSTEM IN AMERICA- ONE BIG LIE

Overdrafters seem to take great pleasure in starting class action lawsuits against banks for fees THAT THEY AGREED TO. So, in retaliation for that, I think I'm going to start my own class action lawsuit against overdrafters.

What is the basis of this lawsuit? Easy. Because banks are constantly being subjected to frivolous lawsuits from overdrafters for fees they brought on themselves, the banks have lost some amount of profit. That being said, the bank is going to pass that loss onto the good customers somehow. This is most likely going to be in the form of less favorable conditions on loans and mortgages, higher interest rates on credit cards and other lines of credit, lower payouts on CD's, investments, and savings account, and fees imposed on previously free products. So, I'm sure it won't be horribly difficult for me to prove that overdrafters have financially impacted good customers, including myself.

Come on, good bank customers, let's line up to sue these losers back to the Stone Age! Granted, they probably don't have alot since they can't even maintain a bank balance, but let's go for it anyway and put some morons back in their place! 

is available at this website!

*Just type in 411913 and it appears as 'Consumer Comment #79' at Ripoff Report #411913.

Thank You

WELCOME TO AMERICA- ONE BIG LIE

is available at this website!

*Just type in 646259 and it appears in the consumer comments section at Ripoff Report #646259.

Thank You

is availabe at this website!

*Just type in 646259 and it appears in the consumer comments section at Ripoff Report #646259.

Thank You

was originally going to be written to the tune of the Neil Diamond song entitled- 'Love On The Rocks', but at the last minute a change was made, and it was written to the tune of another popular song instead.

*Anyone can stay at this website and type in 668678 and go to 'Consumer Comment #5' at Ripoff Report #668678 and sing- "RUN ON THE BANKS SONG".

Thank You

BIOWEAPON POEM

Kill those birds

Kill the fish

Make them sick

That's their wish

Spray that poison

Destroy our air

Big-shot leaders

Do not care

Poem's over

The world's a joke

Someday soon

Goes up in smoke!

End.

Anyone can go to CLEANAIRANDWATER.NET and watch the videos where planes are spraying chemicals into the air that are killing birds and fish, and also making human beings sick, right?

Thank You

***************************** POEM ALERT *****************************

More poems are available at this site by simply typing in the following numbers and they appears in the consumer comments section-

411913

502469

529757

271454

261157

92641

476868

685022

648567

is a song that's available at this site!

*Just type in 411913 and it appears as 'Consumer Comment #59' at Ripoff Report #411913.

Thank You

****************************** SCAM ALERT ******************************

*Anyone can stay at this Ripoff Report and go to 'Consumer Comment #19' and read "SCAMERICA POEM".

when you 'Google' this- ORIGINAL DISSENT WHO CONTROLS THE U.S. ECONOMY?, that website is no longer available, right?

It goes without saying that we can't see your bank account, but obviously there was one or more transactions that took you below your $2 remaining available balance. I realize that you called the branch, but you don't make mention of what they said actually caused your account to go negative. 

Still holding onto that "they charged me for no reason" excuse?

Well, here's some advice, why don't you call the authorities so they can investigate it? What am I saying? You're not gonna do that because you know (but won't admit) the banks do not charge unsubstantiated fees.

Take the challenge and post the results if you're man enough.

DOW JONES POEM

Karl, I wonder if you've noticed that people are getting just plain sick and tired of your ridiculous childish rantings.  They are getting so old and obnoxious that they are actually counter productive. I have never seen a positive comment from anyone.

I understand that you are frustrated with MANY things and you think this will help.  NOT! Even if you have a few valid points (I wouldn't know because I never follow your silly directions) they are completely lost because you are so irrational and irritating.

Besides wasting bandwidth and server space with ridiculous irrelevant comments. 

You are not performing a useful service, you posts rarely are relevant to the topic you are posting on and you are essentially just making a complete a** of yourself.

I am certain, however, that this will make as much difference to you as all the other comments from people who want you to go away.

What a jerk!

 

Karl, go away. No one goes to your stupid Youtube channel. Go Google yourself.

Whatever, Ronny.

and look at the pictures of all the people who are there, right?

Okay..another reality check...

"Ronny G, if you cant even admit that another person has a point, you need professional help."

Well YOU need to be able to express a point, or actually have one before anyone can "admit" you have one. So the point of your original reply seems to be to insult the author by stating he is an idiot that can not add and subtract. How can I admit you have a point there when judging by the report, he can obviously add and subtract? Speaking of points if you do not actually get the point of this report, read through some of the responses, I explained it in GREAT detail.

Then your next point seems to be if I can read and comprehend the English language correctly, is asking if he called the bank, and stating it does not seem like he did. But the author stated in the report he called the bank already. So what point was made?

As far as putting me in my place this will be all well and good if I was debating over what the poster may or may not have said in his discussion with the bank.


Now... AGAIN, I was not debating this, nor do I need to know every word that was said. The report itself states what the complaint was, and that he called the branch, and what they told him. His compliant is similar to millions of other bank customers, and thousands lodged here on this site alone. I do not need to be Carnac the Magnificent to "assume" what was discussed nor do I need someone to explain it to me..it is already APPARENT to me exactly what the bank did due to an overdraft, which the poster admits may be his fault. Now if the bank did not explain it to him clear enough, I certainly did in my replies without having to call the author names. You on the other hand deserved it, so I dutifully obligated.


"Hey, whose statement is this? Oh wait, its yours -->"

I can not debate what was discussed with any merit since the specifics of the discussion are not posted" So, you just admitted that you have NO IDEA if the author asked about what happened to make him go negative. So why do you continue to argue with me?

I am not arguing or debating what was said since I can read I know what was said. I am only pointing out you are too cowardly to admit you didn't read in the report that the poster called the bank when he did. If this is not the case and you "meant" to type something else..fine, but then just admit that and then we can argue about how WRONG you are after. Don't "alter" anything..admit it. Then your boo-boos will go away.


Oh, and while I am fully aware there are distinct differences between schizophrenia and multiple personality disorders, I can say with much certainty that you have displayed symptoms of each disorder. So no need to divert the topic of the report any further, you are doing that enough as is.

I don't really care about having any "victory", but it is obvious who is right and wrong. No need for the OP to have to come back here and tell us anything, just go read the stinking report already and be on your way..or if you have a legitimate rebuttal or comment that can help anyone feel free to contribute. Or face more massive debunking. Actually there is not much more needed to be said as far as "our" argument..that is all self evident and has been pointed out enough. But if you feel the bank has not conducted any kind of scam, or contributed in any way to the avalanche of fees thrust upon this customer then we can have a mans debate and I will explain it again, or copy and paste replies I have already posted explaining it in extreme detail.

Ronny G, if you cant even admit that another person has a point, you need professional help.

I guess its time to put you in your place again. Heres a copy of the authors original post for the millionth time.

"I called the branch where I opened my account and they gave me this lecture of "Its your responsibility to check your account daily" and blah..blah blah..even after I told them that I check it everytime before I make a purchase of $10.00 or more just to be on the safe side."

Ok fine, let me respond to your last post. What transaction(s) put the authors account negative? How much were they each? Im waiting. What? You cant tell from this statement? Oh yeah, thats probably because theres absolutely no mention of how the account went negative. So again, the author just asked for the fees to be waived; not an explanation of how he overdrafted. There is a difference. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Hey, whose statement is this? Oh wait, its yours -->

I can not debate what was discussed with any merit since the specifics of the discussion are not posted" So, you just admitted that you have NO IDEA if the author asked about what happened to make him go negative. So why do you continue to argue with me?

If this is what it takes for you to get hard, Ill alter one of my previous comments. Lets change Here's another idiot that can't f'n add and subtract. Did you call the bank?" to "Here's another idiot that can't f'n add and subtract. Did you call the bank and specifically ask them how you went negative and not just ask for the fees to be waived?" (even though I already clarified that anyway in the next sentence from my original post when I said, Grow a pair and call them so they can explain it. ") Do you feel better now? Did that make the boo-boo go away?

Tell you what. Why dont you contact the author and ask him if he actually asked for the rep to go through the transactions? Then, and only then, Ill let you have your pathetic little victory. Sound good to you?

You and I both know that this argument is just you looking for any avenue, no matter how weak, to get back at me because I repeatedly STOMP you in other posts. Your life must be sad. I almost feel sorry for you.

By the way, schizophrenia is not the same as a multiple personality disorder and I have no idea whats up with the crazy highlighting. This website does weird things sometimes.

Have a nice day.

Lets break down this idiotic cowardly response and see how it "adds up"...



"Ronny G, Thank you for telling the world that you can't verify what was said in the author's conversation with the bank rep."

 Telling the world what? I do not have to verify anything that was said in the conversation. It is already typed in by the OP for the "world" to see, so what is the point to even bringing that up? Unless maybe you can verify what you think was or wasn't said in a phone conversation that you did not listen in on..and apparently not even bother to actually read the report before you reply to it and assume what was said or not?

That's all I was asking.

Asking who? You didn't ask me what was said in this conversation. Now you do ask the author in your original reply if he called the bank. We all know the answer to that already so what does that have to do with me? I read the report, I didn't have to ask anything regarding what was said in the PHONE conversation, or if he called the bank.

Oh you also mention he is another idiot that can't add and subtract. If you actually read the report, he can subtract that he used 14 dollars and change from the 17 dollars the bank told him was "available" on the "convenient" 800 number on the card...AND that he also can add or multiply even, as he states the 8 dollar a day rip off fee will be 40 dollars in 5 days before his paycheck comes in. See how much you can learn by simply READING..amazing, isn't it?

Now that you've admitted that there is a possibility that the account history wasn't discussed, we can move on"

Whatever I stated, has NOTHING to do with an "admission" of anything. Why would I need to "admit" something can be a "possibility" regarding this phone call which is obviously going to be about the fees?..almost anything is "possible", right? It is also possible the account history was discussed as well. That is called a "STATEMENT", not an admission you neanderthal. I mean since it appears you did not actually read the report you chose to ignorantly respond to, maybe you ought to consider reading it, and then without "assuming" anything, you will know what the complaint is regarding, and what was said on the phone call. And once you understand (if that is even possible) what the compliant is regarding, you may be able to come up with a reasonable conclusion, like the rest of us, what the poster would call the bank up to discuss even if every single word of the conversation was not typed in the report.

Now try to be a man, admit you were wrong to say the OP didn't say he called the bank when he did say this, and grow some balls yourself, they may suit you.

By the way..if you actually do suffer from a multiple personality disorder..or dissociative identity disorder, you might like to know that there are medical treatments for this. As far as the stupidity, cowardliness, pretend arguments and basically being an a*****e..you may have to live with those, I do not know if those conditions are treatable if you were raised that way.

...that a person can be this dumb. Well either that, or they can not read. And if a person can not read, perhaps they have no place responding on this site.

Since you seem to insist you won some kind of imaginary argument, we can have a little fun with that..but first can we even get a straight answer from you regarding MY questions and the argument that is taking place in reality?  Like a first grade test-

1) YOU state it doesn't seem the poster author called the bank-

True []        False []

2) The author states he called the bank-

True []        False []

No need to answer actually, it was already copied and pasted by me several times so you can't win. Nope, not even by diversion, lies or made up pretend arguments.

Now, if you want to waste more time with the "pretend" make believe imaginary argument..we can do this too.

But even you must have the brains to realize YOU are the one who can not verify what YOU "assume" was said. But YOU are the one that keeps bringing it up..well you and your split personality "I am the Law". HOWEVER, we know what was said by what the author stated in the report..let me refresh you...

"I called the branch where I opened my account and they gave me this lecture of "Its your responsibility to check your account daily" and blah..blah blah..even after I told them that I check it every time before I make a purchase of $10.00 or more just to be on the safe side. "

So there it is again ^^^^ See it?...right there..look up ..that is what was said as far as we know. No way to debate it..it is already stated in the report clear as day. The author states what was discussed by him and the bank. Not every word verbatim I am sure, but the point of it..which is that he is telling the bank he checks the account daily, and the bank is telling him it is his responsibility to check it. Does it say ANYWHERE that he only called to have the fees reversed as you assume and imply? No, it does not..this is what YOU are assuming and basing your defense on. I can only go by what the author stated in the report. I will not base my side on assumptions as you are doing..just the facts jack.

Now lets recap and we can then CONCLUDE that there is no actual debate over what was said, that this was a created argument in your heads..and that it is IRRELEVANT to any discussion, debate or argument I am involved with here.

1) It starts out with "It's all you fault"..and I quote AGAIN.."Here's another idiot that can't f'n add and subtract. Did you call the bank? Um, doesn't say that you did"

2) I reply that this is wrong, the author DOES say he called the bank. Could have ended there..but NOOoooo...

3) YOU come back with..and I quote..."The author called the bank ONLY TO ASK TO HAVE THE FEES WAIVED, NOT TO GO OVER THE HISTORY OF THE ACCOUNT AND TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THEY WENT NEGATIVE, YOU ILLITERATE MORON."

How do you know the author only asked to have the fees waived? Where does it say this? Why would anyone think I am the stupid one?..You have manufactured an imaginary pretend scenario rather then admit you messed up. AND it seems, you may be the illiterate one.

4) Next, your other personality "I am the Law" chimes in with this brilliance in response # 34...

"Are you two arguing over what MIGHT or MIGHT NOT have been said on the call? I have to get in on this. "

Notice he asks if we are arguing over what might or might not have been said. Well where does he get the idea we were arguing about that? No where before this point did I argue about what was said.

5) Then the other personality "it's all your fault" comes back with this masterpiece..and again I quote..

