Please! - I need a couple of warm-body witnesses tomorrow afternoon in Manchester.
Bank of America wants a fingerprint or a thumbprint to cash a check!
I tried to cash a relatively small check from a client today and the teller (Laura DiSabato) refused to honor the check unless I gave a finger or thumbprint on the check. The issue was raised to her supervisor (Elizabeth Germond) who stood firm. I want to cash the check and I believe it's wrong for them not to honor checks drawn on their bank. I did show a drivers license to prove my ID. I have other legal/political details to follow in a separate post.
I want to go back in tomorrow afternoon with witnesses, preferably one or 2 with videocams. I want to record them refusing to cash the check. I have already advised them that I believe it would be a violation of law and that they would be subject to some pretty hefty penalties if they did not honor checks drawn on their bank.
Try this plan on for size:
Meet at Panera Bread, South Willow Street at 2:30PM to review strategy and process;
Proceed to the bank (across the street) to cash the check at 3:00PM;
You guys witness and or videotape the event (they will probably not allow videotaping inside, so be prepared to be shut down);
All sign affidavits as to what you observed for use in legal proceedings, should any be necessary;
It would be great if a BoA account holder would be willing to close their account with them over the policy.
I think this would make a good YouTube/Ridley Report to put out there. Can anyone join me in this? I'd do it in the AM, but I have an important appointment out of town in the AM.
This was discussed before at some point on this forum. It's not exactly "new" it's just something that upsets people now and then. Lemme see if I can find the older thread...
Here it is.
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=15562
References post for those concerned with this issue (updated with codes, statutes, contact info, etc. as action proceeds)
* teller at the 1000 South Willow Street, Manchester branch of Bank of America who first refused to cash check 19Feb09: Laura DeSabato
* Laura's supervisor, who confirmed their refusal on 19Feb09: Elizabeth Germond, Teller Operations Specialist, South Willow Banking Center, Cust. Svc: 800-841-4000, tel: 603-628-6874.
* met with Banking Center Manager: Nathaniel Chapman with Civil Rights Observer present on 21Feb09 (report of meeting in a separate post).
* N. Chapman's boss: Dawn Champiny, Consumer Market Executive for New Hampshire, tel: 222-3023.
* PR rep for Bank of America: Anne Pace, Senior V.P. of Communications, tel: 646-855-5996, email: anne.pace@bankofamerica.com.
* spoke with Joel Winters, who is on the House Commerce Committee and he says the committee is all over the issue of BoA and this fingerprinting deal. Some details:
* Gerald (Jerry) Little, president of the New Hampshire Bankers Association (http://www.nhbankers.com/) (trade group), tel: 224-5373, says BoA has to honor the check (per Winters conversation with Little), though not until the following day after presentment.
20Feb09 Telephone call with Little summary: denies saying to Joel that they must cash the check; thumbprint signature proposed in an Interagency working group on bank fraud document, published on OCC site called "Check Fraud; A Guide to Avoiding Losses (http://www.occ.treas.gov/chckfrd/chckfrd.pdf)", booklet recommends applying requirement to all members of a class (non-customer check cashers), instead of selected group based on suspicion, in order to avoid discrimination lawsuits; Suggests reading RSA 382, Art.3, Part 4, "Imposters and Fictitious Payees" re responsibility of bank to protect their customer. He is not a lawyer, nor is he a spokesman for BofA.
* The UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), RSA section 382 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXIV-A/382-A/382-A-mrg.htm) (search on: "382-A:3-501 Presentment") requires the bank to honor checks drawn on them with "reasonable identification";. However, the law does allow them to delay one day if presentment is made after their "end of business day" time, which may not be before 2:00 PM.
* Rep. Frank Sapareto of Derry (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376188), tel: 894-7083, Email: sapareto@comcast.net is sponsoring a bill (HB299, AN ACT prohibiting banks from requiring blood samples, fingerprints, and DNA samples in order to complete a banking transaction (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HB0299.html).)
Frank says that the hearing on the bill has already been held in the committee, but he recommends that I call each member of the committee, especially the Democrats to tell them my story. The committee members are online here (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H43).
The bill reads, in part:
Quote
==========text of bill==============
1 New Subparagraph; Negotiable Instruments; Presentment; Unreasonable Forms of Identification. Amend RSA 382-A:3-501 by inserting after subparagraph (b) the following new subparagraph:
"(c) Reasonable identification shall not include blood samples, finger prints, or DNA samples."
