Public Money by right - direct experiences please!

[fulltitle]

Nemo dat quod non habet

Without Prejudice.
Again, nemo dat.

There are numerous exceptions to the nemo dat rule. Legal tender, for example, does not adhere to the rule in certain circumstances. If a rogue buys goods from a bona fide merchant, that merchant will not have to return the bills to the true owner. To hold the rule to be otherwise would be disruptive to the economy and prevent the free flow of goods in an economy. The same may be true of other "negotiable" instruments, such as cheques. If a thief A steals a cheque from B and sells it to innocent C, C is entitled to deal with the cheque, and A cannot claim it back from C (though the name appearing on the cheque may affect the validity of such a transfer).

But if the check was crossed or it if was a non-negotiable.....

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by psholtz

So on Saturday morning I walked into the BofA branch in sheesy-sheesy, foo-foo Palo Alto to try and cash (in lawful money) a (roughly) $2700 check. I was (somewhat politely) informed that the bank would not honor the check, and that they are incapable of honoring any checks payable to non-customers over $2500.

I'll save you the details of all the screaming and shouting that soon ensued (LOL) .. the general trend of the conversations was something like:

Me: Why won't you honor the check?
Teller: b/c your not a customer.
Me: You're lying.. it's b/c you don't have any $$
Teller: (laughing, sneering) Sir, we are Bank of America.. of course we have money.
Me: No you don't.
Teller: Yes we do.
Me: Then show it to me.
Teller: (laughing, sneering) Have you ever heard of any bank anywhere showing people what's inside their vault?
Me: I dunno.. I've never done business w/ a bankrupt, financially insolvent bank before.
Teller: We're not bankrupt!
Me: Yes you are.
Teller: No we're not!
Me: Then pay me the $2700 that you're legally obligated to give me.
Teller: We can't. It's our new policy.
Me: Your new policy b/c you ran out of $$

And on and on and on... increasing shouts, increasing chaos.

Eventually the bank manager came out and assured me that this was a new "policy" that had come down from HQ back in January (now I KNEW this was BS, since I had been routinely cashing far larger checks at BofA since January), and that he apologized but that he couldn't help me.

I told him that's right he couldn't help me, b/c (in a voice loud enough to turn nervous heads in the teller line) there was a run happening on his bank right now.

I screamed and shouted some more, and then stormed off, to try and figure what to do next.

I tended to some other errands, and then .. just for shizzles .. figured I would go to the BofA down the street in Mountain View and see if they would cash the check. I walked in expecting to get shut down (remember the PA branch manager had claimed this order had come down from "HQ"), but I didn't. w/ a warm friendly smile and a "have a good day, Sir" they cashed the check w/o a problem.

Well.. now I was really curious.

So I went back to the bank in Palo Alto and demanded to know why everyone up and down the line, from the tellers to the loan officers to the bank manager had lied to me, telling me that BofA had some policy against cashing $2,500+ checks.

After some more screaming and shouting (and stressing out the people standing in line w/ the "bank run" bit), the bank manager again came out. This time he explained that "I make policy in this bank" and that he had to make a policy not to honor any checks over $2,500 "because I don't have enough money in my vault to pay your check to you."

For all those tellers and loan officers w/ the ****-eating grins on their face, about "we're Bank of America and we have all the $$ in the world and we're just not paying you b/c you're not a member of the country club.." You should have seen their jaws drop.. LOL..

"Oh," I said.. "so I was right the first time: there's a run on your bank happening right now."