"I'm not going to "admit" anything Ronny G; except for the fact that you're pathetic. The author's report contains NO detail on him going over the account transactions with the bank rep. He just says that he "called the bank", which I take to mean that he just asked for the fees to be waived. So I'm not wrong."

Pathetic indeed. Here again in his head he thinks and is implying that I am arguing over what was said. But no where to this point have I even mentioned, debated, discussed, argued or assumed what was said. I just went by what the author stated in black and white..which was that he called the bank. If fault had actually read the report, he would have noticed the author called the bank and we would not be here now discussing this nonsense.

 Who cares what was said word for word anyway? The point is if you come here to bash a poster for no other reason then just to bash them and to leave a reply that is of no help to ANYONE, (and can't even do that right), just admit it for Petes sake, or move in with your tail between your legs. Or, we can do this forever. It is too easy to debunk this and so much evidence was left here for the "WORLD" to see..lmao. It is a copy and paste fest.

Ronny G, Thank you for telling the world that you can't verify what was said in the author's conversation with the bank rep. That's all I was asking. Now that you've admitted that there is a possibility that the account history wasn't discussed, we can move on.

"It's all your fault" states..

"Here's another idiot that can't f'n add and subtract. D I D  Y O U  C A L L  T H E  B A N K ?   U M,  D O E S N ' T   S A Y   T H A T  Y O U  D I D. Grow a pair and call them so they can explain it. "

The author states..

" I   C A L L E D    the branch where I opened my account ..."

Notice what is highlighted and underlined..allow me to edit for the sake of simplifying for the simpletons...

"Doesn't say that you did"..

"I called"..

If we can end this by an admission that it was WRONG and FALSE for anyone to state this caller did not call the bank, we can then "move on", or start a debate over what was discussed if anyone is so compelled.

If we are going to debate what was discussed, we must take into consideration what the OP states was said by him, and the response of the bank...and I quote...

"I called the branch where I opened my account and they gave me this lecture of "Its your responsibility to check your account daily" and blah..blah blah..even after I told them that I check it everytime before I make a purchase of $10.00 or more just to be on the safe side."

So, does anyone admit anything so we can move on? Or do we NOW wish to discuss what might or might not have been the topic of discussion of this call to the bank..which coincidentally "It's all your fault" states the poster does not say a call happened, and the OP states he did call..we have yet to see him man up and move on. Pathetic.

I can continue this charade for as long as you can..but sometimes it is best to cut your loses and move on..could we at least agree on that?

The same annoying green highlight..the same stupidity and waste of time...hmmm, you would think "I am the Law" and "It's all your fault" are one in the same. Safe assumption? Either that, or we have an unsolved case of schizophrenia..or perhaps a multiple personality disorder??

Regardless...."Ronny G, Thank you for telling the world that you can't verify what was said in the author's conversation with the bank rep. That's all I was asking. Now that you've admitted that there is a possibility that the account history wasn't discussed, we can move on."

Kindly post where you asked me to verify what was said in the authors conversation with the bank..

 I simply responded when you said..and I quote...
 
"Here's another idiot that can't f'n add and subtract. Did you call the bank? Um, doesn't say that you did. Grow a pair and call them so they can explain it. "

And I copied and pasted from the original report from said author..and I quote..

"I called the branch where I opened my account ..."

So what is in question or THE question??? Have another hit of crack and maybe you will be coherent????

That is all I am asking.

Ronny G, Thank you for telling the world that you can't verify what was said in the author's conversation with the bank rep. That's all I was asking. Now that you've admitted that there is a possibility that the account history wasn't discussed, we can move on.

In reply #34 of this very post I am the Law states..and I quote...

Well, during today's travels on ROR, I noticed this little back and forth between Ronny G and It's All Your Fault. (Awesome name, by the way.)

Are you two arguing over what MIGHT or MIGHT NOT have been said on the call? I have to get in on this.

Ronny G: Fault does have a point. There is no mention of the customer going over the transactions with the person on the phone. It is possible that he just called up and asked for the fees to be removed. That's not unheard of.

First note, I am the law actually shows a sign of a brain, and asks a question before assuming...the question is asking if we are arguing over what might or might not have been said on the call.

Unfortunately, he then goes on to prove he has no brain, because there was no "argument" over what might or might not have been said on the call. The other idiot brought this up when he was confronted about the FACT that he stated it does not seem the OP called the bank, when in the report, the poster stated he called the bank. Proven, indisputable FACT.

Then, I am the Law goes states that it is "not unheard of" that someone would call to ask for the fees to be removed. The thing is I never debated this. At the same time, I can reasonably say, that it is "not unheard of" for someone to call the bank when they are disputing fees, to discuss how and why the fees were applied as well as ask for fees to be removed..that goes hand in hand, no debate needed really.

Regardless, the only debate I was involved with, was that "fault" states the poster did not call the bank and to grow some balls, and the poster did actually call the bank, and posted this in the report.

So, you BOTH can not comprehend anything, and continue to respond without reading what you are responding to.

Lets clear this up once and for all...

To "fault", you state it does not say the poster called the bank. The poster says he called the bank..any dispute?

To "I am the loser, I mean Law", The answer is NO, "we two" are NOT arguing over what was said during the call. Fault my be bringing it up, but I have no argument over what was said. It is IRRELEVANT to any debate I am involved with. He says the poster did not say he called the bank, and the poster said he called the bank. Any dispute?

Now this type of tactic and behavior is TYPICAL of the ignorant bank defenders when they are brutally LOSING an argument..they make up a "pretend" debate that no one is actually debating with them, so they can claim a "pretend" victory. Sorry, those with the IQ of a block of wood or higher should be able to see right through that nonsense.

To review...lets look again at what the OP states in the original report...and I quote...

"I called the branch where I opened my account and they gave me this lecture of "Its your responsibility to check your account daily" and blah..blah blah..even after I told them that I check it everytime before I make a purchase of $10.00 or more just to be on the safe side."

So..what can be "reasonably assumed" or concluded from this statement? Well obviously, that the OP says he called the bank..right?? There it is..look up ^ there, it is not that difficult. Does it say he called or not? I awaut how to get out of that one.

Next...although we can not debate what was actually said during the call based on assumption, what does it seem most likely the poster would have asked or discussed with the bank, for the bank to respond that it is the OP's responsibility to check the account daily...

Scenario 1: I want the fees refunded...???

Scenario 2: Why did it say my available balance is "xx dollars" and a few days later I see it is overdrawn, and every purchase from a few days ago when it said the funds were available now have overdraft fees...???

Scenario 3: What color underwear do you have on..???

Which one is more "not unheard of"???

Idiots.

Thank you in advance.

Again, I have to type the same crap over and over so these IDIOTS can understand..

THERE IS NO DEBATE OVER WHAT WAS DISCUSSED...HENCE I WILL NOT, CAN NOT, NOR IS IT POSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO DEBATE WHAT WAS DISCUSSED.

HOW MUCH MORE SIMPLY CAN THIS BE STATED??????????????

"I am always an a*****e"  CLEARLY stated (as I have copied and pasted SEVERAL times)...

 "Here's another idiot that can't f'n add and subtract. Did you call the bank? Um, doesn't say that you did. Grow a pair and call them so they can explain it. "

The OP stated in the original report, and AGAIN I have copied and pasted this SEVERAL times..

"I called the branch where I opened my account ..."

Notice what is highlighted and underlined. Like I am talking to a f**king 2 year old I have to explain...read it for yourself..."Um, doesn't say that you did"...OP.."I called...". What more do you need for proof you lame idiot?

So I hung myself how?

Another LOSER get a life please. Unless you can debate how someone stating a poster did not call the bank when they did call the bank somehow means they did not call the bank.

What kind of CRACK are you smoking bro? You been partying with Karl or something?

And AGAIN I request..if anyone wish to debate what was said...ask a psychic..we can only assume someone who calls the bank because they were ripped off would be asking how and why and give me my money back. What is the point to debating that unless you have no other way to defend your ground?

Ronny G, you just hung yourself. ------>

"I can not debate what was discussed with any merit since the specifics of the discussion are not posted"

So, what you're saying is that you can't confirm that the author asked the bank rep about HOW the account went negative.

Need that copied and pasted a few more times, smart guy? Here you go --->

"I can not debate what was discussed with any merit since the specifics of the discussion are not posted"

"I can not debate what was discussed with any merit since the specifics of the discussion are not posted"

"I can not debate what was discussed with any merit since the specifics of the discussion are not posted"

You just admitted that you ASSUMED that the person asked about the account history. BUSTED! You lose! HAHAHAHAHA!

 

Your reply CLEARLY stated (as I have copied and pasted SEVERAL times)...

 "Here's another idiot that can't f'n add and subtract. Did you call the bank? Um, doesn't say that you did. Grow a pair and call them so they can explain it. "

The OP stated in the original report, and AGAIN I have copied and pasted this SEVERAL times..

"I called the branch where I opened my account ..."

So there it is in black and white..you state it does not say the OP called the bank, the OP states he did call the bank.

So you were WRONG to suggest, imply, accuse, assume or however you wish to term it, that the OP did not call the bank.

Now, if you wish to debate what was discussed during this call to the bank which apparently and obviously occurred, then fine, kindly post/copy/ paste etc what you "think" was discussed, and debate it amongst anyone who is willing or able to debate what was discussed.

I can not debate what was discussed with any merit since the specifics of the discussion are not posted, but, I can REASONABLY assume if the OP had a problem with fees he believes were not justified, that the reason to call the bank would be to clear this up. Or..maybe he called to discuss womens shoes?....or the price of tea in China? Or the BP oil leak? Maybe socialized health care???? The 16 year old girl who tried to sail around the world herself? Maybe the balloon boy hoax?, OJ trial? A used car rip off? Maybe a psychic ripped him off too??..I don't know. I can only assume what is logical.

Whatever it is you think the OP called the bank to discuss is one thing..but I can assure you and everyone else, that you CLEARLY state it does not seem the OP called the bank...and it CLEARLY states the OP did call the bank. So to weasel out of this one is simply NOT POSSIBLE. What is in question is the fact that you accuse this poster of not calling the bank when he did..but now you want to squirm out of it by putting up for debate what was discussed when this was not in question UNTIL you were called out...ain't gonna cut it bro.

Hence, without assuming anything, you are proven 100% WRONG by the overwhelming evidence as posted here for all to see, unedited, and never to be removed.

And by trying to insult me or others by labeling us as "overdrafters" like it is herpes or something is also not going to cut it. As if overdrafting in itself was such a horrible thing, why would the banks have been automatically opting everyone into overdraft coverage services without consent? And why would they even offer these services to begin with if it was such a "crime?" Why not simply decline the transactions if overdrafts hurt the bank in any way? Seems the banks had the authority and legal right to decline any debit card or ATM transactions that can overdraft the account all along. And seems many customers would have preferred the transaction be declined rather then pay 35.00 bucks for a soda..so why have they not been doing so until the Feds forced it on them? Now there is a subject up for debate I would think.

 I simply defend those that are victims to bank tactics. And the consistent and unrelenting exposure of these unethical bank tactics have led to law changes and more major class action lawsuits. Nothing more to make of it really. There is really nothing more to discuss unless you feel the need to hear the same thing over and over. I have no problem obliging if you feel this need, but it should really not be necessary after the first umpteenth times.

I'm not going to "admit" anything Ronny G; except for the fact that you're pathetic. The author's report contains NO detail on him going over the account transactions with the bank rep. He just says that he "called the bank", which I take to mean that he just asked for the fees to be waived. So I'm not wrong. Do you see a sentence that says that the bank rep told him which particular transaction put him over? Go ahead and copy and paste it if you do. Don't waste your time because it's not there. You need to quit assuming s**t. If the author gets on here and says "I called the bank that day and went over the transactions in the account.", I'll go ahead and take back my comment. Until then, you're just showing how weak you are. You overdrafters will grasp at any straw you can to try to save face when someone shows you what f'n morons you are. 

at that site so they can do something about fixing the 'broken' system that they control, correct?

The financial wizard "It's all your fault" CLEARLY STATED, and I quote...

"Here's another idiot that can't f'n add and subtract. Did you call the bank? Um, doesn't say that you did. Grow a pair and call them so they can explain it.

Real f'n difficult."

The OP CLEARLY STATED in the original report, and I quote..

"I called the branch where I opened my account and they gave me this lecture of "Its your responsibility to check your account daily" and blah..blah blah..even after I told them that I check it everytime before I make a purchase of $10.00 or more just to be on the safe side. "

So where is the "assumption"?????????????????????????????????????????? The only "assumption" was made by the financial wizard "Its all your fault", that it doesn't say the OP called the bank...and it is stated in print that the OP called the bank.

Sure we can debate what was said..but I have a feeling even a MORON with the IQ of a billy goat, can determine that if someone has lodged a complaint about overdraft fees, that they called the bank to ask how and why the fees were there.

Stop wasting our time "its all your fault", admit you screwed up and move on to bashing victims of hookers and psychics where you may actually have a valid point.

when the Dow Jones was over 13,000 points, correct?

Sorry Law, I have to agree to disagree here. Nowhere in this loser's report does it say that he actually asked what happened to his account to make it go negative when he called the bank. To me, it sounds like he just asked them to return the money for the fees. As far as I'm concerned, he still needs to ask them to clarify why the fees came up in the first place; not just whine like a little sissy 8itch. Big talker Ronny G likes to assume things happened on the call that probably didn't, but I only go by the what the author actually typed.

to Betty's Ripoff Report which was posted on 9/3/2007 when the Dow Jones was over 13,000 points, right?