==========original text=============
Section 382-A:3-501 (2) Upon demand of the person to whom presentment is made, the person making presentment must (i) exhibit the instrument, (ii) give reasonable identification and, if presentment is made on behalf of another person, reasonable evidence of authority to do so, and (iii) sign a receipt on the instrument for any payment made or surrender the instrument if full payment is made.
So, legally, under the UCC, this all hinges on the "reasonableness" of their identification requirement, which Sapareto/Kurk's bill is trying to statutorily limit, by prohibiting the biometric identifiers.
* This bill is in the Commerce Committee (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H43), Tara Reardon, chairman, office tel: 271-3369.
* Btw, Rep. Neal Kurk of Weare (co-sponsor of above) also heroically fights any privacy invasions, tel: 529-7253, email: neal.kurk@leg.state.nh.us. Kurk advises: document everything; call Human Rights Commission lawyers first to get process steps right if I wished to pursue litigation; call Union Leader/Sunday News human interest reporter on insurance and banking issues, Nancy West; call WMUR Ch.9 human interest reporter: [see below]; YouTube would be great!
* In addition, I raised religious objections to providing a fingerprint and advised the teller and her supervisor that there were pretty severe fines for discriminating against someone based on their religious beliefs (federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and federal Privacy Act of 1974).
* In addition, I phoned the governor's office (tel: 271-2121) and spoke with his secretary, Brittany, who referred me to:
* Lindsay E. Whitelaw, Governor's Special Assistant for Citizens Services (tel: 271-2121), LINDSAY.WHITELAW@NH.GOV, who handles banking issues. Whitelaw advised me to put the complaint in writing to her or to the governor's inbox, which they check every morning, governorlynch@nh.gov. They will forward the concern on to the governor or to his policy people. The governor hasn't formed an opinion on the bill (HB299) and they will study it;
* Whitelaw recommends contacting the federal delegation with the complaint, since the bank is federally chartered as a national bank:
Senator Gregg's Concord office: 225-7115
Senator Shaheen's Manchester office: 647-7500
Rep: (will have to find out which rep covers my town)
* Banking Department (http://www.nh.gov/banking/), tel: 271-3561 (for complaint about banking practices). The Banking Department advises me that they do not regulate Bank of America because it is nationally chartered. Complaints should be taken up with the Comptroller of the Currency, tel: 800-613-6743;
* Comptroller of the Currency, tel: 800-613-6743 (not contacting them yet, exhausting private and state remedies first)
* New Hampshire commission for human rights (statute) (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XXXI-354-A.htm), website (http://www.nh.gov/hrc/), tel: 271-2767 (for religious discrimination complaint) - (left vmail). The staffer at the commission advised me that their investigators return calls on Tuesday and Thursday, so I left a message for them to return my call. Their email: humanrights@nhsa.state.nh.us.
* Union Leader/Sunday News (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=How%20to%20contact%20the%20New%20Hampshire%20Union%20Leader&articleId=54f821da-e0f9-4391-929d-3537c92fa838), tel: 668-4321 ext. 0, city editor: John Toole (sp?), banking/insurance human interest reporter: Nancy West, email: nwest@unionleader.com, paper mail: New Hampshire Union Leader, Attn: Newsroom, P.O. Box 9555, Manchester, NH 03108-9555
* WMUR Channel 9, WMUR-TV Broadcast Center, 100 South Commercial Street, Manchester, NH 03101, (603) 669-9999, FAX: (603) 641-9005, the news editor advises me to keep them updated by emailing to storyideas@wmur.com, use the subject line "Bank of America fingerprinting".
I'll continue updating the details above as I get the corrected info.
I think it's important to draw the line in the sand on this one! I think we can come down hard on them over this and back them down, hopefully for good. We all may be having to give fingerprints for everything soon if we don't nip this in the bud.
This has happened at banks across the nation for years. If you don't like it, maybe you should get an account with a bank. That way you will not have to deal with this.
Of course, you can always cause a scene, it's your choice.
Quote from: Radical and Stuff on February 19, 2009, 10:30 PM NHFT
This has happened at banks across the nation for years. If you don't like it, maybe you should get an account with a bank. That way you will not have to deal with this.
