Bank Of Oklahoma rip off overdraft fees Tulsa Oklahoma

The proof is in the pudding and any other cliche you want to use. I promise this is the last thread I'll provide because I don't want to take away from the issue in this OP and from Jerry's complaint.

Thread #4: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/287/RipOff0287030.htm

This is another example of the back and forth episodes that Truth Detector referred to earlier where he claimed I was doing so simply to save face. Once you go view this thread FOR YOURSELVES, you will find yet another example of the person I'm arguing with, finally wising up and realizing what they initiallly thought might not be true and in fact what I was saying all along is probably true. Combine this with thread #3 and now you have two examples of this. That's more than enough.

You see, if I HAD NOT been persistent and kept at it, their words and opinions in these threads would have been the final say, although they were INCORRECT. I think I have my answer to my question earlier. Truth Detector's name is in fact an Antagonym. Simply look at how he closes all of his posts with phrases that indicate HIS WORD seals the deal, closes the issue, game, set, match....etc.

You see, Truth Detector is the type of person who will try and tell all of us the sky is green. Then myself or someonen else comes along and rebutts him and says no, in fact the sky is blue. Then we go into this back and forth episode. Truth Detector is the type of person who simply wants to say the sky is green, and that's it. And he will go on to say 'please everyone, don't argue against me'. 'Please everyone don't get into this back and forth episode with me, where we just might in fact find out that indeed that the sky is blue'. He simply wants his word to be THE GOSPEL. And that's the pattern of his posts on all ROR threads, like this one here.

I'm sorry Truth Detector. My object on all of these threads is to get to THE TRUTH - Pun Intended!! Even if it in facts prove MY OWN opinion false, as Threads #1 and #2 prove above.

Now to Jerry and everyone else, you be your own judge.

The proof is in the pudding and any other cliche you want to use. I promise this is the last thread I'll provide because I don't want to take away from the issue in this OP and from Jerry's complaint.

Thread #4: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/287/RipOff0287030.htm

This is another example of the back and forth episodes that Truth Detector referred to earlier where he claimed I was doing so simply to save face. Once you go view this thread FOR YOURSELVES, you will find yet another example of the person I'm arguing with, finally wising up and realizing what they initiallly thought might not be true and in fact what I was saying all along is probably true. Combine this with thread #3 and now you have two examples of this. That's more than enough.

You see, if I HAD NOT been persistent and kept at it, their words and opinions in these threads would have been the final say, although they were INCORRECT. I think I have my answer to my question earlier. Truth Detector's name is in fact an Antagonym. Simply look at how he closes all of his posts with phrases that indicate HIS WORD seals the deal, closes the issue, game, set, match....etc.

You see, Truth Detector is the type of person who will try and tell all of us the sky is green. Then myself or someonen else comes along and rebutts him and says no, in fact the sky is blue. Then we go into this back and forth episode. Truth Detector is the type of person who simply wants to say the sky is green, and that's it. And he will go on to say 'please everyone, don't argue against me'. 'Please everyone don't get into this back and forth episode with me, where we just might in fact find out that indeed that the sky is blue'. He simply wants his word to be THE GOSPEL. And that's the pattern of his posts on all ROR threads, like this one here.

I'm sorry Truth Detector. My object on all of these threads is to get to THE TRUTH - Pun Intended!! Even if it in facts prove MY OWN opinion false, as Threads #1 and #2 prove above.

Now to Jerry and everyone else, you be your own judge.

The proof is in the pudding and any other cliche you want to use. I promise this is the last thread I'll provide because I don't want to take away from the issue in this OP and from Jerry's complaint.

Thread #4: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/287/RipOff0287030.htm

This is another example of the back and forth episodes that Truth Detector referred to earlier where he claimed I was doing so simply to save face. Once you go view this thread FOR YOURSELVES, you will find yet another example of the person I'm arguing with, finally wising up and realizing what they initiallly thought might not be true and in fact what I was saying all along is probably true. Combine this with thread #3 and now you have two examples of this. That's more than enough.

You see, if I HAD NOT been persistent and kept at it, their words and opinions in these threads would have been the final say, although they were INCORRECT. I think I have my answer to my question earlier. Truth Detector's name is in fact an Antagonym. Simply look at how he closes all of his posts with phrases that indicate HIS WORD seals the deal, closes the issue, game, set, match....etc.

You see, Truth Detector is the type of person who will try and tell all of us the sky is green. Then myself or someonen else comes along and rebutts him and says no, in fact the sky is blue. Then we go into this back and forth episode. Truth Detector is the type of person who simply wants to say the sky is green, and that's it. And he will go on to say 'please everyone, don't argue against me'. 'Please everyone don't get into this back and forth episode with me, where we just might in fact find out that indeed that the sky is blue'. He simply wants his word to be THE GOSPEL. And that's the pattern of his posts on all ROR threads, like this one here.

I'm sorry Truth Detector. My object on all of these threads is to get to THE TRUTH - Pun Intended!! Even if it in facts prove MY OWN opinion false, as Threads #1 and #2 prove above.

Now to Jerry and everyone else, you be your own judge.

The proof is in the pudding and any other cliche you want to use. I promise this is the last thread I'll provide because I don't want to take away from the issue in this OP and from Jerry's complaint.