Karl, no one cares about your youtube suggestions. Go away.

on the web, correct?

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

Okay Rozbert...remind me of my hypocrisy..lets see what you can dig up considering you have nothing better to do. Yes, lets divert the topic of the report from a bank rip off, to proving me a hypocrite.

But, if you are going to use the paypal terms AGAIN, you would need to post evidence how Paypal or Ebay deceptively charge fees, re-arrange transactions and forced customers into automatic overdraft protection on their debit card whether they requested a "line of credit" or not.

And speaking of "novels", I had responded and rebutted to the one you used to leave about me while you were spamming reports..remember?...I requested any response...Robert?? Hello?? I am still waiting. Or should I say "Rozbert?" I considerably debunked EVERY single attack against me personally you attempted to make, and it proved to be pointless, as usual.

Oh, BTW..the link you left in the last response does not go to the report where I apologized for the silliness, as usual it goes to an unrelated report. But either way..the reply you left is actually evidence against what you are accusing me of. Obviously if as you stated was true that I am never wrong or admit it..apprently I was apologizing and admitting I did something wrong. Now if anything I stated in that post that has to do with the ACTUAL topic (imagine that..sticking to a topic?), I will admit it if proven wrong, or rebut and defend myself if I was not wrong, and present evidence proving so regardless of how much typing it takes. Can you present any evidence where I was wrong, or didn't admit it if I was?

If not, kindly stop wasting all our time with this nonsense and try to be useful instead of useless as much of a challenge as that may be for you.

Oh and your good buddy, the other idiot "I am the Law" implied I was taking drugs. As I stated, I do not take drugs. You may consider alcohol a drug, but if I am the law had asked what I had been drinking, I would have stated I was not drinking. Yes, you are trying to somehow discredit me with this ignorant reply..but what answer to I am the laws question would have satisfied you if I do not take drugs, was not on ANY type of drug when I typed the reply, and I do not do drugs? Sure you can post that unrelated nonsense from what was it...over a year ago?...but that does not do anything to prove I use drugs, or was on any type of drug during my reply. So explain what I should have answered Rozbert????? What would have made you happy? Get over yourself loser, you once again failed miserably and no one is going to care anyhow.

Well maybe another idiot that has nothing better to do then insult bank policy victims like I am the Law..perhaps we should post your little confrontation with him in the Walmart report regarding the open CD return? Rozbert the self appointed copyright attorney. You weren't very nice to I am the law in that post. But I dig get a kick when I am the law stated the following..even though he was wrong..it did give me a laugh...

"In response to Robert, who feels the overpowering urge to lie and say that returning open software and DVD's is not a crime, let me say this.....

Robert, everyone knows that this law is in effect. Asking me to quote the exact number of the law, subsection, applicable documentation is just stupid and I'm not going to play your little game. Why don't you put down your Zima and your Cosmopolitan, get off your fat behind, and do a Google search for the information yourself?

This is like me saying "Murder isn't illegal. Prove it. Give me the exact numerical portion of the law, the book it's in, and where that book of law is at right now." Why would someone do all that work for something everyone knows? Do you see how dumb you sound?"

Actually Rozbert, you never did actually show any law where it says whether it is legal or not to return open DVD's, I was the one who did the research, and posted the copyright laws verbatim.

Oh, I could go on, this is fun..but I will await any reply from you and see what you can come up with..I am more then ready to play hardball.

Yes, the man with nothing better to do then personally attack me...why? I don't know, perhaps he has nothing better to do?

Yes I posted a reply ONE time when I had a few drinks in me...then posted again to apologize. I guess this means I do drugs? Hmm, having a few drinks is the same as being on drugs? I mean you need a prescription to have a few beers?

Robert posts...

Even when the Great and Powerful Roz is under the influence hes still always right!  LMAO!!!  BTW, only the Great and Powerful Roz finds it necessary to make four consecutive rebuttals, but hey, dont think for a moment this is a chapter of War and Peace.  LMAO!

I never said I was always right, this is what goes on in your mind. When I am right I present EVIDENCE to prove so, when I am wrong I admit it and move on. And I can make 4 or 4,000 rebuttals if i need to. But in this case it required no War and Peace, I think I stated my point and proof without it requiring a novel..unless you can show us the novel Robert oh brilliant one? War and Peace has 1463 pages and 850000 words, show me where I needed that many words to PROVE the other morons WRONG.

If anything Robert, you seem to have SERIOUS problems..I do not know if it is mental issues, or drugs and alcohol, but something is WAY WAY off with you.

"I wouldnt place too much credence on anything from the Mighty Wizard of Roz.  You see, Rozzy thinks ATM fees are hidden because no one reads the bank terms but when hes defending his beloved Pay Pal and Ebay, hell post countless excerpts from the Pay Pal or Ebay Terms of Service! Hes quite the hypocrite, but hes our hypocrite!  LOL!"

You Robert, don't have to place credence on anything I type here. You can ignore it, or you can rebut it..your choice. Others are smart enough to make a decision and take solid evidence as proof of what i say. You just look like a fool trying to discredit me for no reason other then you are envious or something..or a mental case, I do not know which.

And stop comparing bank terms to ebay and paypal. A bank is a financial institution that has peoples savings, access to their direct deposits, and SCAMS people into fees. Ebay is a website where people buy and sell things, and paypal is a way to protect payments. Ebay and paypal have never ripped me off, the bank CERTAINLY has..and is why they are in court now. When ebay and paypal do something wrong, they also end up in court, which has happened. So I don't defend them on "countless" posts you moron, I defend them when the complaint is not valid. And if a complaint against a bank is not valid, i would point that out as well.

And stop with the stupid poem, it makes you look like Karl, or even a bigger retard.

What kind of drugs were you on when you typed this?

A very good question I am the Law!  My guess is alcohol again!!!  LOL!    

I was not on any drugs, I do not do drugs, I rarely even take an aspirin.

No, of course not.  No drugs ever!  Only in Debunk City is alcohol not a drug!  We believe you O Great and Powerful Roz.  Heres a quick reminder of his One too Many foolishness.

The Wonderful Drunkard (AKA Only One Too Many?):

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

Rebuttal # 27:

You WILL get your money back if you fight it..I have, it's a wonderful feeling to beat these dousche wads.

Yes I know I spelled DOOOOOOSHE wrong so stick it in your DOOOOOSHE receptacle.

Ahh, the Wonderful Wizard of Roz sharing his vast experience and superior language skills!  Later the same day, he makes another rebuttal to explain his foolishness

Rebuttal #28:

I had one too many, I should not have been posting here so my apologies for the goofiness..the brunt of the post however is true..

Even when the Great and Powerful Roz is under the influence hes still always right!  LMAO!!!  BTW, only the Great and Powerful Roz finds it necessary to make four consecutive rebuttals, but hey, dont think for a moment this is a chapter of War and Peace.  LMAO!

I wouldnt place too much credence on anything from the Mighty Wizard of Roz.  You see, Rozzy thinks ATM fees are hidden because no one reads the bank terms but when hes defending his beloved Pay Pal and Ebay, hell post countless excerpts from the Pay Pal or Ebay Terms of Service! Hes quite the hypocrite, but hes our hypocrite!  LOL!

P.S.  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.

except, you had to throw in the drug comment, because as usual anyone who posts here to explain anything to you, must be on drugs..right?

I was not on any drugs, I do not do drugs, I rarely even take an aspirin. I was leaving a sarcastic reply to your statement that "It's all your fault" is an "awesome" name. It is a stupid name, and it implies a one sided, pig headed, kangaroo court type name, and YET, he replies without reading reports. I simply listed other similar type names that would be just as stupid, and that you may think are awesome as well..such as..

"I am always right"
"you are guilty before proven innocent"
"you are always wrong"
"I am the head buttmunch of the kangaroo court"
"I am a giant d*** "

Get it now? It was sarcasm induced, not drug induced.

Next, you ask why I am attacking you?

Because you stated this and I quote "So, in summation, either one of you could be right, so why don't we stop this argument now before it becomes a War and Peace-sized novel?"

So here is why. I was 100% right, no argument, period. The Poster called the bank, "It's all MY fault" stated he didn't... done deal.

AND....no War and Peace sized novel was required to prove who won the argument. It was over as soon as I proved him wrong by pasting what he stated, and what the poster stated. He just tried to wiggle out of it, and it was impossible to do so.

Dear Ronny G,

What is this all about?

"I am the law...I am always right, you are guilty before proven innocent, you are always wrong,it's all your fault, I am the head buttmunch of the kangaroo court,I am a giant d**k or whatever stupid name one chooses...there is no need for a novel."

What kind of drugs were you on when you typed this?

Anyway, why are you attacking me? I'm defending your position in your argument with Fault. All I said was that, yes, the author didn't specifically say that they asked what happened in the account to make it negative, but I would be surprised if he didn't ask that at that time.

I'm just going to assume that you didn't read my post very thoroughly and leave it at that.

"SCAMERICA POEM" is available here in the Updates section.

I am the law...I am always right, you are guilty before proven innocent, you are always wrong,it's all your fault, I am the head buttmunch of the kangaroo court,I am a giant d**k or whatever stupid name one chooses...there is no need for a novel.

One says the poster did not call the bank, the poster says he did call the bank..there was no mention of what was discussed because it can be reasonably assumed that when someone is calling the bank to dispute charges, that the bank will explain why the charges were applied, or admit error and reverse the charges. Sure, the banks often play "dumb" and tell the customer they do not know what happened and to keep a better ledger (something they FAIL to mention when promoting online banking not so coincidentally, and advertise and promote what a great tool it is for account managment) to avoid the truth..but the truth is obvious, no novels needed. Summed up in one simple word..."WRONG"!!!

As I CORRECTLY stated earlier..there is a difference between a wiseass, and a dumb a*s. There is also a difference between a smartass, and a wise a*s...a smart a*s can tell they sat on an ice cream cone..a wise a*s can tell you the flavor.

By telling this poster good luck with his attitude.

Granted, he is having trouble keeping accurate track of the account..many people seem to because they listened to the bank and trusted the online statement.

But, if you want to talk about "attitude"..do you remember what you stated to this poster?

I will refresh you..."ATM, online and phone balances are not ACCURATE!! Your debit card is not a CREDIT card - grow up and take responsibility for YOUR actions!!!

You have to admit there is a bit of "attitude" in the rebuttal. Perhaps if this bank was not treating the debit card as a credit card by automatically approving a "line of credit", and if they didn't manipulate the statements, not as many people would be complaining here.

As well, maybe this poster is grown up and taking responsibility but did not understand how the banks have been scamming debit card users, but I bet he knows now thanks to responses that actually offer constructive advice to avoid the rip off and not just making the poster more angry. As what good does that really do for the bank, or the poster?

Well, during today's travels on ROR, I noticed this little back and forth between Ronny G and It's All Your Fault. (Awesome name, by the way.)

Are you two arguing over what MIGHT or MIGHT NOT have been said on the call? I have to get in on this.

Ronny G: Fault does have a point. There is no mention of the customer going over the transactions with the person on the phone. It is possible that he just called up and asked for the fees to be removed. That's not unheard of.

But...

Fault: Even though it doesn't say specifically that our guy went over the transactions, and that could've happened, but I'd be surprised if he didn't. Not saying you're wrong, though.

So, in summation, either one of you could be right, so why don't we stop this argument now before it becomes a War and Peace-sized novel?

Telling me to F off - Guess I hit a nerve - once you post on this site you are subject to rebuttals so all I see is an IDIOT who can't manage their own account - Good luck in life with that attitude because you are going to need it

I must be an illiterate moron. I just can not get a grasp on the English language. I keep reading it..and it says the bank was called. Hmm..I would assume he was calling to FIGURE OUT the charges..doesn't seem to say otherwise in the report..perhaps I can't read or, perhaps my imagination can not pretend something was said that was not???

After all...in your last reply, I still do not understand it...I am just such a moron..It seems you left evidence that you were WRONG, but I am such a moron I can't figure out how you are making me out to be the moron, I must be really dumb.

I read it over and over..and still I just don't understand...

You say "word for word"...."Did you call the bank? Um, doesn't say that you did."

And then I read what the poster says..."word for word"..."I called the branch where I opened my account"

I don't know...you state it doesn't say that he did call the bank, and the report says he did call the bank. Yep..guess I am the moron. Maybe I need to learn to read, the poster needs to learn addition and subtraction...and "it'sallyourfault" needs to learn that....NO MATTER HOW YOU TRY TO GET OUT OF THIS ONE...YOU CAN NOT...NOW GO BACK TO INSULTING VICTIMS OF FORTUNE TELLERS AND HOOKERS WHERE YOU BELONG.... JACKASS.

Ronny G, you are the moron that needs to pay attention.

This is word for word what I said to the person who posted this particular report.... "Did you call the bank? Um, doesn't say that you did. Grow a pair and call them so they can explain it. "

The author originally said, "I called the branch where I opened my account and they gave me this lecture of "Its your responsibility to check your account daily."

The author called the bank ONLY TO ASK TO HAVE THE FEES WAIVED, NOT TO GO OVER THE HISTORY OF THE ACCOUNT AND TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THEY WENT NEGATIVE, YOU ILLITERATE MORON. So, by my count, the author still hasn't done any sort of research with the bank.

You need to think about what you say before you say it. People are going to think that you're stupid if you don't. Oops, too late.

Is some replying here to make any sense. Now if the purpose is just to be an a*****e..you should at least be an accurate a*****e. Because there is a difference between a smartass, and a dumbass.