Of course, you can always cause a scene, it's your choice.
Keith, you are invited to come along, and if you have a digital camcorder, that would really help! It's not often we have a chance to strike a blow while things are all in alignment - the House is on our side with clarifying legislation, the Bankers Association president says we are right, the existing statutes (UCC) are with us. The bank is volunteering to be the ID goon squad for the state, over the objections of the people. Let's stop it tomorrow! AND, I'll buy you a cup of coffee at Panera's!
I have always told bank of america, (bank boston, before fleet took it over use to do this too) about the UCC and that I would sue them for treble damages if they did not cash the check, they have always got the manager and he let me cash the check.
Sometimes they said I could open an account with the bank if I did not want to give my thumb print, but I countered that I would not join a bank that hassled people for a thumb print if I wrote them a check and they wanted to cash it... I might get sued.
They always cashed the check after that.
Given that you are well aware of their policy, and don't wish to abide by it, why did you accept the paper from your client? It's not like other means of payment aren't available, especially when the amount is relatively small.
I really really don't like the idea of them trying to get your prints, but they are a [mostly] private business and if that's how they want to run their business, I say that's their right.
I'm going to be closing my account with Merrill Lynch very soon. They were bought by BofA. This is appalling. I knew about it but I think I'm finally just completely fed up with it now that they're really sticking to their guns about this.
Quote from: thinkliberty on February 19, 2009, 11:13 PM NHFT
I have always told bank of america, (bank boston, before fleet took it over use to do this too) about the UCC and that I would sue them for treble damages if they did not cash the check, they have always got the manager and he let me cash the check.
Sometimes they said I could open an account with the bank if I did not want to give my thumb print, but I countered that I would not join a bank that hassled people for a thumb print if I wrote them a check and they wanted to cash it... I might get sued.
They always cashed the check after that.
I think you've got it, thinkliberty. I've just finished reviewing that UCC section (I updated my references post below) and it all hinges over the "reasonable" ID thing, which Sapareto and Kurk in the Commerce committee are attempting to tighten up to prohibit the biometric requirements. I think I'll use your approach tomorrow, with at least 1 personal witness, and video, if possible. I'll keep you and the list posted. Are you local to Manchester? By the way, if I go as late in the day as I proposed, they could hold me off til the next day.
Quote from: Donald McFarlane on February 19, 2009, 11:24 PM NHFT
Given that you are well aware of their policy, and don't wish to abide by it, why did you accept the paper from your client? It's not like other means of payment aren't available, especially when the amount is relatively small.
I was not aware of their policy (though I knew that they are pricks, in general). They operate under public law, of which the UCC is a part. They are attempting to foist an unreasonable ID requirement on the people, which is not allowable under this rule of law. This is a case where the people, you and I, are called on to enforce that rule on them. It's not a comfortable thing, but it's our job, eh?
Quote from: PaulOtt on February 19, 2009, 11:37 PM NHFT
I really really don't like the idea of them trying to get your prints, but they are a [mostly] private business and if that's how they want to run their business, I say that's their right.
This is almost too outrageous to start a discussion on, but, just basically,
we do not live in an idealistic free market, and BoA is not an idealistically private business in an idealistic free market. They are part of a criminal conspiratorial monopoly controlling the money and banking system (Federal Reserve System). They are charted under state and federal charters and they are regulated by a state banking commission. They are agents for the United States Depatment of Treasury and operate under their regulations. The power of the banksters is not to be underestimated and BoA's current usefulness as a biometric sweep agent should be revolting to any freedom lover. Don't get me started...
This thread, however, is intended to be about tomorrow's action to stop BoA's biometric sweep program once and for all in New-Hampshire - you're welcome to join in. It's a battle we can win, because they are so far off of "reasonableness."
Quote from: dalebert on February 19, 2009, 11:43 PM NHFT
I'm going to be closing my account with Merrill Lynch very soon. They were bought by BofA. This is appalling. I knew about it but I think I'm finally just completely fed up with it now that they're really sticking to their guns about this.
Wish you were going to be in Manch tomorrow afternoon - need witnesses.