Manager: No, you see.. at a bank, we like to keep all the money "in house" so to speak, so we really prefer to pay it out only to customers.
Me: It's not your money to keep, twit!! Look, the check is payable to me, not you!! Not Bank of America!!
Manager: (sheepishly) well, yes ... but God forbid that the check should bounce (<-- strawman argument, the check was drawn on an account at BofA and it had checked out good, albeit it being "over' the $2500 limit, earlier in the day).
Me: Damn right God forbid if it should bounce! Why the hell should I underwrite the liability for your bad checks! If the money is payable to me, you're going to pay it to me! I don't care if your checks bounce.. that sounds like your problem, not mine. Are you trying to ask me to take on the risk of liability for your bad checks for free? If you pay me a $250 upfront processing fee and pay 10,000% interest on the time I'm waiting for your (potentially bad) check to clear, then we can talk.... but otherwise..
Manager: Look, next time.. we could help you, but you'd have to open an account w/ us herel, which we'd be happy to do. If you open an account today, we'll even give you $25 free to...
Me: What!? Are you offering to open an account for me at a bank that you just 2 minutes ago admitted to me was financially insolvent and incapable of meeting its fiduciary obligations! Sir!! That's fraud! You can be sent to prison for that!

At that point, he broke from the counter and went running/scrambling back into his back office, like a little girl, never to be seen again (that day). I left, partly laughing, partly yelling loud invectives about a "bank run at BofA" to sheepish, nervous-looking customers standing in line.

What had began as a source of anger and frustration ended, in my estimation, quite well.. :-)

Following up on my own post here, the BofA in Mountain View, which had originally honored by $2700 check a month ago when I first posted this fiasco, is now today refusing to honor checks over $2000. This according to the bank's manager and BofA vice president Chad Endo, who can be reached for comment on the matter at 650.960.4702 (chad.endo@bankofamerica.com), 444 Castro Street, Suite 100, Mountain View, California 94041

Sounds like the banks are running out of money, people!

I haven't checked around at other local BofA's, to see if they're experiencing the same LIQUIDITY CRISIS (i.e., a bank run).

[Notorial dissent]

I am actually surprised that they cashed it the first time. Very few if any banks anymore will cash any kind of a check unless you either 1) have an account with them with sufficient funds to cover the check, 2) have lots of good id and they can verify the check, and even then most won’t over a certain dollar amount, or 3) a business relationship with them.

The policy has nothing to do with liquidity, it has to do with common sense and good business practices. Banks cannot and will not accept the losses resulting from bad checks being cashed for cash. In this day and age when people are passing counterfeit cashier’s checks banks are reluctant to take the liability.

A must have sufficient cash on hand to meet what is considered every day needs, at any give time any bank will have more cash on hand than you are or ever will be worth. If they don't, the FED and comptroller get very upset, and fine them. They are not, however in the business of handing out free samples.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

I am actually surprised that they cashed it the first time. Very few if any banks anymore will cash any kind of a check unless you either 1) have an account with them with sufficient funds to cover the check, 2) have lots of good id and they can verify the check, and even then most won’t over a certain dollar amount, or 3) a business relationship with them.

The policy has nothing to do with liquidity, it has to do with common sense and good business practices. Banks cannot and will not accept the losses resulting from bad checks being cashed for cash. In this day and age when people are passing counterfeit cashier’s checks banks are reluctant to take the liability.

A must have sufficient cash on hand to meet what is considered every day needs, at any give time any bank will have more cash on hand than you are or ever will be worth. If they don't, the FED and comptroller get very upset, and fine them. They are not, however in the business of handing out free samples.

Yeah, you and Judge Roy Bean both.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/asset-...ive-blog.html?

What Notorial Dissent fails to understand is the way the remedy works - all one has to do is demand lawful money. That is all. That is how the remedy reads. It does not matter how the bank responds.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Yeah, you and Judge Roy Bean both.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/asset-...ive-blog.html?

What Notorial Dissent fails to understand is the way the remedy works - all one has to do is demand lawful money. That is all. That is how the remedy reads. It does not matter how the bank responds.



Regards,

David Merrill.

I'd like to bring suit against BofA, and preferrably against certain bank managers personally, like Chad Endo (who can be reached for comment on the matter at 650.960.4702 (chad.endo@bankofamerica.com), 444 Castro Street, Suite 100, Mountain View, California 94041), for not honoring their own check.