Seems someone stated and I quote..."Here's another idiot that can't f'n add and subtract. Did you call the bank? Um, doesn't say that you did. Grow a pair and call them so they can explain it. "

And if you actually read the report..you would have noticed the OP clearly states.."I called the branch where I opened my account and they gave me this lecture of "Its your responsibility to check your account daily"

So perhaps this poster can not add and subtract..but what is apparent, is that if any customer uses the banks statements to check the account daily, they are putting themselves in a potential financial pitfall. The bank should have explained it that way.

You see, one of the categories to reply here is stated as such..."I have a Consumer Suggestion of a constructive solution on how to resolve or avoid this Rip-off in the future. Any other nonsense will be ignored."

I do not know if insulting someones math skills is really a constructive solution. Explaining how the banks work will often yield a better result. Unless the only reason for the reply is nonsense, in which case as stated, it should be ignored.

Constructive solution?

1) keep track yourself, do not depend on the banks statements or what they tell you on the phone. It is NOT in the banks best interest to help you manage your account, they stand to make much more money by using as much deception and manipulation as they can get away with to encourage overdrafting.

2) opt out of overdraft coverage on the debit card, do not opt into it if you are not already. This ties the banks hands...if a transaction on the debit card will not be approved if the account lacks the funds..whether by customer mistake, a check that didn't clear, a late direct deposit, an unknown merchant hold..whatever the reason.., no fee or fees...too simple, F'kn idiot proof.

FRAUD BLESS AMERICA

Here's another idiot that can't f'n add and subtract. Did you call the bank? Um, doesn't say that you did. Grow a pair and call them so they can explain it.

Real f'n difficult.

STOCK MARKET THE BEAUTIFUL

In response to Stacey, I am the law (and please..change your d**n name, you're not s**t.) ...

Stacey -   look here b**ch..nobody asked you..plain and simple, now go f**k off somewhere. ..and little FYI.. if you're going to "slam" someone..at least make it worth while because nothing in your response even came remotely close to slamming me so I am so sorry your goal was not met. "You're going to get soo slammed...get an accurate register man! OOH FACE!"  .....the world would be a better place with out you.

 

I Am the law  -   ooh boy..back to you you again.. do you ever give up? You obviously are not going to make any kind of difference on any thread...so when you're done giving USB the blo***b you love to give.. you can kindly pull your head out of your a** as well as whatever else is shoved up there and waste someone elses time.

 

Any one else ready to get there head shoved up there a**?

The last line in one of I am the Laws replies was...

"I don't understand how someone could have such a misunderstanding of business principles that they'd disagree with my comment."

Okay..so lets look at the comment he says I disagree with and implies I do not understand business principles...

 " In other words, why should I, as a good customer of the bank, start paying for things I shouldn't have to just so a few jerks can spend money THEY DON'T HAVE? Hardly seems fair to me. But, if you want to have all those things happen, Robin Hood, go right ahead and campaign for that. America's becoming socialist anway. That and we don't teach people responsibility anymore. Welcome to the future."

Now..look at this comment. All this posting here has been about helping customers to prevent overdraft fees...correct. We ALL agree (including me, yes I agree and have never said otherwise), that customers must be responsible for their spending and keep track. There should be no debate there unless someone can document I ever said otherwise.

Now the purpose as well as other information I have been posting and advising, has been to simply opt out of overdraft protection...or do not sign up for it if not already. And all this action will do, is help prevent overdrafting..right? Any debate there? Apparently the banks and the Feds agree as well..so nothing wrong with having choice..right? because the Debit card is not a credit card..right? Anyone disagree?

So how does I am the laws comment make any sense? A law being put in place to help prevent overdrafting..and he says something as ignorant as..." just so a few jerks can spend money THEY DON'T HAVE? " Explain?

Now as far as the rest of "i am the laws" vivid imagination..he seems to imply that I think all overdraft fees are going away..or that I want them to...so lets look at a few of the comments and quotes I left...and it will be clear how misguided and lost this ignorant oaf is is...

My comments and quotes...

Just watch the autopays and checks if you use as those fall under ACH and is a commitment, it is not a short term loan like an overdraft with the debit card is..well at least that is how the banks treat it

Now has it stands now, you will not be arrested if you go over at the pump..but this is a case where if caused by customer neglect, could be charged a fee..the bank has no choice but to cover it in that case.

The law changes should not be about advocating carelessness, it should simply be putting a stop to the banks unethical practices, no one should expect or ask for a free ride..only fairness and reasonable policies

It has nothing to do with abiding by anything. If someone overdrafts, they get a fee..no news there. No great profound discovery, and no reason for you to spend countless hours here pointing out the obvious.

``Specifically, plaintiffs claim they are not challenging the
bank's right to charge overdraft fees,'' the judge wrote. ``Instead,
they are challenging the banks' practice of manipulating the overdraft
fees `in order to maximize a benefit to them and to the great detriment
of the parties who are their account holders.' '

"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"



A little home schooling for you. By the way, I am a college grad. You are a lummox.
Perhaps home schooling would have done you some good, as you clearly come off as the poster child for the public education system.

Stacey...you are correct that many customers need to keep a register, or at least keep better track. But the banks also need to stop swindling customers as well. The banks have a RESPONSIBILITY as well to their customers..after all they have our money and get our direct deposits..what other business has that kind of advantage? The banks by all means should charge fees if someone overdrafts by their own fault or error, but this doesn't make it right that they have been auto enrolling or re-sequencing debit card transactions. Hence, THE BANKS are now the alleged CRIMINALS and defendants in court.

Now in your following statement which I quote...

"ATM, online and phone balances are not ACCURATE!! Your debit card is not a CREDIT card - grow up and take responsibility for YOUR actions!!!"

1) It would be expected of the banks to let their customers know the online statement is not accurate. Instead as I have posted as evidence time and again, the banks are stating in thier terms and literature that online banking is a great way to manage the account. A little deceiving would one think?

2) You may be right in stating that a debit card is not a credit card...so tell the BANKS that because apparently they do not know this.

3) What exactly does "take responsibility for you actions" mean? It seems to me with most of these complaints the customers admit error and pay the fees. So they were responsible. As well, how is it not responsible to post what the banks did as well? Why not hold the banks responsible as well for their part?

I don't expect a reasonable answer from an unreasonable person..but these are questions many already know the answer to, and those who don't, should really think about it.

Now on to I am the Law...


"Ok, Ronny G, I'll play. Let's just say that overdraft fees disappeared tomorrow. (I almost hope that happens because it'd shut you ignorant little Obamites up. It's not going to happen, but let's pretend..."

It is quite apparent you either can not read, or can not comprehend, so you really keep putting your foot in your......a$$...I mean mouth.

First off, I never said all fees will disappear.

Secondly, I never said I wanted all fees to disapear, nor do I believe they ever would. If you can find ANYWHERE I ever said all fees would disappear, or that I wanted ALL fees to disappear..kindly post it. But you will not find it..because I never posted that.

Thirdly,I am not a fan of Obama, and I don't agree to most of his policies. I am a conservative leaning Libertarian, not a Socialist, not a liberal, not a Democrat, and not a phony hypocritical useless republican.


"That's literally millions of dollars that the banks would be losing out on everyday. Agreed? Now, much like any other company, if they start losing money, they will find some way to make up for it, most likely at the customer's expense. Yes, all of those things I listed in my last report would most likely happen. I don't understand how someone could have such a misunderstanding of business principles that they'd disagree with my comment."

See, this statement PROVES beyond a shadow of a DOUBT, that you are so FULL of s**t, your eyes must be brown. Because you and your bank defender friends keep posting advice here telling others to keep a register because it will prevent fees. So what are you trying to prove here? If all these customers took your advice..the banks would lose millions of dollars...no..make that BILLIONS of dollars. SO again, what is your real purpose of replying here?  I await this one with great anticipation...

"Let's use a few examples:

1. What happens when one of our oil refineries shuts down? Gas prices go up.

2. What happens when shoplifting increases at a store? Prices go up.

3. What happens when a company loses a lawsuit? Prices go up.

4. What happens when property taxes increase for a business? Prices go up.

Need any more examples? I got a million of 'em. Oh well, I guess they don't teach you everything in home schooling, right, Ronny?"

Here is a good example too:

1) What happens when the banks rip people off and violate laws and ethics? They end up in court, the Feds have to step in, and we ALL pay the price anyhow..one way or the other. Now THERE is some good old home "schooling" for you to chew on.

Ok, Ronny G, I'll play. Let's just say that overdraft fees disappeared tomorrow. (I almost hope that happens because it'd shut you ignorant little Obamites up. It's not going to happen, but let's pretend...

That's literally millions of dollars that the banks would be losing out on everyday. Agreed? Now, much like any other company, if they start losing money, they will find some way to make up for it, most likely at the customer's expense. Yes, all of those things I listed in my last report would most likely happen. I don't understand how someone could have such a misunderstanding of business principles that they'd disagree with my comment.

Let's use a few examples:

1. What happens when one of our oil refineries shuts down? Gas prices go up.

2. What happens when shoplifting increases at a store? Prices go up.

3. What happens when a company loses a lawsuit? Prices go up.

4. What happens when property taxes increase for a business? Prices go up. 

Need any more examples? I got a million of 'em. Oh well, I guess they don't teach you everything in home schooling, right, Ronny?

 

You are about to get slammed about the needing a register for what, balancing your monthly statement as a must etc etc - Seems that account holders do not want to take responsibility for THEIR monies and THEIR account and prefer to blame the bank for THEIR mistakes

ATM, online and phone balances are not ACCURATE!! Your debit card is not a CREDIT card - grow up and take responsibility for YOUR actions!!!

Hmmmmm.......this may be a revolutionary new idea, but have you tried to maintain a register of your transactions?  I seriously don't know how I have had a bank account for 30+ years without a single glitch or OD fee.  And this is with several different banks.

All of the fees you discussed were disclosed in the information they gave you when you opened your account.

I am certainly not the owner of this company, I just forgot to check the right spot in the last reply.

But I can use this as an opportunity to conduct a bit more debunking..

I am the law stated...

  " In other words, why should I, as a good customer of the bank, start paying for things I shouldn't have to just so a few jerks can spend money THEY DON'T HAVE? Hardly seems fair to me. But, if you want to have all those things happen, Robin Hood, go right ahead and campaign for that. America's becoming socialist anway. That and we don't teach people responsibility anymore. Welcome to the future."

I need to add more to this one..the most ignorant statement I may have ever read on this site.

First off, what are you talking about "pay for things you shouldn't have to" because a few jerks can spend money they don't have?

The whole point of the changes...is to PREVENT jerks or ANYONE from spending money they don't have. This was not a case of robing from the rich and giving to the poor, it was a case of robbing from the poor to pay for services that SHOULD be charged for, and of course it also paid for the banks top officers getting a new yacht or plane or mansion. More power to em if they can do it ethically. We all wait to see what's next.

People will still need to be responsible..as the changes are not about getting rid of all fees, it is simply about auto enroll and re-sequencing. bait and switch type tactics and forms of entrapment, deceptive practices that although may not have effected you..have effected millions of others. And some people who may not have been effected, can still recognize an unethical practice..and a brutal fleecing of the vulnerable.

A bank should be held to higher standards then a TV infomercial since they are insured by the FDIC, and can receive tarp funds..whether USB declined it or not is irrelevant as not too many of us out there are offered taxpayer bailouts if we fail. I guess if I had that option to receive BILLIONS if I FAILED as a business owner, I could take some higher risks as well...who cares as long as I get my bonus..right?

Don't worry too much about becoming a socialist country...we still have the right to vote..and most Americans do not want Socialism..so Obama and his crew are short lived. But what is better then socialism, is a country where we show some compassion for the less fortunate without being forced to, and keep the financial institutions in check so they do not become more powerful then the Government (which is supposed to be "the people")or have too much control. You allow these banks to run a muck, and sure enough.well just look at our economy now. Self evident. Who do you think caused most of the damage? Oh, I forgot you don't read the paper or watch the news..you go to kiddie movies and defend US bank as a hobby.

Correct, it is pointless to argue with some people, because they are simply beyond reasoning. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and a right to express it. As well...I will use my right to CORRECT where I am the law is WRONG...

"It's pointless to argue with these overdrafters. They have mental problems. They can't accept responsibility for their own actions. Let's just leave them to their own fate. We can't say that we didn't try to talk some common sense into them. They'll probably end up in jail for neglecting their kids or not paying their taxes, anyway. "

What is "mental" about this last reply, is I don't see anyone arguing about  accepting responsibility. Now I don't know if you are referring to me personally, but I was the one debating with Edgeman so it is a safe assupmtion..so let me clear up a few things...

1) I do not overspend on my account

2) I do not have kids, but if I did I certainly would not neglect them (like you must have been which would explain the unprovoked hostility), and you would have no way to know this anyhow..it has nothing to do with any arguments here..it is all a DELUSION..yes that's right..it is all happening in a WORLD created in your head..sound familiar???.

3) I always pay my taxes..although this year it was only 50 bucks.

4) The OP of this reports states in the FIRST lines of this report, and I quote..

"Alright...so I am open to the possibility that I may be at fault..."

So it appears EVIDENT in this case, the "deadbeat overdrafter" is open minded that he may be at fault...but I am the law is NOT open minded to anything but the world in his sick twisted mean spirited head..so who is really the A-hole???  Self evident to me.

A few final words for America's deadbeats, though.

"1. Resequencing transactions doesn't matter if you have a positive account balance at the end of the business day. Period. This policy is in place so transactional histories are easier to read and so that when moronic customers don't replenish their accounts in time, larger transactions are considered before smaller ones. Most people would prefer that since large amounts are typically for pretty important things. (Which would you rather have considered first, your mortgage payment or your Netflix subscription?)"