Another fun thing to try might be to try to get the teller sign a contract stating if Bank of america sells, loses, publishes, misprints and/or has your thumb print stolen by anyone including hackers, rogue employee(s) and/or anyone including the US or foreign government(s) with out your permission, even though it may be no fault of Bank of America that they will pay you 10 million dollars. (obviously it would have to be written better than this)
That way you are not refusing to give them your thumb print, it's just that you don't trust them to keep it safe.... it might help in a court case against them. With you being able to say that you did not refuse to give them your thumb print, but they would not promise to keep your thumb print safe.
Quote from: dalebert on February 19, 2009, 11:43 PM NHFT
I'm going to be closing my account with Merrill Lynch very soon. They were bought by BofA. This is appalling. I knew about it but I think I'm finally just completely fed up with it now that they're really sticking to their guns about this.
Or, the government asked BoA to takeover Merrill Lynch because Merrill Lynch was about to go bankrupt and the government thought that would have been a bad thing.
When you go back, and present the check and your "reasonable identification", and the clerk/manager/VP says, "I'm sorry, Mr. Jaqeboy, but..."
"Who? How do you know I'm Jaqeboy? Do you acknowledge that I am who I say I am, and that the identification I've presented reasonably confirms my identity?"
Just a suggestion. I think you could have fun with that line of thought.
it's a shame too, BoA is coming up with the innovations in deposit and withdrawl that a lot of people want. The money/check scan so you can deposit without envelopes. . .it's neat and convenient.
My girl has a BoA account and I'd have an easier time getting her to give herself a crew cut than cancelling her BoA account. . .she raves about it's features.
I don't really want to stop banks from being allowed to fingerprint/thumbscan. . . some people really do want that heir of security. I'd hate to take away those features from people that do want and like them. I won't personally thumbscan so I don't have a bank account. I do cash my checks at TD Banknorth and they've never thumbscanned me. . . never even asked if I have an account (which I don't)
Quote from: Donald McFarlane on February 19, 2009, 11:24 PM NHFT
Given that you are well aware of their policy, and don't wish to abide by it, why did you accept the paper from your client? It's not like other means of payment aren't available, especially when the amount is relatively small.
That is the ticket!
From time to time when I tried to cash a clients check at their bank and was given a ration of shit ("Do you have 2 other ids?, Thumbprint!), I would stop accepting checks from their bank. I printed on my contract! I put it in my ad that no checks would be accepted from bank X. I sent copies of the ads to the banks.
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on February 20, 2009, 06:18 AM NHFTQuote from: Donald McFarlane on February 19, 2009, 11:24 PM NHFTGiven that you are well aware of their policy, and don't wish to abide by it, why did you accept the paper from your client? It's not like other means of payment aren't available, especially when the amount is relatively small.
That is the ticket!
From time to time when I tried to cash a clients check at their bank and was given a ration of shit ("Do you have 2 other ids?, Thumbprint!), I would stop accepting checks from their bank. I printed on my contract! I put it in my ad that no checks would be accepted from bank X. I sent copies of the ads to the banks.
Ditto.
Or just ask that the customer write the check to "cash" if they are going to write a check from that bank.
Joe
Quote from: AntonLee on February 20, 2009, 04:53 AM NHFT
I won't personally thumbscan so I don't have a bank account. I do cash my checks at TD Banknorth and they've never thumbscanned me. . . never even asked if I have an account (which I don't)
BoA makes people without bank accounts thumbscan, not those with accounts. Oh, and I love how you can deposit checks at BoA ATMs. There is one in town and it is so wonderful. Now I just need more checks...
In the past I've used superglue on my finger. I've also drawn a line through my print while I was signing the back of the check and written the letters TDC through it for threat, duress and coercion. Now I just refuse to deal with banks.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090220/ts_nm/us_banks_shares (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090220/ts_nm/us_banks_shares)
Bank of America Corp and Citigroup Inc shares plummeted for a sixth straight day on Friday, hammered by fears that the U.S. government could nationalize the banks, wiping out shareholders.
Bank of America shares were down 19 percent to $3.20 in early trading, their lowest level since 1984, while Citigroup shares fell 20 percent to $2, their lowest price since the early 1990s.
Both stocks have lost more than 90 percent of their value in the last year.
"It's a clear sign that the markets are expecting a high probability of them being nationalized," said Mike Holland, founder of Holland & Co. "The clear expectation is that shareholders would effectively be wiped out."