Thread #4: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/287/RipOff0287030.htm

This is another example of the back and forth episodes that Truth Detector referred to earlier where he claimed I was doing so simply to save face. Once you go view this thread FOR YOURSELVES, you will find yet another example of the person I'm arguing with, finally wising up and realizing what they initiallly thought might not be true and in fact what I was saying all along is probably true. Combine this with thread #3 and now you have two examples of this. That's more than enough.

You see, if I HAD NOT been persistent and kept at it, their words and opinions in these threads would have been the final say, although they were INCORRECT. I think I have my answer to my question earlier. Truth Detector's name is in fact an Antagonym. Simply look at how he closes all of his posts with phrases that indicate HIS WORD seals the deal, closes the issue, game, set, match....etc.

You see, Truth Detector is the type of person who will try and tell all of us the sky is green. Then myself or someonen else comes along and rebutts him and says no, in fact the sky is blue. Then we go into this back and forth episode. Truth Detector is the type of person who simply wants to say the sky is green, and that's it. And he will go on to say 'please everyone, don't argue against me'. 'Please everyone don't get into this back and forth episode with me, where we just might in fact find out that indeed that the sky is blue'. He simply wants his word to be THE GOSPEL. And that's the pattern of his posts on all ROR threads, like this one here.

I'm sorry Truth Detector. My object on all of these threads is to get to THE TRUTH - Pun Intended!! Even if it in facts prove MY OWN opinion false, as Threads #1 and #2 prove above.

Now to Jerry and everyone else, you be your own judge.

In this rebuttal, you all have been treated to the crux of Edward's game plan and the center of his fraud. After he quotes the WAMU OP, he states:

'Now let me translate this quote...'

So we are not going to take the words at face value, but instead 'translate the quote'? I had no idea that Edward was so in tune with the OP so as to interpret what he said beyond the actual words. I sense some strong psychic powers at work here...

He also states:

'The conclusion. Yes there were MULTIPLE overdraft fees. Not because WAMU changed the posting order to largest amounts first, but instead because NEW transactions came in POSTED the next day before the author had a chance to correct THEIR OWN mistake from the previous day.

Still no proof. And isn't it odd that no more samples can't be provided if there are SO MANY to choose from? Why the need to focus on this ONE, which itself never mentions POSTING ORDER. Yes it mentions multiple fees, that occurred the NEXT DAY from NEW transactions while the previous posting balance was still negative. Not becauase of POSTING ORDER.'

So Edward KNOWS that because multiple overdraft fees were assessed the next day and with additional charges posted, that there was no ordering process the first day? The man's powers of divination must astound everyone! WAMU has EXPLICITLY STATED that they post items from largest-to-smallest. My PROOF comes straight from the bank supervisor's mouth. Where does Edward's proof come from? The Land of Oz

You see, ladies and gentlemen, this is Edward's game. Twist any FACTS to match his theories. But you see boys and girls, this whole exercise, while fun to discredit a crackpot, does not detract from the fact that you STILL NEED TO MANAGE YOUR FINANCES RESPONSIBLY and take money back from the bank. Has Edward bothered ONE TIME to advise you how to avoid overdraft fees in the future? I have challenged him to do so countless times. To date, he STILL has not done so.

In that, you all can gauge his so-called 'credibility'. It ceases to exist...

I cannot believe that I'm falling into this trap and I apologize to the OP Jerry and to the others for the redundancy but I just simply can't resist. I'm sorry.

You can read it for yourselves but I'll post the quote RIGHT HERE from Truth Detector's single thread.

---
In my particular case, a simple mistake of 'overdrafting' an account by less than a $1 in some instances has pushed me into a corner and possibly filing for bankruptcy. Once I made the very simple mistake, and did not correct it within the first 12 hours of it happening, dozens of charges went through. This caused an onslaught of 'overdraft fees' to post to my account.
---

Now let me translate this quote, even though I'm sure everyone else already gets it, but nevertheless. The author themselves made their own, quote - 'simple mistake of 'overdrafting' an account by less than a $1'. Apparently this has happened multiple times, meaning different occasions as the author says, quote - 'some instances'. Because of them overdrawing their acccount by their own fault, WAMU charged them an OD fee of $35, and this left the account balance negative $-36. Then because the author, quote - 'did not correct it within the first 12 hours of it happening', this added further damage the next business day when quote - 'dozens of charges went through. This caused an onslaught of 'overdraft fees' to post to my account'.

The conclusion. Yes there were MULTIPLE overdraft fees. Not because WAMU changed the posting order to largest amounts first, but instead because NEW transactions came in POSTED the next day before the author had a chance to correct THEIR OWN mistake from the previous day.

Still no proof. And isn't it odd that no more samples can't be provided if there are SO MANY to choose from? Why the need to focus on this ONE, which itself never mentions POSTING ORDER. Yes it mentions multiple fees, that occurred the NEXT DAY from NEW transactions while the previous posting balance was still negative. Not becauase of POSTING ORDER.

I hate being so right - I really do. I wish Edward could bring some fresh material because he has become such a bore. However, I called it perfectly.

He COMPLETELY dodges the fact that, straight from the BANK SUPERVISOR'S MOUTH, WAMU posts transactions from largest to smallest. He tries to twist FACTS, including the directly-quoted words of the OP in the WAMU link I provided, which clearly stated that one overdraft caused many fees (Hello? Can you say ORDERING PROCESS and subsequent fees?). I sincerely doubt that one fee caused the OP to fret about bankruptcy. another quoted FACT that escapes Edward's gaze.