What does it matter which is considered first if the bank covers it all and charges fees regardless? What does small debit card transactions have to do with a mortgage payment? How are "transactional histories" easier to read if the bank is scrambling it in different orders and time?..and our register which we would like to be able to check the accuracy of, does not coincide due to bank manipulations?

Now if you are so perfect of a human that you will never ever overdraft the account..why does it matter to you if the bank stops re-sequencing? And this is why the banks are in court now. Because re-sequencing debit card transactions HAS MATTERED to those that have incurred overdrafts. Now I never disagreed that people need to be careful not to spend more then they have...and I think even without your bitter crude insults, that it is OBVIOUS those that have overdrawn..are aware they have..but are having some problems understanding where and when.

So it is not a problem to actually explain to some about properly using a register, and to not depend on the banks statements for accuracy..but it is another thing to call them irresponsible because they were duped by the bank.

There is nothing wrong as well, in explaining why there are so many additional fees, why there are fees applied to transactions that had the funds at the time, why the small debit card transactions were approved when the account did not have the funds to cover it, why the banks soon have to by law properly disclose this and allow choice, and the fact that most banks are currently defendants in class action lawsuits for the VERY tactics that the posters are writing about in their complaints. Nothing wrong with the truth..the WHOLE truth...not just kicking and blaming a customer that was subjected to these thieving tactics.

"2. As my friend pointed out, the USB website, their automated phone line, etc. etc. are not replacement tools for common sense ledger balancing on your part. They're not psychics on staff that know, for example, that you have an outstanding paper check, auto-draft, or replacement amount for a debit card transaction when it's presented to the bank. (Like the $1 hold for pay at the pump gas transactions.)"

Your "friend"...ya okay..like you think I can't see through this charade. But all that aside...this does not address larger unknown merchant holds. I have been subjected to several $50.00 unauthorized holds, and one time a $75.00 unauthorized hold. These examples are only one of a few ways an account can be overdrawn regardless of the accuracy of the register. However, since no one is arguing that a customer should not be responsible for their spending, or against keeping an accurate ledger..you are once again wasting our time. These "arguments" are only taking place in your head. No one has opposed this.

However, I should note like the info I left for your "friend", that the BANKS have not been making very clear that using the online statement is unreliable...direct quotes from USB, and BofA..I could do this with all banks probably...

Track purchases in Internet Banking and monthly checking
account statements.

• Tools for managing your spending
  
  

  Sign up for Online Banking and
  take advantage of a suite of free tools to track and manage your check
  card spending.

Hmmm..I can't seem to find where the bank warns of anything..seems they are being quite direct it telling customers online banking is a good tool for MANAGING SPENDING. So perhaps it is a good thing I am the LAW, that you and I have been warning others that this is NOT the case at all.

"3. YOU are responsible for maintaining the balance of your account."

 I do not think this is the WHOLE truth. How I would put it to be more realistic..is "You are responsible for keeping track of your spending", the bank is responsible to not trick or decieve anyone into paying or incurring unjust fees, and the courts seem to agree. So if you personally feel it is okay for the banks to cause additional fees using swindles, manipulations and deception that is fine...but there are many of us who will not allow the banks to continue any unethical practices.

They are free to be a bank, charge fees for services rendered, conduct business as a bank should, even charge overdraft fees...as long as they conduct this legally by following the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Yes, I said it...good faith.

"4. USB offers many ways for you to check your balance, so your "I couldn't check my balance" excuse is total crap. Let's see, there's the phone line, ATM, internet, branches, text message alerts, email alerts, I think there's even an Iphone application now ... get the point? Almost all of those are 24 hours a day, so find a new excuse."

This is not an excuse you giant dunce..this is the REASON people are getting all these fees. Because they made a mistake or lost track...or maybe do not even keep any kind of ledger..(big mistake), so they call the bank to get the balance...but because the bank has held back posting transactions, sometimes for DAYS..the "available" balance the banks gives..is a TRAP. And I hope you know what you stated here is pure BS..otherwise you are MUCH dumber then you even give the "impression" that you are.

5. USB offers tons of ways to prevent overdrafting for free or, at worst, a nominal fee. Ever think of putting a few bucks into a savings account and link it to your checking account as a back up? You can do that if you have a credit card with them, too (although this would invoke the cash advance fee). Personally, I have a $500 credit line attached to my checking account that is TOTALLY FREE unless I use it. Then it's a few cents interest per day until I pay it back. So, how can you say that there's no way to avoid overdrafting if these types of services are offered? Easy. You can't.

Nothing wrong with this advice per say, as long as the customer is aware there is still a fee for this type of coverage (although less then standard OD protection). Problem is, some people do not have good credit, or anyway to put money in a savings account. Now that is not the banks fault I agree..but taking advantage of someone because they are financially struggling and vulnerable..is ethically wrong. Look up the word "WRONG" in the dictionary if you do not know right from wrong. Most likely, you do not know the difference, or I would not have to be here today explaining all this to you. Oh..you should look up the word "ethics" too..not that it will help you, but you should know what we are discussing if you wish to partake.

"6. Almost all of the money the bank (correction: any bank) receives from overdraft fees is generated by a small fragment of their customer base. This basically tells me that anyone can understand the concept of overdrafting and how to avoid it, but there are still people out there that simply don't care about the consequences of their actions or are just plain dumb. Personally, in the decade that I've had an account with USB, I have never overdrafted once or had to use my reserve line of credit because my account went negative. Again, so much for your "The bank makes people overdraft." conspiracy theory."

I agree the bank does not "make" people overdraft. But they do encourage it, which is actually reasonable to believe, since it is well known fact that these fees have been the new profit center for banks the last few years.

Now the FDIC report clearly states the massive increase in the amount of these types of fees collected in the last few years..and that the majority of these fees were occurring due to small debit card and ATM transactions.

So how do YOU explain an almost doubling of the amount in fees in the last few years? Did all of a sudden millions of customers decide to become deadbeats?..or did they choose to have financial struggles and be forced to keep a lower balance? Could it be anything the banks could have done with INTENT to contribute to something that is really their main source of profit during this time period?

Once again, I don't expect this to mean anything to you because you are an unreasonable, biased, pig headed DOLT...but others who were not aware, should know the TRUTH.

I know you like to use the term "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to discredit those that see through the sham..but this is based on factual data and these reports..no one is imagining what has been happening. However you have quite a vivid imagination  thinking that those who lodge reports here, or disagree with you, are drug addicted, deadbeat, welfare recipients. If you wish to make assumptions based on what people post here...I would say all signs point to that you are a bigoted, ignorant, racist angry old man, potentially obese. Am I close? Oh, and most likely were abused as a child, perhaps bullied rather harshly, which would be the ONLY logical explanation why you get some kind of joy out of verbally kicking and abusing victims on line..where it is safe and you won't get smacked in the head.

"7. "Change", as you deadbeats put it, is not coming. Fees, in some respect, will always be there. Even if banks were ordered by the government to totally get rid of overdraft fees forever, the banks would find some way to make up for it. This would probably cause one or more of the following: 1. "free" checking accounts would become a thing of the past, 2. higher interest rates on loans and mortgages, 3. lower payouts on savings accounts, money markets, investments, and CD's, 4. ATM fees for customers of the same bank as the ATM itself, 5. fewer services/staffing at branches, fewer hours, or both."

I think you are calling me a deadbeat here, since I consistently mention the change. Apparently you do not even know what that word "deadbeat" means either. A deadbeat is someone who does not pay their debts. Since I pay my bills, and do not have any debt, you are WRONG again.

Now more corrections for you. The changes will not, and are not intended to put an end to overdraft fees, although sometimes the media headlines it as such. What the changes are going to do, which is simple, is prevent the banks from auto enrolling any customer into standard overdraft protection on the debit card. All customers who were auto enrolled, and that are presently auto enrolled, will BY LAW...now be un-enrolled, unless they tell the bank they wish to be or remain enrolled.

Hence, all customers who CHOOSE not to be enrolled in standard OD coverage on the debit card, will not be able to use that card at a point of sale purchase, or an ATM withdrawal if the transaction will cause the account wto be overdrawn, hence can not possibly in any way shape or form be subject to a fee due to this, or any other tactics used to compound fees unjustly.

Those that CHOOSE to be enrolled, will still be subject to debit card fees, although there are now stricter caps. The thing is, the banks are going to lose quite a bit of revenue because of these law changes..and THEY know it. So whatever they are going to do, we will ALL find out soon enough. But as long as they are not doing anything without proper disclosure, or with INTENT to hurt their customers, I personally see nothing wrong with them making a profit... fair and ethically..a service charge, for a service rendered.

    In other words, why should I, as a good customer of the bank, start paying for things I shouldn't have to just so a few jerks can spend money THEY DON'T HAVE? Hardly seems fair to me. But, if you want to have all those things happen, Robin Hood, go right ahead and campaign for that. America's becoming socialist anway. That and we don't teach people responsibility anymore. Welcome to the future.

This is one way of looking at it if your are a self centered greedy heartless oaf. The way I look at it...is why should any bank customers get a discounted service off the blood and sweat of those less fortunate who are paying for it via a swindle, deception, and the bank taking advantage of mistakes? So I have little pity if you have to pay for checking, are your rates are effected...because it is going to happen to us all, and it is the banks simply making a profit off what they are INTENDED to do to make a profit..you don't like it..find ANOTHER bank..keep your money under the mattress...or lobby for changes. That is how we fly here in the good old USA, or at least how it is supposed to be done. , and justice for ALL....live it, learn it, love it. Read the constitution a little when you get back from the intellegent movie you are going to see today.

"8. Before an account is opened, the customer MUST sign a document stating that they have read, understand, and agree to all terms of the account (including the fee structure). This is a LAW. So, when the provisions of the contract take shape, you whine about it? People, if you didn't like the terms of the agreement, why did you sign it? No likey? No signy. It's that easy. God help you idiots if you ever sign a mortgage. I can hear it now, "No one told me I'd have to pay interest on my mortgage. I'm filing a ROR because the mortgage company is evil." Laughable."

Once again....I paste this from the Federal Judge..perhaps you are smarter and more keen then a Federal Judge????...

"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."

"9. If you think that USB is committing a crime and have some sort of evidence, please, by all means, press charges on the bank. Heck, I'll join the class action suit with you. But, if you're not serious about your evidence and you're not going to follow through with it, quit whining. You're embarrassing yourselves. "

It's already in process. If you would like to join in, you are more then welcome...here is some info...I have posted this several times so I do not know how you missed it..I never "whined" about it however..just copied and pasted off legal websites press release. Easy to do.

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

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

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

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

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

"Banks do not record charges and purchases on ATM or debit cards in the order they actually occur,"

stated plaintiffs counsel Michael W. Sobol of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. "Instead, banks reorder the charges and purchases so that the largest charge or purchase is the first one paid by the bank. This manipulative practice is intentionally designed, the complaints allege, to maximize overdraft fee revenue."


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

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

Further Information for Bank Customers

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


(((Redacted)))

"-----Well, I'm off to see Iron Man 2 with money I didn't have to pay in overdraft fees. I'll be thinking about you unemployed, meth-addicted, welfare-collecting, financially negligent slops when I'm watching Tony Stark blast the bad guys. Good day. "

This statement speaks for itself . Enjoy Hell when you get there..dress light. Oh and who is your date for the movie? US Bank, your "obsession". Give her a popcorn surprise.


CLICK 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.

SCAMERICA POEM

Edgeman,

It's pointless to argue with these overdrafters. They have mental problems. They can't accept responsibility for their own actions. Let's just leave them to their own fate. We can't say that we didn't try to talk some common sense into them. They'll probably end up in jail for neglecting their kids or not paying their taxes, anyway. 

A few final words for America's deadbeats, though.

1. Resequencing transactions doesn't matter if you have a positive account balance at the end of the business day. Period. This policy is in place so transactional histories are easier to read and so that when moronic customers don't replenish their accounts in time, larger transactions are considered before smaller ones. Most people would prefer that since large amounts are typically for pretty important things. (Which would you rather have considered first, your mortgage payment or your Netflix subscription?)

2. As my friend pointed out, the USB website, their automated phone line, etc. etc. are not replacement tools for common sense ledger balancing on your part. They're not psychics on staff that know, for example, that you have an outstanding paper check, auto-draft, or replacement amount for a debit card transaction when it's presented to the bank. (Like the $1 hold for pay at the pump gas transactions.)

3. YOU are responsible for maintaining the balance of your account.

4. USB offers many ways for you to check your balance, so your "I couldn't check my balance" excuse is total crap. Let's see, there's the phone line, ATM, internet, branches, text message alerts, email alerts, I think there's even an Iphone application now ... get the point? Almost all of those are 24 hours a day, so find a new excuse.

5. USB offers tons of ways to prevent overdrafting for free or, at worst, a nominal fee. Ever think of putting a few bucks into a savings account and link it to your checking account as a back up? You can do that if you have a credit card with them, too (although this would invoke the cash advance fee). Personally, I have a $500 credit line attached to my checking account that is TOTALLY FREE unless I use it. Then it's a few cents interest per day until I pay it back. So, how can you say that there's no way to avoid overdrafting if these types of services are offered? Easy. You can't.

6. Almost all of the money the bank (correction: any bank) receives from overdraft fees is generated by a small fragment of their customer base. This basically tells me that anyone can understand the concept of overdrafting and how to avoid it, but there are still people out there that simply don't care about the consequences of their actions or are just plain dumb. Personally, in the decade that I've had an account with USB, I have never overdrafted once or had to use my reserve line of credit because my account went negative. Again, so much for your "The bank makes people overdraft." conspiracy theory.