Quote from: jaqeboy on February 20, 2009, 12:00 AM NHFT
...we do not live in an idealistic free market, and BoA is not an idealistically private business in an idealistic free market. They are part of a criminal conspiratorial monopoly controlling the money and banking system (Federal Reserve System). They are charted under state and federal charters and they are regulated by a state banking commission. They are agents for the United States Depatment of Treasury and operate under their regulations. The power of the banksters is not to be underestimated and BoA's current usefulness as a biometric sweep agent should be revolting to any freedom lover.
QFT
Quote from: dalebert on February 20, 2009, 09:27 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on February 20, 2009, 12:00 AM NHFT
...we do not live in an idealistic free market, and BoA is not an idealistically private business in an idealistic free market. They are part of a criminal conspiratorial monopoly controlling the money and banking system (Federal Reserve System). They are charted under state and federal charters and they are regulated by a state banking commission. They are agents for the United States Depatment of Treasury and operate under their regulations. The power of the banksters is not to be underestimated and BoA's current usefulness as a biometric sweep agent should be revolting to any freedom lover.
QFT
Thanks, Dalebert!
Clarifications from research this AM (will correct the reference post):
per the Banking Department: BoA is nationally chartered and is not regulated by the New Hampshire Banking Department, but is rather regulated by the United States Treasury Department, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, tel: 800-613-6743.
per Lindsay Whitelaw of the Governor's Citizens Services office: I can put my concerns in writing and mention the corrective bill (HB299) to her lindsay.whitelaw@nh.gov or the governor governorlynch@nh.gov and they will refer it to their policy people and the governor will decide where he stands on that bill. They don't really take any action themselves, but merely point you to the right govt dept. or hear your bitch.
She suggested I contact the federal delegation with the complaint, since BoA is federally regulated.
Senator Gregg's Concord office: 225-7115, Senator Shaheen's Manchester office: 647-7400, figure out if my rep is Hodes or Shea-Porter and call them.
I think a YouTube video on Ridley or somewhere might be more effective than all of this.
OK, the original plan was to meet at 2:30 today and go over process with witnesses to cash check at bank at 3PM. I'm going to delay that on recommendation from Neal Kurk that I get all the process steps correct if I want to pursue litigation. He suggests consultation with Human Rights Commission lawyers on this first.
So, I'm putting today's action on hold pending being able to consult with counsel. I'll keep updating this thread at the top and the reference post, should anyone else care to jump in - all the contact numbers and email addresses will be there.
I cash lots of checks at clients banks. If you don't have an account there, they want a thumb print pretty much everywhere, doesn't bother me.
Once they refused entirely til they called the customer and his wife came to personally identify me. Customer said that was perfectly OK w/ him, there was several million in that account and taking precautions when there's a change in typical account behavior is exactly their job.
Oooh, just thought of a suggestion for those who want to join in on this action. Join me at BoA in trying to cash a check drawn on BoA, all one after another. It might be good to have some co-plaintiffs if it goes to litigation.
This is no different from the smoking ban, or any other such attempts to forcibly regulate how businesses and their customers may interact. I dislike smoking in restaurants, but I would never even consider support for attempts to force restaurant owners to prohibit smoking. I dislike banks requiring fingerprints, but I'll not sit idly by when they are threatened by thugs, because they and their customers make the choice to do so.
Personally, I'll be writing a letter to BoA, telling them that, while I deplore their policies and will never do business with them as a result, I fully support their right to have whatever policies they and their customers agree upon. I will offer reasonable help in defending them against this attempt to use aggressive government to force compliance with someone's personal preferences on how they do business.
I would encourage others who care about liberty to consider doing the same.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on February 20, 2009, 12:30 PM NHFT
This is no different from the smoking ban, or any other such attempts to forcibly regulate how businesses and their customers may interact.
If there's a bank that doesn't do this than it must not be forcibly regulated. I was under the impression the government now 'allows' them to do but doesn't mandate it. Far as I can tell this is done by every bank out there because they want to cuz it's good security against check fraud.
If I had a problem with it I'd take it up with the guy who wrote me the check and tell him I'd need cash in the future because it's preferable to complying with the security demanded by the people he pays to keep his money safe. I think it's terrible that the legislature is "all over this".
My own take on this:—
Any bank that's part of the Federal Reserve System (isn't that all of them nowadays?) is by no means a private entity—such a bank is, virtually if not literally, an organ of the State. Thus, going after an intrusive bank policy with laws that protect people's privacy is perfectly acceptable to me. It's a nice example of, as some people have recommended on occasion, getting the bureaucracies to all fight with each other and waste each other's time and money.