His discussion with the 'bank employee' has accomplished nothing regarding AVOIDING THE FEES or proving his 'point'. Check it out for yourself. Your eyes will not lie to you.

Hate to break the news to you, Edward, but I do not recall ever being frustrated by your repeating meaningless, irrelevant questions that have nothing to do with the OP. I do, however, find them pointless and pathetic - as the lack of support from rebuttals (Forget lack of support. how about ZERO support? Much more accurate) will attest to.

This has become a pointless exercise. You are one of those idiots who will lose a debate, stay after to argue further (even when no one is talking to you), then argue with yourself and a brick wall when all have left the building. You bring nothing to the table - and you STILL have not offered any meaningful advice to OPs regarding HOW TO AVOID THE FEES IN THE FUTURE. You are whiner who resembles a Jim Jones Kool-Aid drinker. Your missionary zeal against banks accomplishes nothing and helps no one. At least the rebuttals supporting banks, polite and rude alike, offer advice to OPs regarding how to avoid the fees in the future. They are helpful. Have your rebuttals make ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE TO ANYONE? No.

Case closed...game...set...match.

First to Faron. You are right. There is nothing difficult about balancing a checkbook. I never condone personal irresponsibility, but I understand that innocent mistakes do happen. You answered YOUR OWN question in YOUR OWN post when you went on to say 'I would rather the bank take the largest transactions first because generally these transactions would cause the most grief' if they were to bounce. There is no need for this statement unless you are admitting that it's highly possible that STUFF happens, even though in your case, it hasn't happened yet. That's my whole point. The key is what the bank does to you AFTER this INNOCENT stuff happens.

Now. This is such an unnecessary diversion but I feel compelled to help Jerry and everyone else here decide for yourselves who's credible and who to believe regarding Truth Detector's previous post. He claims that I go on endlessly on each thread to save face even when I've been proven wrong. He's partially right. Yes, I do this, but not to save face, but because I thought we're all here to help get to THE TRUTH. And I'm sorry if I don't just gullibly accept answers that are FALSE or answers that don't have any logic. Here's proof.

Thread #1: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/275/RipOff0275169.htm
Thread #2: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/282/RipOff0282504.htm

You'll notice in these two threads that it's an actual bank employee I'm going back and forth with. More importantly, you'll notice that in the end I acknowledge that the employee has SUFFICIENTLY answered my questions and I give them credit.

Thread #3: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/291/RipOff0291212.htm

Once again in this thread you'll notice it's an actual bank employee I'm going back and forth with. I have a question, the employee answers. I'm not satisfied and ask more questions. The employee, like Truth Detector, admits the frustration with the repetitions but he responds yet again. Then I ask the final question and lo and behold, the employee admits I'm right. Now that's not my objective, to be proven right, as the first two threads have shown. The objective is to get to THE TRUTH and we finally did.......but only after repeated question and answers.

So to the OP Jerry and everyone else, you can make your own conclusions about who's credible, especially in the ABSENCE of any thread against WAMU that specificially mentions "posting order" by amount, not OP's that simply mention "overdraft fees". Did anyone else catch that slight of hand in Truth Detector's response? I was perfectly clear what the OP's complaint should clearly state. The problem, which I already knew, is he is unable to come up with any so he just picked the only one he could come up with and thought he could simply slide it by.

By the way. I STRONGLY suggest everyone take a look at that third thread. It revealed what turned out to be QUITE SURPRISING information about deposit holds that was not spelled out in the Deposit Agreement - the reason for my unsatisfaction with the employee's response - which he ultimately acknowledged.

First to Faron. You are right. There is nothing difficult about balancing a checkbook. I never condone personal irresponsibility, but I understand that innocent mistakes do happen. You answered YOUR OWN question in YOUR OWN post when you went on to say 'I would rather the bank take the largest transactions first because generally these transactions would cause the most grief' if they were to bounce. There is no need for this statement unless you are admitting that it's highly possible that STUFF happens, even though in your case, it hasn't happened yet. That's my whole point. The key is what the bank does to you AFTER this INNOCENT stuff happens.

Now. This is such an unnecessary diversion but I feel compelled to help Jerry and everyone else here decide for yourselves who's credible and who to believe regarding Truth Detector's previous post. He claims that I go on endlessly on each thread to save face even when I've been proven wrong. He's partially right. Yes, I do this, but not to save face, but because I thought we're all here to help get to THE TRUTH. And I'm sorry if I don't just gullibly accept answers that are FALSE or answers that don't have any logic. Here's proof.

Thread #1: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/275/RipOff0275169.htm
Thread #2: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/282/RipOff0282504.htm

You'll notice in these two threads that it's an actual bank employee I'm going back and forth with. More importantly, you'll notice that in the end I acknowledge that the employee has SUFFICIENTLY answered my questions and I give them credit.

Thread #3: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/291/RipOff0291212.htm

Once again in this thread you'll notice it's an actual bank employee I'm going back and forth with. I have a question, the employee answers. I'm not satisfied and ask more questions. The employee, like Truth Detector, admits the frustration with the repetitions but he responds yet again. Then I ask the final question and lo and behold, the employee admits I'm right. Now that's not my objective, to be proven right, as the first two threads have shown. The objective is to get to THE TRUTH and we finally did.......but only after repeated question and answers.

So to the OP Jerry and everyone else, you can make your own conclusions about who's credible, especially in the ABSENCE of any thread against WAMU that specificially mentions "posting order" by amount, not OP's that simply mention "overdraft fees". Did anyone else catch that slight of hand in Truth Detector's response? I was perfectly clear what the OP's complaint should clearly state. The problem, which I already knew, is he is unable to come up with any so he just picked the only one he could come up with and thought he could simply slide it by.