7. "Change", as you deadbeats put it, is not coming. Fees, in some respect, will always be there. Even if banks were ordered by the government to totally get rid of overdraft fees forever, the banks would find some way to make up for it. This would probably cause one or more of the following: 1. "free" checking accounts would become a thing of the past, 2. higher interest rates on loans and mortgages, 3. lower payouts on savings accounts, money markets, investments, and CD's, 4. ATM fees for customers of the same bank as the ATM itself, 5. fewer services/staffing at branches, fewer hours, or both.

    In other words, why should I, as a good customer of the bank, start paying for things I shouldn't have to just so a few jerks can spend money THEY DON'T HAVE? Hardly seems fair to me. But, if you want to have all those things happen, Robin Hood, go right ahead and campaign for that. America's becoming socialist anway. That and we don't teach people responsibility anymore. Welcome to the future.

8. Before an account is opened, the customer MUST sign a document stating that they have read, understand, and agree to all terms of the account (including the fee structure). This is a LAW. So, when the provisions of the contract take shape, you whine about it? People, if you didn't like the terms of the agreement, why did you sign it? No likey? No signy. It's that easy. God help you idiots if you ever sign a mortgage. I can hear it now, "No one told me I'd have to pay interest on my mortgage. I'm filing a ROR because the mortgage company is evil." Laughable.

9. If you think that USB is committing a crime and have some sort of evidence, please, by all means, press charges on the bank. Heck, I'll join the class action suit with you. But, if you're not serious about your evidence and you're not going to follow through with it, quit whining. You're embarrassing yourselves. 

-----Well, I'm off to see Iron Man 2 with money I didn't have to pay in overdraft fees. I'll be thinking about you unemployed, meth-addicted, welfare-collecting, financially negligent slops when I'm watching Tony Stark blast the bad guys. Good day.    

Apparently , edgeman has as much free time as I do..and wants to play. So I state a disclaimer that this is going to be a long reply, but it is simply in response, I am not "ranting" or rambling"..here goes..


"That's not quite the correct use of "insinuation". Did you mean to use a different word? In any case, the term "bank defender" is silly when applied to somebody who thinks that people shouldn't be paying any overdraft fees and has denounced other practices such as the right to offset."

I "insinuate" that you are a bank defender because just like the bank defenders that kick the victims, you always respond to posters who lodge complaints regarding unfair bank policies by stating to the effect "if you keep an accurate register, you won't get a fee"..or as quoted what you stated on this thread "If you don't like these fees, i strongly recommend that you carefully read the account agreements at other banks until you find one that is to your liking. I would also urge you to review your method of managing your finances

."

Now what this reply you left "insinuates", is that this report is not legitimate. And it does not address the fact that this bank may be doing something wrong. While i agree that the customer in this case is most likely not keeping accurate track, the complaint would also not exist if not for unreliable bank statements (all should be closer to real time like Chase is now) re-sequencing..and if not for auto enrollment in standard overdraft protection on the debit card. While we BOTH agree the customer should keep an accurate account ledger, I also clearly see the trap that this customer fell into, and place BLAME on the bank for that as well. These kinds of tactics are what is landing the banks in trouble now, and most likely all customers will pay a price in the end. Why, you might ask? Because now the laws are forcing ALL banks to disclose, and have most likely made it even easier for the plaintiffs to prevail in the lawsuits. This is going to stop what has been the profit center for banks the last few years. Tell us edgeman, how do you think they are going to make it up?

"Exposing? You? You haven't "exposed" anything. You sat in Edward;s lap and parroted back his points and posted links to assorted lawsuits and media stories. You haven't done any original research and you haven't actually exposed anything. Prove me wrong - what have you exposed that hasn't previously been widely known?"

Well what do you think you have "exposed" by telling customers who are well aware they overdrafted, to not overdraft and read a contract? I have nothing to do with Edward other then we both agree that the banks have been conducting a swindle on their customers. Edwards replies often differ from mine, but it rubs you and people like you the wrong way that perhaps there is a chance the banks are conducting a swindle, and crossing legal boundaries.What "research" do I need more to do? I was ripped off by a bank, i did some internet searches, and found out why, and found out there were current lawsuits so I did not need to start a new one.

You want to be proved wrong? Easy, i do it all the time. What I have been exposing that has not been known "widely", is the information I leave to the posters that report here and do not understand why they had so many additional fees, why the register does not reflect the banks statements, that there are already current lawsuits when often the poster requests to join one or form one, that they may have the option to opt out of overdraft protection on the debit card, or that the bank had automatically enrolled them and they do not understand why transactions are being approved when the account lacked the funds..do you want me to go on?



"Well, you have displayed a tendency to write about things that didn't happen as if they actually occurred. If it didn't happen in the real world but you post about it if it were true, then where else could it have happened except for inside of your own head?"

If you can not back up a statement like this with any evidence..it would seem more likely that YOU are the one creating things in your head.


US Bank's terms and conditions specifically state that they may process electronic transactions in any order. That would include highest-to-lowest. It also says that if a transaction would result in a negative balance, the bank may decline it or pay it at their discretion.

So if you know that the bank may authorize a transaction that results in an overdraft and they may process from highest-to-lowest, wouldn't it be prudent to make sure you don't overdraft? How else would you avoid overdraft fees at such a bank?

So, you know for a fact that EVERY single US bank customers terms state this? Interesting. But regardless, it is not going to do them much good in court. The banks defense attornies tired to use the terms contract during dismissal stages and it didn't work. Here are some quotes from the case..."

``Specifically, plaintiffs claim they are not challenging the bank's right to charge overdraft fees,'' the judge wrote. ``Instead, they are challenging the banks' practice of manipulating the overdraft fees `in order to maximize a benefit to them and to the great detriment of the parties who are their account holders.' ''

Banks, the suit says, would wait to process charges until days after a purchase was made, when users' accounts were depleted. Or charges would be manipulated so that a large purchase that would deplete an account would be processed first, triggering overdraft fees on smaller buys made beforehand.

Judge King stated, "Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts -- that, among other things, Defendants manipulated the posting order of debit transactions in bad faith so as to maximize the number of overdraft fees incurred." Consumers pursuing these lawsuits, Judge King concluded, are "not trying to prevent banks from engaging in the business of banking, they are merely asking the banks to do so in good faith."

Defendants including Bank of America, Citibank, US Bank,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.

"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.

See that Edgeman..the term "obvious" was used. Why is this not obvious to you??? Why do I have to spend all this time proving the "obvious" to you..unless this is all in my head? Go read lawyers-law dot com or other law websites, there is plenty of info  regarding the lawsuits..maybe you will learn this is not me making stuff up in my head. Oh, and if you do not understand what the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is..wiki it, save me the typing. I have posted this info on this site more then enough..this is almost ..no..it is down right PATHETIC that I have to type all this again..but I guess I asked for it with a challenge..you took the bait, so now here I am AGAIN with this same information and FACT. I enjoy a good debate, but redundancy gets...well..redundant. Yes, it gets old. But the truth needs to be told and sometimes it comes at a price.

"I don't have a single account agreement that encourages me to overdraft. Quite the opposite, in fact. "

Well a cookie for you. And you never overdraft, and you read every term of your bank contracts, and you write everything in your register and you are the most perfect banking customer ever..and everyone who reports here..must be the opposite..right? Can we assume this is what you are getting at? Anyhow..I will copy and paste what some banks do to encourage overdrafting...

Here is from US Bank

• Money is always deducted directly from your checking account.
• Check card transactions are protected by the U.S. Bank Zero Liability Policy.¹
• Track purchases in Internet Banking and monthly checking account statements.

From BofA

View and track your check card spending any time you want with Online Banking.

Reach for our Check Card when you dine out, fill up with gas, visit the post office, go to the movies, even shop online. Use it at thousands of networked ATMs.

• Tools for managing your spending
  
  

  Sign up for Online Banking and take advantage of a suite of free tools to track and manage your check card spending.

Now, I could have done this with bank after bank...and I did not even get into how they are now ENCOURAGING more then ever, to opt into OD protection on the debit card...but the common denominator is the "insinuation" that online banking is the way to manage the account. And we all are smart and observant enough to notice, that almost every complaint involves the online statement manipulations. Note as well, when the customer go to the bank, they are slapped in the face with a register, and told they are irresponsible. Just like the BANK DEFENDERS do here when a customer was victim to a tactic.  Maybe some customers were simply not that smart..granted. But there is no law against not being smart, but fortunately in this country, there are laws against taking advantage of, and ripping off those that are not too smart. We will get to more on this later on..we have a lot to cover here.

"The courts will expose the rest."

That's actually up to the judges. You do have a disturbing tendency to think that politicians and judges are our friends. They are out to exploit you just as much as the banks are. The difference is that politicians and judges can effectively rewrite the rules they have to play by.

What is disturbing, is you thinking that I think that. What I KNOW..is that in the case with these banks, that some in congress, including President O useless, have taken note. The feds have been stepping in, and the Judge who is presiding in the major class action lawsuits against most of the banks, is proving to be fair and reasonable, he does not seem at this point to be in anyones pocket, and what the banks have been doing WRONG, will be exposed.  All of it..the "bait and switch" type tactics, the entrapment, and more, mark my words.

I am amazed by how many people lodge complaints here, and are not even aware of the lawsuits, or what the banks have been doing. Actually I am not amazed, as not too long ago, I was one of them. I lodged a legitimate complaint here, and was attacked by bank defenders. My complaint was against Wachovia, one of the worst offenders that is now on it's way out..I did some research, found out why this was happening, stated there was a lawsuit, was told i was wrong..I stated the banks would soon be forced to stop auto enrolling, and told I was wrong, I stated that Chase did not re-sequence transactions, and was told I was wrong, I stated that all banks are NOT the same, and I was told i was wrong, and probably quite a few other points i am leaving out...all this I put up with time after time..and look what the FACTS show...that I was 100% RIGHT in every single statement I posted. I know it must kill the bank defenders and those that have devoted their time to prove that all this was the 100% the customers fault..and victim bashing, and condescending self righteous indignant replies left against the victims..but in the end..I was right. And it is not the end actually. I am not going to say that every victim will get every cent back the banks stole from them, because that would be impossible..but I am willing to bet as I was right about everything else (and it is all on this site as this site does not edit or remove posts ever), that this is going to cost the banks enough to make every bank defenders head spin a few times.


I don't disagree with the regulations bit but you'll have to elaborate on the part about holds. Are you referring to merchant holds or holds on deposits? A merchant hold can show up on a register if the account holder bothers to write it down. A hold on a deposit can also be recorded on a check register. If I were to deposit $1,000 then I'd simply add $100 to my check register. When the other $900 becomes available I will add that amount.

I am talking about the BANK holding debit card transactions. Often when customers complain here, the BANK DEFENDERS blame the merchants every time. But if it has not been proven already, it will in the courtroom..I elaborated more on this earler..but I will paste it again here..." Banks, the suit says, would wait to process charges until days after a purchase was made, when users' accounts were depleted. Or charges would be manipulated so that a large purchase that would deplete an account would be processed first, triggering overdraft fees on smaller buys made beforehand"

"Now perhaps if it was ILLEGAL for merchants to do this...and ILLEGAL for
banks to hold and re-sequence transactions, we would not have to be
here now."

Well, I have to live in this world and I really don't want to pay overdraft fees. That's why I will keep track of my money and make sure to never exceed my available balance. Resequencing transactions doesn't affect me whatsoever so long as I stay within my available balance. It wouldn't affect you or the OP or Robert or anybody else either.

Re-sequencing transactions won't effect anyone who is opted out of OD protection as well. Because regardless of how well you keep a register..as long as it is LEGAL for merchants to place holds on cards (such as gas stations, convenience stores, bars, resturants etc) without the customer knowing...then they are subject to fees that the register would not have known about. And if ANY customer can possibly get a fee due to this, and then the bank will re-sequence and unjustly add more fees to legitimate transactions...something in the LAW must be inacted to prevent this. It is a rip off and swindle in every sense of the word. Why someone like you, who is very articulate (and manipulative, but that is a talent as well), I can not believe you are not seeing this clear as day..it is so obvious to me.



I didn't need an attorney to read the old agreement and it was pretty clear too. It said that Chase will probably process transactions from largest-to-smallest and they may pay transactions that will result in a negative balance at their discretion. It's pretty clear to me.

Me , me, me , me..that is always your answer?????


The many can still overdraft their accounts and will still need to adopt financial management techniques advocated by myself and many others here. Have fun when the banks figure out new ways to charge consumers and eventually experiment with overdraft fees again.

Just do it my way... don't pay overdraft fees at all and you won't have to worry about posting order or holds.

The banks are done with this experiment, and I think you know it. And since I not only agree with you 100%, and have NEVER stated otherwise that customers should not adopt proper money management techniques, any rebut here is moot. Unless you can leave any evidence to the contrary.

But..we come full circle with the "me me me me me my way BS"..everyone knows they do not have to worry about re-sequencing if they never overdrafted. But tell me honestly (LMAO)..do you really think everyone is going to stop overdrafting just because you never do? Not very likely "your" way is going to work for everyone every time. People are going to continue to struggle financially and keep a low balance. people are going to have their place of employment force direct deposit on them, or encourage it very strongly..as are the banks. The banks are going to continue to encourage overdrafting, opting into OD coverage, continue to promise safe and reliable online services..all the same. But as long as customer are given full disclosure that they can SIGN for this "loan" on the debit card, and has long as the banks stop re-sequencing for no other purpose then to rip off customers that make honest mistakes or had a bad week, or were victim to an unknown merchant hold or charge, or a check that didn't clear when expected...then I will have no point in posting replies on these kind of complaints anymore. And it would not be a bad thing for ALL debit card users, if there was a law against anyone placing a hold on the card without the customers knowledge and consent.