So, I see this situation as akin to fighting with the DMV over intrusive identification requirements.
On another note, BofA only has these policies as a compliance measure with the USA PATRIOT Act and similar legislation. The Feds ordered the banks to come up with customer identification techniques meeting certain minimum criteria, and this is what BofA came up with. Basically, BofA is playing cop with these policies, and as I've said before, I take a very dim view of even a private citizen trying to enforce the law against me. Responding with other laws is just a way of turning the tables on them, and will maybe teach them a lesson in the process.
If this were a genuine private company demanding that I prove my identity in order to protect themselves against fraud, I wouldn't support anything like what Jack is doing here; I'd just say take your money elsewhere. But Bank of America is a State-run entity demanding he prove his identity because the State says so. And their specific demands may be illegal according to other New Hampshire or Federal laws.
So, they deserve the same treatment that the DMV deserves, when they refuse to follow their own laws.
MaineShark, haven't you repeatedly pointed out that all corporations are, as a result of being nothing more than State-created entities, aggressors by definition?
On those grounds, it would be morally permissible to smack any corporation with the law—again, it's just one organ of the State fighting with another. But in practice I myself would reserve doing so only with the most egregious of corporations (ones in bed with the State in a deeper manner than just possessing a corporate charter), or ones engaging in the most egregiously statist actions (corporations acting as law enforcement, as BofA is doing here).
I can't really support the UCC argument or HB299, though. The UCC applies to all private businesses, across the board. I could, however, support a bill like HB299 if it was narrowly tailored to only apply to Federally-regulated banks, or if it was instead written as an explicit rejection of, and push back against, these new Federal regulations.
Admittedly, the Uniform Commercial Code is statute law, intending to either codify or override common law, and preclude other private-choice practices, but it is the public law environment we live under. In this case, BoA is requiring something that is above and beyond "reasonable" identification in some folks' minds. The legislative counter is to restrict "reasonableness" in the statute law to exclude fingerprinting, DNA or blood samples as a requirement for completing a banking transaction. Sapareto and Kurk, the bill sponsors and Winters and other members of the Commerce Committee are favorable to this legislative remedy.
Sapareto advised me and others that have this concern to call all members of the Commerce Committee to express our concerns (see link in the reference post for committee members and contact info if you choose to be involved in that way).
Kurk advises taking the litigation path through the Human Rights Commission and the publicity approach through YouTube and conventional media. I'm making progress in getting to the right reporter (see updates in the reference post for contact info, should you choose to be involved in that way).
Quote from: jaqeboy on February 20, 2009, 01:51 PM NHFT
Admittedly, the Uniform Commercial Code is statute law, intending to either codify or override common law, and preclude other private-choice practices, but it is the public law environment we live under.
Indeed—but that's something we should be trying to eliminate, not just bend to our own purposes. Like you said earlier, we don't live in a pure free market yet—and we're never going to get there if, instead of trying to kill the State, we do like everyone else does, and just lobby for the State to direct its aggression where
we think it should go.
Quote from: jaqeboy on February 20, 2009, 01:51 PM NHFT
In this case, BoA is requiring something that is above and beyond "reasonable" identification in some folks' minds. The legislative counter is to restrict "reasonableness" in the statute law to exclude fingerprinting, DNA or blood samples as a requirement for completing a banking transaction.
I only agree with this because we're dealing with State-run banks in this specific case here. You're not saying you'd support using statute law (or any other kind of aggression-backed law, which common law, although admittedly
better than statute law, most assuredly is) to restrict folks' right to conduct business as they wish, merely because other folks consider it "unreasonable," are you?
Quote from: jaqeboy on February 20, 2009, 01:51 PM NHFT
Sapareto and Kurk, the bill sponsors and Winters and other members of the Commerce Committee are favorable to this legislative remedy.
Sapareto advised me and others that have this concern to call all members of the Commerce Committee to express our concerns (see link in the reference post for committee members and contact info if you choose to be involved in that way).