You mentioned earlier about filing an asservation w/ the OCC, which I'm going to do this time.

Do you have any other advice?

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

I am actually surprised that they cashed it the first time. Very few if any banks anymore will cash any kind of a check unless you either 1) have an account with them with sufficient funds to cover the check,

This logic only works (barely) if the check has to clear between banks. It doesn't work if it's being cashed at the bank that issued the check, which is the case here.

Strictly speaking, the logic doesn't work either even when the check has to clear between banks, b/c even then it's the BANK'S RESPONSIBILITY to take liability for the transfer of those funds. The check says that I am going to get paid $XXX dollars and if it's written on BofA, then BofA is the one who has to undertake liability for seeing that it gets paid.

If BofA is issuing bad checks, or permitting their customers to issue bad checks, that's BofA's problem, not mine.

The only thing I care about is seeing that I get paid my $XXX dollars. Based on the check I have in hand, BofA has "promised" to see to that it that will happen; but apparently in real life, they've not willing to live up to their commitments.

Go figure.

2) have lots of good id and they can verify the check, and even then most won’t over a certain dollar amount,

Of course they validate the ID.

I have no problem w/ that, and they've checked that the check itself is good.

Dollar amount, though, is again their problem not mine.

If I walk into a bank w/ a check for $200,000, I expect to walk out of that bank w/ $200,000 in lawful money. If the bank can't deliver on that promise, that's the banks insolvency problem, not mine.

And a bank that is insolvent has no right to be in business, taking deposits from the general public.

or 3) a business relationship with them.

I don't do business w/ criminals, murderers and drug dealers.

Sorry.

The policy has nothing to do with liquidity

It has everything to do w/ liquidity.

Banks cannot and will not accept the losses resulting from bad checks being cashed for cash.

That's like saying I cannot and will not accept losses from raising inflation and high gas prices.

I go to the store, and buy some food.

It costs $20.

I don't feel like paying $20. I feel more like paying $8 since I cannot and will not accept any losses from raising inflation and high gas prices.

I tell the clerk I'm going to pay him $8.

The clerk has No!

I pull out my gun, kill the clerk, and leave $8 on the counter since I'm a "honest" guy and like to do business by the book.

This is the same logic that you and banks are using.

You're simply twisting the rules of the game to suit your own ends. In the grand scheme of things, it's terrible, terrible crime.

To be in the business of banking means that you're in the business of possibly losing money from bad checks. CERTAINLY I AM NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AND THERE IS NO REASON, LOGICAL OR OTHERWISE, WHY I SHOULD BE ASKED TO UNDERWRITE THE RISK ASSOCIATED W/ BAD CHECKS.

I explained this before in my posts.

If the bank desires for me to take on the risk that is rightfully their's (the risk of bad checks), I'd be happy to do just that: but I'll have to charge the bank 15,000% interest on the face value of the check for the time that we're waiting for the check to clear their system (and yes I charge for time spent waiting to clear on weekends too.. I spend $$ on weekends, and so that's $$ out of hand for me over the weekend), and in addition there will be an upfront $2000 processing fee.

Is the bank willing to accept those costs, just to clear a $2700 check?

If not, then maybe the bank should think twice and change its policies.

Or maybe the bank should stop writing so many bad checks? Did you ever think about that??

In this day and age when people are passing counterfeit cashier’s checks banks are reluctant to take the liability.

Again, that's the bank's problem, not mine.

If it's easy for people to counterfeit the bank's paper, maybe the bank should stop issuing paper.

Funny how many problems that would solve, if banks would simply stop issuing bad paper.

But instead, the banks prefer to continue issuing bad paper, b/c it's a criminal activity and highly profitable, and in turn asking their depositors to underwrite the risk associated w/ this criminal enterprise.

Pffffftttt...