By the way. I STRONGLY suggest everyone take a look at that third thread. It revealed what turned out to be QUITE SURPRISING information about deposit holds that was not spelled out in the Deposit Agreement - the reason for my unsatisfaction with the employee's response - which he ultimately acknowledged.

First to Faron. You are right. There is nothing difficult about balancing a checkbook. I never condone personal irresponsibility, but I understand that innocent mistakes do happen. You answered YOUR OWN question in YOUR OWN post when you went on to say 'I would rather the bank take the largest transactions first because generally these transactions would cause the most grief' if they were to bounce. There is no need for this statement unless you are admitting that it's highly possible that STUFF happens, even though in your case, it hasn't happened yet. That's my whole point. The key is what the bank does to you AFTER this INNOCENT stuff happens.

Now. This is such an unnecessary diversion but I feel compelled to help Jerry and everyone else here decide for yourselves who's credible and who to believe regarding Truth Detector's previous post. He claims that I go on endlessly on each thread to save face even when I've been proven wrong. He's partially right. Yes, I do this, but not to save face, but because I thought we're all here to help get to THE TRUTH. And I'm sorry if I don't just gullibly accept answers that are FALSE or answers that don't have any logic. Here's proof.

Thread #1: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/275/RipOff0275169.htm
Thread #2: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/282/RipOff0282504.htm

You'll notice in these two threads that it's an actual bank employee I'm going back and forth with. More importantly, you'll notice that in the end I acknowledge that the employee has SUFFICIENTLY answered my questions and I give them credit.

Thread #3: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/291/RipOff0291212.htm

Once again in this thread you'll notice it's an actual bank employee I'm going back and forth with. I have a question, the employee answers. I'm not satisfied and ask more questions. The employee, like Truth Detector, admits the frustration with the repetitions but he responds yet again. Then I ask the final question and lo and behold, the employee admits I'm right. Now that's not my objective, to be proven right, as the first two threads have shown. The objective is to get to THE TRUTH and we finally did.......but only after repeated question and answers.

So to the OP Jerry and everyone else, you can make your own conclusions about who's credible, especially in the ABSENCE of any thread against WAMU that specificially mentions "posting order" by amount, not OP's that simply mention "overdraft fees". Did anyone else catch that slight of hand in Truth Detector's response? I was perfectly clear what the OP's complaint should clearly state. The problem, which I already knew, is he is unable to come up with any so he just picked the only one he could come up with and thought he could simply slide it by.

By the way. I STRONGLY suggest everyone take a look at that third thread. It revealed what turned out to be QUITE SURPRISING information about deposit holds that was not spelled out in the Deposit Agreement - the reason for my unsatisfaction with the employee's response - which he ultimately acknowledged.

As I stated, show me an OP where the author specifically says their problem was caused by THE BANK changing the posting order, posting items in descending order by amount and then charging MULTIPLE FEES because of this order manipulation. There are hundreds OP reports against WAMU, same as a lot of banks. The ONE example you provide is one of those many.

As you can clearly read from the author's quote in your OWN POST, the author admits making a mistake THEMSELVES, leaving the account overdrawn. Before the author made an IMMEDIATE deposit to cover the overdrawn account caused by THEIR OWN mistake, more charges came through, after OD fees for the first item and thus the s****.> Since this has been stated before, let me stipulate that I'm not assuming that WAMU doesn't do this simply because there ARE NO OP's and you will NOT FIND any OP's against them for THIS ENTIRE YEAR, for the specific practice of descending amount posting. What I'm saying is that this CLEAR EVIDENCE confirms what I already know.

And speaking of what I already know. I called the 800 number myself and asked them the same question. You know what they told me? WAMU's computer systems are setup to post items by sections based on transaction type, then by order of occurrence within each section. And yes, this is corporate policy, followed nationwide by all branches. Now I know what I know and I know what you're SAYING. As I said earlier, you're cleverly using this inability to DISPROVE what you're SAYING.

But the proof and evidence is there for everyone else to confirm it for themselves instead of taking either one of our words for it. You cannot make me believe that by sheer coincidence after 363 days of the year NOT ONE OP against WAMU, specifically mentioning this practice. If WAMU is doing this like all other banks, do they just coincidentally have much smarter customers who are NEVER affected by it like the customers at the other banks where POSTING ORDER OP's are flooding in by THE DAY?

THE EVIDENCE upholds my claim, not yours.

If you people would learn how to make sure you have enough money to cover any POSSIBLE overdraft scheme that the banks may use, whether it is largest to smallest, first to last and most importantly allow sufficient time for deposits to clear; then there should be no problem. When you make a deposit, you have a right to ask the bank when this deposit will post. Once you know this bit of information, mystery is solved.

Banks are in business to make money, period and if they have found a way to make more money and if the agreement allows for it; what can you do. I would rather the bank take the largest transactions first because generally these transactions would cause the most grief if they were not honored and the smaller ones were.

In the past, banks would not honor the transactions and that would cause bounced check fees and possibly even the county sheriff paying you a visit. Now, they provide overdraft protection, but at a premium cost. You have several options (1) Learn do deal with it (2) Find you a bank or credit union that records based on your preference or (3) Only transact in cash.