The bill is currently rated -7 (anti-liberty) in the NHLA Bill Review system, reviewed by Donald McFarlane. If it was narrowly tailored to only apply to Federally-regulated banks, or a push-back against the Feds interfering in commerce, I'd re-review it as pro-liberty, but as it's written, it
is anti-liberty due to its overreach. The NHLA will probably take no official position on the bill when it comes up for vote.
This kind of thing has come up before, on one of Joel's anti-RFID bills last year, HB686 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2008/HB0686.html). It banned RFID in government identification documents, but it also forced businesses to label products that contained RFID chips. Here is one of (http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=668.0) the NHLA's discussions on the bill. Denis' most pertinent comment, in response to all the businesses coming out to lobby against it: "If the bill had just been about restricting
government use of the technology, this wouldn't have happened." The NHLA ended up not supporting the bill because of the new business regulation it created.
WMUR is not prepared to just go with me while I try to cash a check, but they are interested in following this story to see if anything newsworthy develops. The way they would follow it is for me (or anyone else) to email updates to storyideas@wmur.com, using the subject line: "Bank of America fingerprinting".
I have emailed a summary off to the Union Leader reporter, Nancy West, as well. She only writes for the Sunday News, I think, so she may not be on Union Leader business all the time. We'll see what her interest level is. I think I've worked with her before on something years back.
The staffer for the Commission for Human Rights takes intake information and refers that to an investigator. The investigators return calls on Tuesday and Thursday only. Neal Kurk suggested I talk to one of them to get the process I should follow straight before I try to cash the check again, but, since they appear to be pretty slow, I'll probably try to cash it again tomorrow, Saturday.
I have a couple of folks who will join me, but I'll have to check their schedules. I haven't talked to Dave Ridley yet, but I'll also try a CASPIAN-member Ridleyographer, too, to see if I can get some video shot of the encounter.
Jerry Little of the New Hampshire Bankers Association has not returned my call yet. He has said to Joel Winters that BoA has to cash the check without fingerprinting, so I wanted to confirm that with him and pass that on to the teller manager at the BoA branch.
I've updated the info on the reference post, if anyone else cares to be involved in any way.
HB299 discussion started here:—
http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=1915.0
QuoteAny bank that's part of the Federal Reserve System (isn't that all of them nowadays?) is by no means a private entity—such a bank is, virtually if not literally, an organ of the State. Thus, going after an intrusive bank policy with laws that protect people's privacy is perfectly acceptable to me. It's a nice example of, as some people have recommended on occasion, getting the bureaucracies to all fight with each other and waste each other's time and money.
I would agree with this IF I could choose to go to a different DMV that didn't require privacy invading information. You're not forced to do business with Bank of America, not even to bank! You ARE forced to do business with the DMV if you with to drive without frequent visits to the rape cage.
OK, I got a call back from Jerry Little, President of the New Hampshire Bankers Association. Summary:
He denies that he told Rep. Joel Winters that BoA has to cash a check drawn on their bank without fingerprints.
He does say that he told Joel that the proposed bill HB299, which would make a modification to the Uniform Commercial Code would make it (UCC) non-uniform from state-to-state then. He states that the "social policy" of not allowing prints, DNA, blood samples for ID should be put somewhere else in the statutes, if that's what the legislature wants.
He says thumbprint signatures have been required for a decade. I told him this was the first time I had ever encountered them and that is from numerous banking experiences in Mass., NH and Maine over the last decade.
He says the thumbprint signature is a recommendation of the InterAgency Working Group on Bank Fraud's booklet "Check Fraud; a Guide to Avoiding Losses (http://www.occ.treas.gov/chckfrd/chckfrd.pdf)" (see page 19).
He says I should also read Art. 3, Part 4 of the UCC, titled Imposters and Fictitious Payees regarding the responsibility of the bank to protect their customer.
He states that "Check Fraud; a Guide..." says that a bank should apply this policy uniformly across an entire class of people, ie non-customer check cashers, rather than a select group based on suspicion, in order to avoid discrimination lawsuits.
I'll update Joel and the other reps. re this feedback.
Quote from: Kevin Dean on February 20, 2009, 04:53 PM NHFT
QuoteAny bank that's part of the Federal Reserve System (isn't that all of them nowadays?) is by no means a private entity—such a bank is, virtually if not literally, an organ of the State. Thus, going after an intrusive bank policy with laws that protect people's privacy is perfectly acceptable to me. It's a nice example of, as some people have recommended on occasion, getting the bureaucracies to all fight with each other and waste each other's time and money.