Please.. how dumb do you think we are?

A must have sufficient cash on hand to meet what is considered every day needs

Thats the problem, isn't it?

Banks simply don't have sufficient funds.

That's what I'm saying: they're insolvent and it's a crime for them to continue accepting deposits from the public when they're financially insolvent.

This is especially true in the case of BofA, which is carrying $51 of bad debt (in derivatives) for every $1 of asset that it has. No company, no institution, no person, is ever going to emerge from a condition where it has $51 of debt to every $1 of asset.

That's technical bankruptcy.

It's financial insolvency.

And that's just from their derivatives balance sheet.

BofA has bad toxic debt in zillions of other places too.

BofA is finished. It's done. It's over. It's bankrupt, it's financially insolvent.

BofA is unable to honor its own checks, the hallmark of a bank run and liquidity crisis.

It's only a matter of time before BofA collapses.

And yet BofA tells that they'll "cash" my check if I open an account w/ them and place deposits w/ them? THIS IS CRIMINAL FRAUD AND THIS IS WHAT I DESIRE TO PROSECUTE BOFA FOR.

That BofA has no $$ on hand to meet its obligations is one thing. I really don't care about that. If I walk in w/ a check and they tell me they can't pay it b/c their broke and have no $$, well, OK. I can understand that. BofA is run by criminals and sooner or later the bank will go broke.

That makes sense.

But for the bank to be financially insolvent, to be financially bankrupt, and then to lie about it and then -- even worse -- to solicit my business and to try to get me to open an account there. THIS IS CRIMINAL FRAUD. This is mens rea. It is willful premediation to work a tort against my person and I'm not going to stand for being insulted in this manner.

They are not, however in the business of handing out free samples.

The sample isn't free.

The check was issued to me in consideration for the labor and services I rendered to those w/ whom I contracted to render such services and labor.

The bank now has a fiduciary obligation to see to that I am compensated in lawful money for that consideration.

If the bank is unable to deliver on its promise, the bank will be prosecuted and driven out of business.

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by psholtz

This logic only works (barely) if the check has to clear between banks. It doesn't work if it's being cashed at the bank that issued the check, which is the case here.
You left out 2) have lots of good id and they can verify the check

Strictly speaking, the logic doesn't work either even when the check has to clear between banks, b/c even then it's the BANK'S RESPONSIBILITY to take liability for the transfer of those funds. The check says that I am going to get paid $XXX dollars and if it's written on BofA, then BofA is the one who has to undertake liability for seeing that it gets paid.
You are seriously confused. It is the bank’s responsibility to pay the check if there are good funds available and it is a valid item, ONLY. If there are no funds, or the check is bad, there is no responsibility and the responsibility falls back on the maker.

If BofA is issuing bad checks, or permitting their customers to issue bad checks, that's BofA's problem, not mine.
BofA would not be issuing bad checks, but customers do all the time, that is why there are lots of bad check and fraud laws, and why accounts get closed.

The only thing I care about is seeing that I get paid my $XXX dollars. Based on the check I have in hand, BofA has "promised" to see to that it that will happen; but apparently in real life, they've not willing to live up to their commitments.
You are confused. The only thing the bank has promised to do is pay the check, if 1) there are funds available, and 2) it is a valid account.

Go figure.


Of course they validate the ID.
They must have been terribly impressed.

I have no problem w/ that, and they've checked that the check itself is good.

Dollar amount, though, is again their problem not mine.
Again, the bank gets to make the rules, you don’t, they can set what ever limit or conditions they are legally allowed to.

If I walk into a bank w/ a check for $200,000, I expect to walk out of that bank w/ $200,000 in lawful money. If the bank can't deliver on that promise, that's the banks insolvency problem, not mine.
You can want all you want to, but I don’t know of any bank that would do that except for a very good customer, and then they would require sufficient notice.