I am not a bank employee but have had my account with BOA or one of its former companies for over 25 years and there is no overdraft fee/bounced check that has ever been shown on any of my statements. Maybe it's because I understand their rules and adapt to them and more importantly, keep very close eye on my bank account.

I can do this because I have successfully quashed each and every attempt by you to argue your way out of this thread.

You asked about a ROR thread about overdraft fees from WAMU? Well, here you go:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/288/RipOff0288027.htm

In this recent thread originally dated 11/30/07, this person states, 'In my particular case, a simple mistake of 'overdrafting' an account by less than a $1 in some instances has pushed me into a corner and possibly filing for bankruptcy. Once I made the very simple mistake, and did not correct it within the first 12 hours of it happening, dozens of charges went through. This caused an onslaught of 'overdraft fees' to post to my account. When I put the money in a day later, it was immediately confinscated by WaMu for 'overdraft fees' (interest on the money they loaned me). Now, when additional charges came through after I thought I thought I had money in the account, I went back into the dark world of 'overdraft fees' once more. '

Wow...doesn't that all sound familiar? The 'onslaught' this person is talking about is the well-known instance where someone has one large purchase barely overdraw the account, then all the little purchases compound the overdraft fee collection.

However, just for good measure I called WAMU customer service AGAIN to hammer the last nail in your coffin, Edward. I even asked for a supervisor by pretending to be an angry customer. The supervisor, speaking in condescending, snotty fashion WITHOUT EVEN OBTAINING MY FICTICIOUS ACCOUNT INFORMATION, confirmed that transactions are posted from LARGEST TO SMALLEST and advised me that it was my responsibility as a customer to manage my finances. She then advised me that EVERY BOOK OF CHECKS COMES WITH A FREE REGISTER to keep track of transactions. Oh, and when I tried to tell her that some branches in Dallas do not post items to collect fees this way, she correctly advised me that is not the case. EVERY WAMU branch utilizes the policies of the aggragate corporation. According to her, a bank supervisor, the branch doesn't have anything to do with that process. They present the transactions (i.e. deposits and withdrawals), but a computer system orders them.

Different bank name, same story...WAMU is no different from the rest. You have been soundly defeated in every way, shape, and form. You have nothing more to offer this thread, and as always I will leave the facts of the OP and rebuttals speak for themselves.

Oh, and to those reading Edward's words, remember this: Leaving a thread does not mean someone has 'won' or given up. This clown gets hammered on his arguments, keeps posting nonsense, then tries to declare 'victory' when people do not engage in endless, repetitive debate that re-hashes the same tired points. That is the sign of someone who has lost a debate and tries to save face by posting endlessly with the hope that those reading will somehow lose sight of the fact that he has been beaten.

If you do not believe me, just read all the Wachovia and BOA postings where he argues the same points over and over. Even when he admits to being out-argued, he tries to cover up that fact by rambling on about something else.

My final word on this subject will be the same as it always is. Banks are crooks...we all know this. It is no secret that they ALL...repeat ALL...order transactions. They do not do this for your benefit, but rather to take your money. WE ALL KNOW THIS. However, knowing that fact, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to avoid paying the fees. Stop living off the debit card. Those who deal in CASH are a bank's worst nightmare. Deposit comes in, cash comes out. Bills are paid via cash or money order. Result? ZERO OVERDRAFT FEES. Instead of whining about how banks rip you off, try implementing a method of money management that deprives THEM of overdraft fees. The power becomes yours...and you transform yourself from 'victim' to WINNER.

I am not saying I am not to blame for bouncing transcations, I am just saying the whole OVERDRAFT privledge is a rip off, it is no better than a payday loan, this selfrightous "truthseeker" obviously has money and will never have to use overdraft...but shouldnt a bank look out for the well being of the customer, and not bounce several small transactions? I know that is not the policy and I read the terms and conditions I am just saying things should change, so all these people posting comments telling me I am a whiner and so on, well get a life are you just on here to insult people? BOK is the worat bank I have ever banked at period, I have have so many bad experiences with them that do not evern include overdraft, like posting several debits to my account that did not even belong to me, holding my income tax refund, after they had posted it as a credit and I startred using it, they put a hold on it and never told me until I called them, and asked why things were being returned, I was never told about a hold. and I think that is bad customer service. so I am aware that no one forces overdraft so you can lay off.

I am not saying I am not to blame for bouncing transcations, I am just saying the whole OVERDRAFT privledge is a rip off, it is no better than a payday loan, this selfrightous "truthseeker" obviously has money and will never have to use overdraft...but shouldnt a bank look out for the well being of the customer, and not bounce several small transactions? I know that is not the policy and I read the terms and conditions I am just saying things should change, so all these people posting comments telling me I am a whiner and so on, well get a life are you just on here to insult people? BOK is the worat bank I have ever banked at period, I have have so many bad experiences with them that do not evern include overdraft, like posting several debits to my account that did not even belong to me, holding my income tax refund, after they had posted it as a credit and I startred using it, they put a hold on it and never told me until I called them, and asked why things were being returned, I was never told about a hold. and I think that is bad customer service. so I am aware that no one forces overdraft so you can lay off.