Bait and switch? How?

Not bait and switch in the sense of what a retail business does which involves a tangible good. But the "bait" goes back before all this trouble started with the debit cards..when we were promised less fees and relaible safe online banking..the "switch" was the banks discovering that by applying antiquated policies used to actually protect check users, they used these policies to rip off loyal customers..

1. There was a time that you could not overdraw your account at any bank. There was a concerted effort by the banking industry to adopt ("courtesy pay, Overdraft protection, ..you-name the fee) not to protect their clients but to invent a fee to increase profit. Started by one large institution and adopted by all after they saw the incredible profit it created.

2. Banks and other industries have learned from the incredible profits of small fees and instituted conditions that Encourage these behaviors. Instituting incentives to use more costly methods of purchasing goods through the most fee heavy transactions.


Any consumer has the power to walk out of a deal they don't like. You do realize that all Congress did is encourage the banks to find other ways to charge fees, don't you? Enjoy reading the reports from people whose monthly bank fee caused them to overdraft.

Yes, people have the power to walk out of a deal...but why are their bait and switch laws then? I will tell you why. Because in this country at least, having the power to walk out of a deal is not a good enough defense every time. Hence, the tactic is now illegal.

"You can set a person up using what you know of their faults, be it
greed, lust, envy or any of a host of things including irresponsibility
or poor account keeping skills...this is easy to do, but there was a law
instituted that made that illegal also....it's called ENTRAPMENT. This
will all be exposed in due time to those who can't already grasp this."

That's not the legal definition of entrapment.

Okay, I have to give you a point there..because the technical "legal" definition applies specifically to law enforcement tactics. But the following definition of "entrapment" would be pretty hard to argue that it doesn't apply in the context of which I implied..

2. a. To lure into danger, difficulty, or a compromising situation

And I have a very good feeling, it will be proven in a federal court, that this is what the banks have been doing as well.

"Perhaps you personally don't call every banking customer who lodged a report here a "deadbeat", but others have..so by default if one falls into the bank defender category, they subject themselves to insinuation."

That's not quite the correct use of "insinuation". Did you mean to use a different word? In any case, the term "bank defender" is silly when applied to somebody who thinks that people shouldn't be paying any overdraft fees and has denounced other practices such as the right to offset.

"The same holds true for those like myself who have been siding with customers and exposing the banks tactics."

Exposing? You? You haven't "exposed" anything. You sat in Edward;s lap and parroted back his points and posted links to assorted lawsuits and media stories. You haven't done any original research and you haven't actually exposed anything. Prove me wrong - what have you exposed that hasn't previously been widely known?

"I have been called everything from a drug addict, to a bleeding heart liberal, to an advocate of irresponsibility, to a disillusion ranting dangerous maniac with a world I have "created" in my head. Yet when I request anyone to post any proof of this, it has yet to be posted, so in a sense the remarks and insinuations about me personally, are approaching a form of slander, maybe we can coin a new term..."cyber slander""

Well, you have displayed a tendency to write about things that didn't happen as if they actually occurred. If it didn't happen in the real world but you post about it if it were true, then where else could it have happened except for inside of your own head?

"You may be coming off in your last post as someone who cares about others paying their hard earned money to the banks, so your posts can be  perceived as "helping", but by telling someone who was ripped off by the bank that the only way to avoid it is to be personally responsible is a bit presumptuous."

US Bank's terms and conditions specifically state that they may process electronic transactions in any order. That would include highest-to-lowest. It also says that if a transaction would result in a negative balance, the bank may decline it or pay it at their discretion.

So if you know that the bank may authorize a transaction that results in an overdraft and they may process from highest-to-lowest, wouldn't it be prudent to make sure you don't overdraft? How else would you avoid overdraft fees at such a bank?

"If you read bank policies and terms, you can clearly see how they encourage overdrafting."

I don't have a single account agreement that encourages me to overdraft. Quite the opposite, in fact.

"The courts will expose the rest."

That's actually up to the judges. You do have a disturbing tendency to think that politicians and judges are our friends. They are out to exploit you just as much as the banks are. The difference is that politicians and judges can effectively rewrite the rules they have to play by.

"The REASON there are new regulations coming if you haven't received notice yet, is because people were getting very angry at the banks. Auto enroll in OD protection with the debit card (which is technically a loan no matter how you slice it), and re-sequencing which was unnecessary for everyday debit card users is really what the complaints are about. Sure we can say all the customer has to do to prevent the fees is to not spend more then they have, but that does not address why the banks were doing what they did, and did not address the fact that unauthorized holds (unknown holds) can cause an overdraft to a customer who keeps a low balance, and they won't even know why because it will not show up on the register."

I don't disagree with the regulations bit but you'll have to elaborate on the part about holds. Are you referring to merchant holds or holds on deposits? A merchant hold can show up on a register if the account holder bothers to write it down. A hold on a deposit can also be recorded on a check register. If I were to deposit $1,000 then I'd simply add $100 to my check register. When the other $900 becomes available I will add that amount.

"Now perhaps if it was ILLEGAL for merchants to do this...and ILLEGAL for banks to hold and re-sequence transactions, we would not have to be here now."

Well, I have to live in this world and I really don't want to pay overdraft fees. That's why I will keep track of my money and make sure to never exceed my available balance. Resequencing transactions doesn't affect me whatsoever so long as I stay within my available balance. It wouldn't affect you or the OP or Robert or anybody else either.

"If you read your new Chase terms, which are so easy a two year old can understand it..no attorney needed to help with terminology and definitions, it states that they can no longer automatically enroll anyone, and all customers will not be enrolled as of Aug 15th unless they tell the bank they CHOOSE to be. (ALL banks will have to follow suit) "

I didn't need an attorney to read the old agreement and it was pretty clear too. It said that Chase will probably process transactions from largest-to-smallest and they may pay transactions that will result in a negative balance at their discretion. It's pretty clear to me.

"And that was really what most of the complaints were about if you break it down.. it was CHOICE..I don't believe there is a need for me to have OD coverage, so I will not sign up for it. Some may want it for an emergency. Chase will allow a business day to make a deposit to cover the OD and avoid the fee, more then fair. They also no longer re-sequence hence there won't be any more complaints about that, at least with Chase.

So the regulation change really hurts no one, but helps many. Actually it will hurt the bank, but they did it to themselves..personal responsibility..remember? You reap what you sow."

The many can still overdraft their accounts and will still need to adopt financial management techniques advocated by myself and many others here. Have fun when the banks figure out new ways to charge consumers and eventually experiment with overdraft fees again.

Just do it my way... don't pay overdraft fees at all and you won't have to worry about posting order or holds.

"So, in theory it is correct what you say...people should be responsible for managing their own money. But the banks were using bait and switch type tactics that are illegal in many industries."

Bait and switch? How?

"Realize you can coax someone into a situation (scamming) that they should know is not valid or fair, but until congress instituted laws against this...it was not illegal."

Any consumer has the power to walk out of a deal they don't like. You do realize that all Congress did is encourage the banks to find other ways to charge fees, don't you? Enjoy reading the reports from people whose monthly bank fee caused them to overdraft.

"You can set a person up using what you know of their faults, be it greed, lust, envy or any of a host of things including irresponsibility or poor account keeping skills...this is easy to do, but there was a law instituted that made that illegal also....it's called ENTRAPMENT. This will all be exposed in due time to those who can't already grasp this."

That's not the legal definition of entrapment.

to understand WHO controls the banks in the USA.

Because as you stated, you would be the worst representative they could hire, and you cause people to hate the bank even more, and breed anger.

Now in response to some of your replies...

It has nothing to do with abiding by anything. If someone overdrafts, they get a fee..no news there. No great profound discovery, and no reason for you to spend countless hours here pointing out the obvious.

The complaints are regarding the questionable activities by the banks, that have cause a percentage (regardless of how large or small) to be charged fess unjustly due to re-sequencing, and to be auto enrolled into overdraft coverage on the debit card without due and proper disclosure or choice. The statement manipulations are not much of a help either.

Hence, the regulations are changing to prevent this. Why would this be done if it was only for a small minority of deadbeats and pop tarts? Obviously some felt this was the right thing to do, couldn't all be pop tarts I would think.

Now on to your "question"...


"In closing, let me ask you "poor victims" a question. If you have all this evidence that USB is committing fraud, why aren't you pressing charges? "

In closing..have you ever opened a newspaper or watched the news? Have you ever paid a single bit of attention to anything I post here. There is EVIDENCE against USB..hence they are defendants in a class action lawsuit along with a few other of the big ones..BOFA, Wachovia/Wells, Chase..etc.

Many customers who complain here do admit their mistakes BTW, you seem to overlook that every time...but not everyone chooses to "move on" when they smell a rip off. Some will lodge a complaint on sites such has this to warn others, and some will take legal forms of action. Either way, it is the good old USA and fortunately, we still have some rights. If it were up to the banks to do as they please unfettered..believe it, they would find a way to get us all. And with the upcoming regulatory changes and lawsuits, don't be surprised if they try other tactics that will be coming after you.

Perhaps you personally don't call every banking customer who lodged a report here a "deadbeat", but others have..so by default if one falls into the bank defender category, they subject themselves to insinuation. The same holds true for those like myself who have been siding with customers and exposing the banks tactics. I have been called everything from a drug addict, to a bleeding heart liberal, to an advocate of irresponsibility, to a disillusion ranting dangerous maniac with a world I have "created" in my head. Yet when I request anyone to post any proof of this, it has yet to be posted, so in a sense the remarks and insinuations about me personally, are approaching a form of slander, maybe we can coin a new term..."cyber slander".

You may be coming off in your last post as someone who cares about others paying their hard earned money to the banks, so your posts can be  perceived as "helping", but by telling someone who was ripped off by the bank that the only way to avoid it is to be personally responsible is a bit presumptuous.

If you read bank policies and terms, you can clearly see how they encourage overdrafting. The courts will expose the rest. The REASON there are new regulations coming if you haven't received notice yet, is because people were getting very angry at the banks. Auto enroll in OD protection with the debit card (which is technically a loan no matter how you slice it), and re-sequencing which was unnecessary for everyday debit card users is really what the complaints are about. Sure we can say all the customer has to do to prevent the fees is to not spend more then they have, but that does not address why the banks were doing what they did, and did not address the fact that unauthorized holds (unknown holds) can cause an overdraft to a customer who keeps a low balance, and they won't even know why because it will not show up on the register.

Now perhaps if it was ILLEGAL for merchants to do this...and ILLEGAL for banks to hold and re-sequence transactions, we would not have to be here now.

If you read your new Chase terms, which are so easy a two year old can understand it..no attorney needed to help with terminology and definitions, it states that they can no longer automatically enroll anyone, and all customers will not be enrolled as of Aug 15th unless they tell the bank they CHOOSE to be. (ALL banks will have to follow suit)

And that was really what most of the complaints were about if you break it down.. it was CHOICE..I don't believe there is a need for me to have OD coverage, so I will not sign up for it. Some may want it for an emergency. Chase will allow a business day to make a deposit to cover the OD and avoid the fee, more then fair. They also no longer re-sequence hence there won't be any more complaints about that, at least with Chase.

So the regulation change really hurts no one, but helps many. Actually it will hurt the bank, but they did it to themselves..personal responsibility..remember? You reap what you sow.

So, in theory it is correct what you say...people should be responsible for managing their own money. But the banks were using bait and switch type tactics that are illegal in many industries.

Realize you can coax someone into a situation (scamming) that they should know is not valid or fair, but until congress instituted laws against this...it was not illegal.

You can set a person up using what you know of their faults, be it greed, lust, envy or any of a host of things including irresponsibility or poor account keeping skills...this is easy to do, but there was a law instituted that made that illegal also....it's called ENTRAPMENT. This will all be exposed in due time to those who can't already grasp this.

*Sigh*

Time to put down some naysayers again. (RonnyG and fknstupid)

Listen ladies, how many times do I need to tell you this? I don't currently work for and never have worked for US Bank. Please try to pay attention. I know it's hard for you guys since you two have the collective intelligence of a stale Pop-Tart, but at least try. If you think about it (or anything for that matter), why would someone who works for USB spend countless hours on this website telling you how to AVOID overdrafting? Doesn't seem to make much sense.

Frankly, I don't care what you think of me. Your personal opinion of me doesn't keep me up at night unlike your sisters. What you should care about is the fact that 90% of overdraft fees are generated from a small fragment of their customer base. This is a fact you can confirm with the bank if you want. So, that being said, we can safely assume that USB's tactics and policies are straightforward enough so that the average person can understand them and abide by them without much difficulty. There is no conspiracy, Jesse Ventura, so let go of the "the bank is out to get me" bit. You signed a legal document stating that you have read, understand, and agree to ALL terms of the account, including their fee structure.

Banks are routinely audited by the government. If they were really charging unsubstantiated overdraft fees, don't you think that the bank would be put out of business? Of course they would. What this really comes down to is a bunch of chumps that either don't know how to balance their account or simply don't care about the consequences of their actions. 

In closing, let me ask you "poor victims" a question. If you have all this evidence that USB is committing fraud, why aren't you pressing charges? Answer: because you know that you screwed up, and you don't want to admit it.

Admit your mistake. Learn from it. Move on.

I'll take that...