And a bank that is insolvent has no right to be in business, taking deposits from the general public.
Oh get over it, it has nothing to do with solvency, and everything to do with common sense.

I don't do business w/ criminals, murderers and drug dealers.

Sorry.


It has everything to do w/ liquidity.


That's like saying I cannot and will not accept losses from raising inflation and high gas prices.

I go to the store, and buy some food.

It costs $20.

I don't feel like paying $20. I feel more like paying $8 since I cannot and will not accept any losses from raising inflation and high gas prices.

I tell the clerk I'm going to pay him $8.

The clerk has No!

I pull out my gun, kill the clerk, and leave $8 on the counter since I'm a "honest" guy and like to do business by the book.

This is the same logic that you and banks are using.

You're simply twisting the rules of the game to suit your own ends. In the grand scheme of things, it's terrible, terrible crime.
I’m not twisting anything, I am simply explaining how things work in the real world. Whether you like the answers is not my problem. I didn’t write the rules, I am simply telling you what they are. And the bank does get to make the rules, if you don’t like them, do business somewhere else or stick to cash. I guarantee you that your loss as a customer will not be a mortal blow to them.

To be in the business of banking means that you're in the business of possibly losing money from bad checks. CERTAINLY I AM NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AND THERE IS NO REASON, LOGICAL OR OTHERWISE, WHY I SHOULD BE ASKED TO UNDERWRITE THE RISK ASSOCIATED W/ BAD CHECKS.

I explained this before in my posts.
And it was just as much nonsense then as it is now.

If the bank desires for me to take on the risk that is rightfully their's (the risk of bad checks), I'd be happy to do just that: but I'll have to charge the bank 15,000% interest on the face value of the check for the time that we're waiting for the check to clear their system (and yes I charge for time spent waiting to clear on weekends too.. I spend $$ on weekends, and so that's $$ out of hand for me over the weekend), and in addition there will be an upfront $2000 processing fee.
You really are delusional. If you accept a check, you are taking on the risk that it will bounce. Please do let me know what happens when you try this, I can always use a good laugh.

Is the bank willing to accept those costs, just to clear a $2700 check?
You are still delusional, see previous note.

If not, then maybe the bank should think twice and change its policies.
Pigs will fly first.

Or maybe the bank should stop writing so many bad checks? Did you ever think about that??
Since the bank is not writing bad checks this is a pointless argument.

Again, that's the bank's problem, not mine.

If it's easy for people to counterfeit the bank's paper, maybe the bank should stop issuing paper.
You have no idea what you are even talking about.

Funny how many problems that would solve, if banks would simply stop issuing bad paper.
You have no idea what you are even talking about.

But instead, the banks prefer to continue issuing bad paper, b/c it's a criminal activity and highly profitable, and in turn asking their depositors to underwrite the risk associated w/ this criminal enterprise.
You have no idea what you are even talking about.

Pffffftttt...

Please.. how dumb do you think we are?
Based on the above statements, too dumb to be allowed to have a checking accout.

Thats the problem, isn't it?

Banks simply don't have sufficient funds.

That's what I'm saying: they're insolvent and it's a crime for them to continue accepting deposits from the public when they're financially insolvent.
If the bank were insolvent, it would have long ago been closed by the comptroller. They have no sense of humor about that sort of thing.

This is especially true in the case of BofA, which is carrying $51 of bad debt (in derivatives) for every $1 of asset that it has. No company, no institution, no person, is ever going to emerge from a condition where it has $51 of debt to every $1 of asset.

That's technical bankruptcy.

It's financial insolvency.

And that's just from their derivatives balance sheet.

BofA has bad toxic debt in zillions of other places too.

BofA is finished. It's done. It's over. It's bankrupt, it's financially insolvent.

BofA is unable to honor its own checks, the hallmark of a bank run and liquidity crisis.
You seem to be unclear on the concept of the difference between the maker of a check and the bank it is drawn on. The maker is responsible for the check, not the bank. The bank is only acting as the agent of the maker, if the maker is in fact a client of theirs, and if that client does in fact have funds to cover the check so written. The check does not belong to the bank and is not issued by the bank.