I am not saying I am not to blame for bouncing transcations, I am just saying the whole OVERDRAFT privledge is a rip off, it is no better than a payday loan, this selfrightous "truthseeker" obviously has money and will never have to use overdraft...but shouldnt a bank look out for the well being of the customer, and not bounce several small transactions? I know that is not the policy and I read the terms and conditions I am just saying things should change, so all these people posting comments telling me I am a whiner and so on, well get a life are you just on here to insult people? BOK is the worat bank I have ever banked at period, I have have so many bad experiences with them that do not evern include overdraft, like posting several debits to my account that did not even belong to me, holding my income tax refund, after they had posted it as a credit and I startred using it, they put a hold on it and never told me until I called them, and asked why things were being returned, I was never told about a hold. and I think that is bad customer service. so I am aware that no one forces overdraft so you can lay off.

I am not saying I am not to blame for bouncing transcations, I am just saying the whole OVERDRAFT privledge is a rip off, it is no better than a payday loan, this selfrightous "truthseeker" obviously has money and will never have to use overdraft...but shouldnt a bank look out for the well being of the customer, and not bounce several small transactions? I know that is not the policy and I read the terms and conditions I am just saying things should change, so all these people posting comments telling me I am a whiner and so on, well get a life are you just on here to insult people? BOK is the worat bank I have ever banked at period, I have have so many bad experiences with them that do not evern include overdraft, like posting several debits to my account that did not even belong to me, holding my income tax refund, after they had posted it as a credit and I startred using it, they put a hold on it and never told me until I called them, and asked why things were being returned, I was never told about a hold. and I think that is bad customer service. so I am aware that no one forces overdraft so you can lay off.

Hey Truth Detector - Quid pro quo. There are hundreds of OP's filed against Washington Mutual. Yet I find it ODD that I cannot find ONE SINGLE OP this year against WAMU, specifically regarding posting order in descending order of amount.
On the other hand, we see these posting order OP's against banks like Wachovia, BofA and others flooding in by the day. How is that WAMU doesn't have any for an ENTIRE YEAR?

Now I know it's possible that I may have over looked them, so would you be so kind as to post a link to one or two of them, if you can find that many? Remember I'm not asking for a GENERIC response that says these OP's exist. Specific ROR links please. Thank you.

Now to everyone else. I invite you to judge for yourself when this thread disappears without a return from Truth Detector. Or I invite you to judge for yourself if he is so kind to respond but without specific links to the OP examples, but then he quietlly goes on to another subject change.

Hey Truth Detector - Quid pro quo. There are hundreds of OP's filed against Washington Mutual. Yet I find it ODD that I cannot find ONE SINGLE OP this year against WAMU, specifically regarding posting order in descending order of amount.
On the other hand, we see these posting order OP's against banks like Wachovia, BofA and others flooding in by the day. How is that WAMU doesn't have any for an ENTIRE YEAR?

Now I know it's possible that I may have over looked them, so would you be so kind as to post a link to one or two of them, if you can find that many? Remember I'm not asking for a GENERIC response that says these OP's exist. Specific ROR links please. Thank you.

Now to everyone else. I invite you to judge for yourself when this thread disappears without a return from Truth Detector. Or I invite you to judge for yourself if he is so kind to respond but without specific links to the OP examples, but then he quietlly goes on to another subject change.

Hey Truth Detector - Quid pro quo. There are hundreds of OP's filed against Washington Mutual. Yet I find it ODD that I cannot find ONE SINGLE OP this year against WAMU, specifically regarding posting order in descending order of amount.
On the other hand, we see these posting order OP's against banks like Wachovia, BofA and others flooding in by the day. How is that WAMU doesn't have any for an ENTIRE YEAR?

Now I know it's possible that I may have over looked them, so would you be so kind as to post a link to one or two of them, if you can find that many? Remember I'm not asking for a GENERIC response that says these OP's exist. Specific ROR links please. Thank you.

Now to everyone else. I invite you to judge for yourself when this thread disappears without a return from Truth Detector. Or I invite you to judge for yourself if he is so kind to respond but without specific links to the OP examples, but then he quietlly goes on to another subject change.

Truth Detector, I give you credit. You are really really good. I mean that with all sincerety, no strings attached. You have conveniently found a way to dispute what I'm saying and with CLEVER and CRAFTY wording and you are arguing your point REALLY WELL. Here's what I mean:

Quote #1 - 'I asked them if they ever post items largest to smallest'

Technically you are correct. The key word in that quote 'EVER'. It is highly possible by mere coincidence that some transactions might HAPPEN to post in descending order of amount, based on when they are MADE by the consumer and SUBMITTED by the merchant. But the real question you should have asked is does WAMU post ALL transactions in descending order by amount EVERY SINGLE DAY, day after day, after day?

Quote #2 - 'and each said 'yes, we post items in that manner per our terms and conditions'

Technically they are correct. This is repetitive, but isn't this EXACTLY what my quote said in my earlier post - 'their depositor agreements simply state they can post in ANY order they choose'? That's exactly what the rep told you. Your follow up question to the rep should have been 'Even though you CAN post in ANY order you choose, what method of POSTING is WAMU's computer system setup to use BY DEFAULT?' The answer - In sections by transaction type, then in order of occurence within each section.

You see. The employees simply covered their backs by repeating what the Agreement says they can do. They deliberately avoided telling you what they're systems are SETUP and PROGRAMMED to do by default, probaly not knowing where you were going with the question.

And you are using all of these combined loopholes to make your case VERY WELL. That's a sincere compliment. Nonetheless, you still don't have the correct answer.

Edward, this is becoming a tired game you are playing. You aren't convincing anyone, not even the OP, that your point is anywhere near valid. Isn't it curious that no one else comes on these threads to back your claims? To me, that speaks volumes about your so-called 'credibility'.