"While I admit there are times when the banks are not at fault... or even Walmart for that matter, there is simply too much evidence against the banks. Billions collected in fees at almost double the rate in the last few years, millions and millions of complaints and thousands lodged here alone, Congress and the Feds having to step in, the ongoing endless lawsuits, the negative media attention, and the OBVIOUS tactics the banks have been pulling to take advantage of honest mistakes or any way shape or form they can extort fees, would make it apparent to ANYONE within reason, that there is more to this then it simply being "deadbeats" trying to get a free ride."

I never used the terms "deadbeat" or "free ride" but the fact remains that any account holder can choose not to pay overdraft fees. I have accounts at US Bank, Chase and Bank of America. You'd think I'd be hit with massive fees every month but I haven't paid a single one. All it takes is a little bit of work to maintain a check register and not spend more than one's available funds.

"I can break it down if need be to anyone who continues to defend the bank and place 100% of the blame on the customers..but MARK my words..if you do so, I will only come back and rebut with solid EVIDENCE that the banks have been doing nothing less then entrapment, various forms of bait and switch..not to mention failure to properly disclose and in essence swindling a percentage of their customers."

Entrapment? I'd love to see you meet the legal definition of that. As for disclosure, every single one of the bank agreements I have on hand discloses processing order and two of them specifically mention  processing from highest-to-lowest.

"Now some may say "well it was only a minority... blah blah verbal vomit", but my stance is whether it was one customer that paid the MAJORITY of these fees which the tactics contributed to, or 10%, or 20%, or 13.246789% does not matter and is IRRELEVANT..."

You're missing the point. Since the vast majority of account holders do not pay overdraft fees, wouldn't it be prudent to examine why they don't pay overdraft fees?

You see, my position is that nobody needs to pay a single overdraft fee to the bank. Why do that? I am positive that most people have better things to do with their money than pay overdraft fees.

"NOT a SINGLE checking account customer should be subjected to any deception from a bank which is FDIC insured and receives TARP funds...and NO customer should be subjected to ANY tactic used by the bank, that can cause ANY fee or fees to be applied to ANY transaction that had the funds available at the time of the transaction. Talk about a hostile corporate takeover...this was done by the banks against American taxpaying citizens."

I maintain that a customer should not do business with any entity if he or she does not like the way they do business. I turn down loan/credit offers after reading the terms and deciding that I don't like them. Similarly, if a customer does not like the terms and conditions a bank offers, he or she should move on and find a bank that is a little more to their liking.

They don't even have to open a bank account. If somebody doesn't want to do the work to maintain their checking account, there are alternative products out there such as prepaid credit cards.

Ronny G -

I do believe you are right.. "I am the law" like you said is just some guy with a hard-on for USB (good one by the way).  I read many of his responses to others before posting my own and I just knew his overly obsessive need to defend them was going to come in. The sad thing is he just makes people hate that bank more then they do.

 

You know.. if you did not defend USB so much as you do, people would not get the idea that you work for them. Nobody even listens to you on here so why must you put your 2 cents in every complaint against USB? And simply put the reason nobody listens to you is due to the fact that you seem to spend every minute of your life just hoping and praying someone says something bad about your precious bank. So glad you have been with them for over a decade..what do they give you for banking with them that long, a free ice cream scooper?

He (I am assuming you are referring to "I am the Law") is just a reasonless bank defender. He has some kind of hard-on for US Bank ...perhaps because he and/or his wife have to work there, or did at one time.

He feels that ANYONE who lodges a complaint against US Bank, or Walmart, is a deadbeat.

He refuses to listen to logic, reason, fairness or the truth.

So it is akin to debating with a dead horse or a retarded donkey..don't expect to get anywhere, and don't expect any concession.

You and I, and other people who are able to decipher fact from fiction know the truth. All we can do is expose it, and try our best to not allow the diversions from others to take anything away from the legitimacy of the reports.

While I admit there are times when the banks are not at fault... or even Walmart for that matter, there is simply too much evidence against the banks. Billions collected in fees at almost double the rate in the last few years, millions and millions of complaints and thousands lodged here alone, Congress and the Feds having to step in, the ongoing endless lawsuits, the negative media attention, and the OBVIOUS tactics the banks have been pulling to take advantage of honest mistakes or any way shape or form they can extort fees, would make it apparent to ANYONE within reason, that there is more to this then it simply being "deadbeats" trying to get a free ride.

I can break it down if need be to anyone who continues to defend the bank and place 100% of the blame on the customers..but MARK my words..if you do so, I will only come back and rebut with solid EVIDENCE that the banks have been doing nothing less then entrapment, various forms of bait and switch..not to mention failure to properly disclose and in essence swindling a percentage of their customers.

Now some may say "well it was only a minority... blah blah verbal vomit", but my stance is whether it was one customer that paid the MAJORITY of these fees which the tactics contributed to, or 10%, or 20%, or 13.246789% does not matter and is IRRELEVANT...NOT a SINGLE checking account customer should be subjected to any deception from a bank which is FDIC insured and receives TARP funds...and NO customer should be subjected to ANY tactic used by the bank, that can cause ANY fee or fees to be applied to ANY transaction that had the funds available at the time of the transaction. Talk about a hostile corporate takeover...this was done by the banks against American taxpaying citizens.

But don't rebut me...rebut the BANKS that are now making changes on their own, REBUT the FEDS who have forced the banks to make changes. and REBUT the US FEDERAL COURT, which have decided to allow the lawsuits to commence forward, regardless of what BS the banks tried to pull during the dismissal stages.

Any takers?

fknawesome,

We're pulling the old "spotter for the bank" bit again, are we?

Well, first off, I don't work for USB. Never have, never will. Closest thing I've come to that is my wife working as a manager in their food service area for a few months; nothing on the financial side. I have, however, had an account with them for about a decade, so I figure if USB was "out to get everyone", they would've hit me with a fee by now. Do yourself a favor and put your little accusations away. You're embarrassing yourself.

Moving on to your dilemma, all I'm saying is that it is impossible to get overdraft fees if your AVAILABLE balance is positive at the end of a business day. That's right, I said it... impossible. Now, what you're trying to convince me is that your AVAILABLE balance was positive every single day and yet big, bad US Bank is picking on you by hitting you overdraft fees for absolutely no reason? What you're describing is gross fraud and I highly doubt that USB would put their business on the line for this paultry amount of money. Something had to have hit your account, or at least been pending on it, for you to go negative. By the way, what did your check ledger say? Oh wait, you probably don't keep one. What was I thinking? My advice is put down your joint and copy of "High Times", and call 800-US-BANKS. I'm sure they'll walk you through it day by day. And yes, they're right, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CHECK YOUR BALANCE BEFORE YOU SPEND. Heaven forbid someone do that, right, fknstupid? 

Surely there lays an answer somewhere in the world because the idea of money vanishing does not seem likely, but +$2.00 does not suddenly turn in to a negative balance without any pending charges. Even if $0.50 was the remaining balance, it should not matter because that would be 50 Cents of my money that I entrusted in the eye of the bank to watch over it. I'm not the wealthiest person in the world and because of that I have learned to budget much more carefully then someone who is wealthy and does not have to worry about that.

A printed statement of my recent transaction was printed out and revealed to the local US Bank branch..the statement shows that a fee occured but was "waived". There were not any notes as to why it was waived or what it was, but they concluded that was the reason for my overdraft occurence. Have you ever heard of such a d**n thing? Whether you choose to look at me as if I am making this all up I could care less because my only purpose on here is to remind others to BE CAREFUL, it does not matter the situation, but monitor your account closely because I took my eyes off for a second and now my story is published. I spent over an hour with different bank representatives about this unknown fee, and all they can do about it is reverese TWO (2) of the many overdraft charges. Are they going to put a stop to the rapid $8 negative balance charge? HELL NO. Bottom line, I'm stuck paying almost $300 because of all this. And please, do not insult my ability to add things up because I can guarantee you that I will bring you to school in mathematics, even if you are my equivalent, you might even have less knowledge, but none GREATER then mine.

 

They can present a problem..but it is not the dollar hold that is a concern, but being opted out of OD protection and pumping in too much gas, hence overdrafting the account.

This is being worked on as the legislators that brought up the bill had to take this into consideration. Now has it stands now, you will not be arrested if you go over at the pump..but this is a case where if caused by customer neglect, could be charged a fee..the bank has no choice but to cover it in that case. I notice with one bank I use where I am opted out, that the card is declined at the pump and I need to pay inside if I wish to use the card. This happens once my account falls below a certain amount.

If you get an overdraft fee at the pump when opted out, at this point you may be able to fight it..because it is the fault of the "electronics systems" so they blame.

Here is an excerpt from a thetimes-tribune dotcom article regarding the gas pump potential issue from back in November...

  Sweeping changes coming to protect customers from overzealous bank fees and practices
BY JIM DINO (STAFF WRITER)
Published: November 22, 2009

In some cases, such as when a check card is used at a gas pump, the card will allow the consumer to pump the gas regardless of how much money the consumer has in his or her checking account because the transaction is charged as a $1 debit until the bank settles the transaction, said Ms. Hitchcock.

"People can slip through the cracks like that, and get assessed the overdraft fee," she said. "We are working with our technical people to see how the electronics creates this situation and to come up with an answer."


So in a nutshell, there are some flaws in the "system". However as long as you are opted out..at any other type or point of sale or ATM withdrawal, the transaction will be declined if the finds are unavailable, and you will not get any type of fee. But since gas pumps and autopays and checks really may not have a workable way around the fees, the customer STILL has an obligation to keep accurate track to the best of their ability. The law changes should not be about advocating carelessness, it should simply be putting a stop to the banks unethical practices, no one should expect or ask for a free ride..only fairness and reasonable policies.

The only person that needs to come clean is you. Why don't you admit to the fact that you are some young gullable moron who has been suckered in to letting the bank pay you to defend their "great name". ..who wants to defend a bank that has more then a thousand negatives against them nationwide?

Let me give you a piece of advice that will not go over your head..hopefully. If it looks like crap, tastes like crap, smells like crap,and thousands of intelligent inoccent americans know its crap, but US Bank claims that it's chicken.....please..YOU eat it and find out.

Perhaps if it is "my fault", for doing what US Bank tells me to do in order to prevent overdraft which is call the 800 number, then they need to speed up their d**n system. Especially when the onlince access tells me no differently then the recording operator. If my money is in the bank, I'm going to use it because that is MY money..but now because I used MY money, I owe money to the very bank that is supposed to protect my earnings.

What part of my report did you not understand? The part where they overdrafted me when I did in fact have a positive balance, or the even more amazing part where they are charging me $8.00 per day I'm overdrawn? Got anything else to say? Because after printing out my statement, the branch sure as hell has nothing to say as to why this happened. So please Mr. Bank Representative, do continue to enlighten every former and current US Bank client how amazing it is to have an account there knowing you can not safely keep $2.00 in the bank.

 

 

and I will tell you why. Whether or not you realize you have overdrafted somewhere..don't expect the bank statements or bank employees to figure it out for you. They WANT you to overdraft and encourage it any way possible..even using questionable tactics..which is how they have been raking in profits the last few years, and why they are currently defendants in a lawsuit due to these tactics.

So, instead of drawn out debate of who is wrong and who is irresponsible..simply opt out of overdraft protection on the debit card..period. Unless you like fees if you make a mistake or some unknown hold or charge or check clearing is a problem..who needs it?

Ok..I look at it this way. The bank is a mine field, and you are a soldier. Now, the best way to avoid getting blown up..is to avoid the mine field (the mine is the overdraft fees). So correct, you must be very careful not to spend more then is in the account or you may get blowed up.

Now, you know to avoid the minefield, but you might hit a stray mine one day or veer off course by accident. So put on a "bomb proof suit", which is opting out of overdraft coverage. Now if you accidentally or by deception end up stumbling on a mine (overdraft), you will not get hurt (a fee or fees) because of the bomb suit (opting out of overdraft coverage)  Win for you and know one got hurt.

Regardless of what others may "think" if you opt out of overdraft protection on the debit card (all banks must disclose and give the customers a choice by law soon if they do not already), it is IMPOSSIBLE to overdraft with the debit card no matter what the bank posts as your available balance, hence it is IMPOSSIBLE to get a fee..or any s****.>

You wrote that you frequently check your account and you mentioned calling the bank's toll free number. Do you also use and maintain an accurate check register?

As we know, online/phone banking is not a substitute for an account holder because the systems only know of the transaction amounts that are input by the merchants. For example, let's say that you are at the gas station and pay at the pump. You may buy $20 worth of gas but the station only places a $1 hold against your account. If you use phone banking to check your balance, you will think that you have $19 more in your account than you actually do. That's because the bank's system is only aware of the $1 hold and not the actual $20 in gas that you purchased.

If you spend money against a false balance, you are likely to incur overdraft fees. When you read your account agreement with the bank, you saw the section that said US Bank may process transactions in any order. If they processed from largest to smallest, that would have generated additional overdraft fees.

Furthermore, you also saw the daily negative balance fee in the agreement. That isn't new, the fee is in my account agreement and that is over three years old.

If you don't like these fees, i strongly recommend that you carefully read the account agreements at other banks until you find one that is to your liking. I would also urge you to review your method of managing your finances.

Let me see if I get this straight. You spent all the money in your account except for about $2 and the next day you have all these overdraft fees, but you didn't spend over your balance?

Yeah, right.

I'm not an accountant, but I'm pretty sure that you have to have a negative available balance for overdraft fees to occur. You are definitely leaving out detail here. Something had to offset our account past that $2 balance.

Come clean. What did you do?