It's only a matter of time before BofA collapses.

And yet BofA tells that they'll "cash" my check if I open an account w/ them and place deposits w/ them? THIS IS CRIMINAL FRAUD AND THIS IS WHAT I DESIRE TO PROSECUTE BOFA FOR.

That BofA has no $$ on hand to meet its obligations is one thing. I really don't care about that. If I walk in w/ a check and they tell me they can't pay it b/c their broke and have no $$, well, OK. I can understand that. BofA is run by criminals and sooner or later the bank will go broke.

That makes sense.

But for the bank to be financially insolvent, to be financially bankrupt, and then to lie about it and then -- even worse -- to solicit my business and to try to get me to open an account there. THIS IS CRIMINAL FRAUD. This is mens rea. It is willful premediation to work a tort against my person and I'm not going to stand for being insulted in this manner.
Again, if the bank were insolvent or could not meet its obligations, it would have long ago been closed. The bank is under no obligation to cash non bank customer’s checks, and it can set what ever rules it wants to for customers as well as non customers.

The sample isn't free.

The check was issued to me in consideration for the labor and services I rendered to those w/ whom I contracted to render such services and labor.
Then either get a bank account or ask for cash next time.

The bank now has a fiduciary obligation to see to that I am compensated in lawful money for that consideration.
The bank is under the obligation to cash the check if it is properly presented, and there are funds available.

If the bank is unable to deliver on its promise, the bank will be prosecuted and driven out of business.

If any of what you said, had even a shred of validity, there is some lawyer some where that would have already beaten you to it, so don’t give up breathing in the mean time.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

If any of what you said, had even a shred of validity, there is some lawyer some where that would have already beaten you to it, so don’t give up breathing in the mean time.

Your statements above are of little value.

Much of what you have posted above is either untrue, or is greatly distorted to suit your own agenda.

And accounting even for that, all you have accomplished is saying that banks are trying to rip me off (a) if I get a bank account; or (b) if I don't get a bank account.

Either way, the bank is engaging in criminal fraud.

It's also insulting, and is conduct which must be punished, lest the bank thinks that it can get away w/ such misconduct in the future.

And yes, I am going to report them to the OCC this time.

And I will file charges against them as well.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

If any of what you said, had even a shred of validity, there is some lawyer some where that would have already beaten you to it, so don’t give up breathing in the mean time.

If there were no shred of validity, there would be no reason for, or sense in your commentary, or even appearance on the website at all.

Yet you insist on appearing with frantic commentary.

Are you both senseless and lacking in reason?

You Quatloos boys and girls are, at best, canaries in the coal mine, and/or, perhaps, like the rats in Camus' La Peste.

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by psholtz

Your statements above are of little value.
No, they don’t agree with your very warped view of reality.

Much of what you have posted above is either untrue, or is greatly distorted to suit your own agenda.
So far, you have disproven nothing, and I have no agenda, other than placing a bit of reality in your path to trip over.

And accounting even for that, all you have accomplished is saying that banks are trying to rip me off (a) if I get a bank account; or (b) if I don't get a bank account.
No, I simply told you that they are not going to cash a check for you and take the risk of it being bad.

Either way, the bank is engaging in criminal fraud.
Again, if that were the case, someone would long ago have taken action. No one has, guess who is confused.

It's also insulting, and is conduct which must be punished, lest the bank thinks that it can get away w/ such misconduct in the future.
Yes, I know everything is a terrible afront to you and the entire world is conspiring against you, and what is even better, they really are.

And yes, I am going to report them to the OCC this time.
By all means, do so, they can always use a good laugh.

And I will file charges against them as well.
Sure you will.

It must be a terribly frustrating life you lead with so many people being out to get you.