There are ENDLESS branches in Dallas...but the few I called advised me exactly as the phone rep had. I asked them if they ever post items largest to smallest, and each said 'yes, we post items in that manner per our terms and conditions'.

Face facts pal: BANKS ARE OUT TO TAKE YOUR MONEY. This is not news...and it will not change until laws are changed outlawing this ordering process. However, in the meantime you will do well to stop with this ridiculous claim that specific branches of major banks will change the ordering process. The TRUTH is, you have repeatedly refused to advise ANY OP who complains about these charges to take the necessary steps to AVOID THE CHARGES IN THE FUTURE. You take a blame-bank-first mentality that has grown as old as your pathetic arguments.

Sell irresponsible someplace else...no one here is buying. And sorry, but still no ripoff here.

Even though this is becoming very monotonous, I'll continue to play this song and dance with you because the evidence is there for everyone to see. I will refer everyone back to the first ROR link above that I used to back up what I said earlier. I will now use it to back up something else. This is a DIRECT QUOTE from MYSELF in that thread:

--------
'From my own additional research, I have gone back, reviewed the Depositor Agreements from some of these banks and guess what? Regarding posting order, their depositor agreements simply state they can post in ANY order they choose. No problem, this is typical legal wording that covers them no matter WHICH METHOD they choose. But THESE SAME banks in fact post items by section according to transaction type, then by sequence within each section.

So in effect, even though THEY CAN post in ANY order they choose (Depositor Agreement), at this point in time, they ARE NOT posting in order of Largest-To-Smallest. BIG DIFFERENCE!
--------

DejaVu. That phone rep repeated almost word for word EXACTLY what I said regarding what THEY CAN do. But it matters not what THEY CAN do. What matters is what they are actually DOING. Furthermore, yet again you failed to mention whether you called the 800 number or a local Dallas branch. I suspect it was the 800 number as you continue to avoid the truth. You're obviously computer savvy since you post on the ROR. In your spare time at your computer, while not posting on the ROR, how hard is it to bring up WAMU's website, write down and then call a Dallas branch? How many different ways must I say this?

When I pressed the phone rep at WAMU about the ordering process, she did admit indirectly that fees collection, 'much like speeding tickets' (her words) was a motive related to their method of ordering transactions (surprise surprise).

Although this solidifies your complaint about banks being greedy (which is STILL NOT THE ISSUE...personal responsibility has always been the issue that you gloss over time and again), it leaves absolutely no doubt about their transaction posting policy.

After a brief conversation with a WAMU phone rep, I was advised that 'Washington Mutual has the right per the Terms and Conditions of the account agreement to post transactions any way they see fit'. Those words came straight from the rep's mouth. Case closed, Edward...yet another prevarication exposed on your part.

No avoidance here, Eduardo. You have given Jerry and everyone else absolutely NO credible information or a viable suggestions to avoid this ripoff in the future. What you HAVE done, however, is continue to make a fool out of yourself by avoiding the TRUE issue here - which is a lack of money management and personal responsibility by this OP.

Still no ripoff here...

Ok Truth Detector. You say ONE THING, and I say another. However, I keep giving you a suggestion that you KEEP AVOIDING.

You have the ability to call WAMU for yourselves. You can call the 800 for starters and ask them. I'm not sure what they will tell you. But remember WAMU has a website you know. And you can use this website to get contact information for local branches. How hard is it to go to WAMU's website, retrieve the contact information for one of their DALLAS branches, call them and end this HE said SHE said ordeal.

By the same token. Now that I've given you the suggestion to CONFIRM what I'm telling you. Why don't you do the same? Why don't you give me and EVERYONE else the CITY where this WAMU branch is located that you claim post in descending order by amount. Then I and everyone else can simply CALL this local branch for ourselves to verify what you have claimed.

Now to the OP Jerry and everyone else. I have given you a hands down way to confirm what I KNOW IS TRUE. We'll see if Truth Detector does the same. Then you be your own Judge about whose credible. It's really not that hard.

As I keep saying, does 'TRUTH DETECTOR' really want to 'DETECT THE TRUTH'? Or is his name simply an Antagonym?

I love how idiots like this tool Edward post ROR thread links 'claiming' that banks and individual braches post items in a different manner - then take that to mean that you have 'proof'. Yes, Edward. WE BELIEVE YOU. Surrrrrrre...there is one rogue branch in Dallas that disregards the order of a national corporation. I am sure that minimizing overdraft fee collection and subsequent profits are the values of a single branch, which must just THRILL those who oversee the activities and profits of the branch. Your postings have gone from laughable to absurd to just plain made up.

Reality check, nimrod: Simply "saying" that something MIGHT be true makes it completely anecdotal and invalid. Your 'word' is worth less than mud on this subject. In fact, it stands somewhere between rat droppings and cow dung. No one has forgotten your pathetic attempts to throw worthless, meaningless crap out there and claim you have proof of something. We simply dismiss it because it means nothing, get it?

Oh, and for the record, WAMU posts items largest to smallest as well. My brother and sister-in-law bank with these people and testify to the fact that they do. Do you bank with WAMU? If not, by all means let us know how you arrived at this conclusion. My guess is you read it on a fortune cookie somewhere.

I agree that this is all funny. What is funny is you arriving on the scene like the Lone Ranger to defend the right of morons like this guy jerry who spend the bank's money without permission. then cry about being assessed penalties per Terms and Conditions HE SIGNED. Pity that you can NEVER escape that iron-clad, irrefutable fact. But then again, you do not deal in facts, do you Eddie? Much easier for you to deal in emotions like a fat, pitiful feminist on 'The View'.



>>>>> Truth Detector says 'Yes, there is one crackpot posting rebuttals who claims that individual branches will usurp the corporate policy and post items differently'. First of all the 'crackpot' in question is YOURS TRULY. Secondly, initially I did have the OPINION that individual branches MIGHT have their own unique post order policies. This OPINION was reached from FIRST HAND proof of a branch here in Dallas that DOES NOT post in descending order by amount. And this is a branch of a TOP NATIONAL bank that has been labeled BY OTHERS that it does in fact do this.

Then Truth Detector goes on to say '(We have seen ZERO evidence to back his claim, so you be the judge)'. You need to play catch up on what EVERYONE ELSE but yourself is probably aware of by now. Your proof has already been posted in past threads that you have CONVENIENTLY forgotten:

1) http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/279/RipOff0279467.htm
2) http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/284/RipOff0284804.htm

In the first thread, after posting THE EVIDENCE, that's when I gave my initial opinion that individual branches might do things independently of each other. It's now my belief that this initial opinion was INCORRECT, but instead I now believe they do in fact all follow the same corporate policy. And this is mentioned in the second thread.

Washington Mutual is just ONE EXAMPLE of a top national bank that DOES NOT post items in descending order of amount. This not meant to drum up business for WAMU and it's my belief they are NOT ALONE and in fact there may be other banks that still post items in the ORDER THEY OCCUR. I just haven't confirmed any others. yet.

There's your REAL answer Jerry my suggestion is that you do your own research and find a bank that suits your needs. And isn't it IRONIC that the two referenced quotes that I used here come from a person who goes by the name of 'TRUTH DETECTOR'. That's funny!'

Truth Detector says 'Yes, there is one crackpot posting rebuttals who claims that individual branches will usurp the corporate policy and post items differently'. First of all the 'crackpot' in question is YOURS TRULY. Secondly, initially I did have the OPINION that individual branches MIGHT have their own unique post order policies. This OPINION was reached from FIRST HAND proof of a branch here in Dallas that DOES NOT post in descending order by amount. And this is a branch of a TOP NATIONAL bank that has been labeled BY OTHERS that it does in fact do this.

Then Truth Detector goes on to say '(We have seen ZERO evidence to back his claim, so you be the judge)'. You need to play catch up on what EVERYONE ELSE but yourself is probably aware of by now. Your proof has already been posted in past threads that you have CONVENIENTLY forgotten:

1) http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/279/RipOff0279467.htm
2) http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/284/RipOff0284804.htm

In the first thread, after posting THE EVIDENCE, that's when I gave my initial opinion that individual branches might do things independently of each other. It's now my belief that this initial opinion was INCORRECT, but instead I now believe they do in fact all follow the same corporate policy. And this is mentioned in the second thread.

Washington Mutual is just ONE EXAMPLE of a top national bank that DOES NOT post items in descending order of amount. This not meant to drum up business for WAMU and it's my belief they are NOT ALONE and in fact there may be other banks that still post items in the ORDER THEY OCCUR. I just haven't confirmed any others.......yet.

There's your REAL answer Jerry my suggestion is that you do your own research and find a bank that suits your needs. And isn't it IRONIC that the two referenced quotes that I used here come from a person who goes by the name of 'TRUTH DETECTOR'. That's funny!

First and foremost, no one 'does all they can to overdraw your account'. YOU overdrafted your account. NO ONE made YOU spend money in an irresponsible manner. That choice was YOURS - as are the consequences of YOUR CHOICES.

Jerry, I do not know how new you are to banking, but EVERY bank I know posts transactions from largest to smallest to maximize collection of overdraft fees. Yes, there is one crackpot posting rebuttals who claims that individual branches will usurp the corporate policy and post items differently (We have seen ZERO evidence to back his claim, so you be the judge). However, the FACTS dictate that if you mismanage your finances and spend money that is not available in your account, you will be taken for as many fees as the bank can charge. Guaranteed.

Actually, as Wells Fargo, BOA, 5/3, and other nationwide banks charge $30-35 per item returned (and sometimes $6/day in addition to the fees until the account is brought into a positive state), it seems to me that the '$26.95 a pop' you are being assessed is actually closer to the bottom of the fees parade where banks are concerned.

Be wary also of the people on ROR who advocate using credit unions as an alternative to banks. Although it is true that some operate differently and charge one fee per day regardless of how many items bounce, many are catching on to the fees collection bonanza that banks are drawing from consumers. As with any account you have, do not write the check or swipe the card if you are not prepared to part with the money AT THAT MOMENT without overdrafting. The days of riding the float are GONE.

As for your statement that you are going back to your credit union, that may also prove impossible if the bank reports your NSF activity to ChexSystems, as is their right to do. Once any other bank or credit union takes a gander at your Chex record, you may find yourself utilizing the services of a check-cashing termite for the five (5) years that the action can remain on your record.

Good luck with that...

Jerry,

The sequence of items is IRRELEVANT if you only spend money that is posted and available in your account.

I would love to see your checkbook register if you even have one!

And, that NSF fee is a bargain, most are now $33-$39 each.

Learn how to properly manage your account and you will never pay NSF fees.

I have never paid one. And never will. Guaranteed.