I would agree with this IF I could choose to go to a different DMV that didn't require privacy invading information. You're not forced to do business with Bank of America, not even to bank! You ARE forced to do business with the DMV if you with to drive without frequent visits to the rape cage.
If you don't want to do business with BofA, yeah, you're free to go choose another Federal Reserve bank. Show me a bank that
isn't part of the Fed, and
isn't bound by the USA PATRIOT Act and similar intrusive legislation. I think some of that stuff even applies to credit unions nowadays. They've even forced entities like PayPal to "voluntarily" comply with these rules (or else they'll declare PayPal a bank and regulate it accordingly).
And the comparison to the DMV would be more like, "If you don't want to deal with the DMV, just don't drive."
Quote from: jaqeboy on February 20, 2009, 05:19 PM NHFT
He does say that he told Joel that the proposed bill HB299, which would make a modification to the Uniform Commercial Code would make it (UCC) non-uniform from state-to-state then. He states that the "social policy" of not allowing prints, DNA, blood samples for ID should be put somewhere else in the statutes, if that's what the legislature wants.
Good idea. Some anti-Fedgov language modeled on 2007's HB685 ("The general court finds that the public policy established by Congress in the Real ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, is contrary and repugnant to Articles 1 through 10 of the New Hampshire constitution as well as Amendments 4 though 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America. ...") would probably go a long way toward making this more palatable, too.
We should take the legislative discussions over to the NHLA thread I started, probably.
a Google Search on Bank of America thumbprint (http://www.google.com/search?q=Bank+of+America+thumbprint&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) yields 10,200 hits. Unfortunately some of them talk about the court's upholding their right to require it.
The fingerprinting has long bothered me and I'm glad to see you taking this on Jaqeboy as it's hardly a 100% free market in the US Banking Industry.
Please ignore Keith's advice about doing nothing and playing along...And please continue your efforts of Doing Something about taking on this out of control banking system with all's it's cozy Government relationships.
Form the article: "Tactics for avoiding the thumbprint-for-cash request (http://www.wisebread.com/tactics-for-avoiding-the-thumbprint-for-cash-request)"
Posted August 28, 2007
Quote...My bank regulator did advise me, however, that honest citizens are not defenseless. Just as banks can set their rules, so can merchants and service providers, who can make a rule not to accept checks written on accounts from these fraud-averse banks. So, here are tactics to avoid being printed if you so choose:
* Identify banks with thumbprint policies and do not accept checks written on accounts associated with these banks. Accept payments in the form of cash, checks drawn on other banks, money orders, cashier's checks, debit cards, credit cards, or PayPal authorization.
* If you happen to accept a check drawn on a print-insistent bank, determine if the account is valid and there are sufficient funds to cover the check by calling the bank's merchant check verification line (listed in the white pages), and providing the checking account number and the check amount. If yes (funds are available), deposit the check at your bank and hope that by the time your check is presented, funds will still be available. Since check clearing and settlement times may take 3-6 days, this solution is not foolproof but could be useful.
* Contact the customer who presented a check with non-sufficient funds and request payment.
Alternatively, you could contact your congressperson and ask for a change in regulations.
Quote from: Peacemaker on February 20, 2009, 07:00 PM NHFT
The fingerprinting has long bothered me and I'm glad to see you taking this on Jaqeboy as it's hardly a 100% free market in the US Banking Industry.
Please ignore Keith's advice about doing nothing and playing along...And please continue your efforts of Doing Something about taking on this out of control banking system with all's it's cozy Government relationships.
Hey, can you meet us over at Panera Bread on South Willow Street in Manchester tomorrow at 10:30 AM? I'd like to go over a few things with witnesses and then proceed over to the bank at 11AM and have a few witnesses. We could post-process the event back at Panera afterwards.
Quote from: Roycerson on February 20, 2009, 12:38 PM NHFTIf there's a bank that doesn't do this than it must not be forcibly regulated.
Indeed. Centrix Bank, for one, has never asked me for a fingerprint, and only asked for ID twice (once when I set up the account, and another time when there was a new woman working there, who had not met me previously). Other than that, they have never requested ID from me, and certainly have never requested a fingerprint or anything similar.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on February 20, 2009, 01:09 PM NHFTOn another note, BofA only has these policies as a compliance measure with the USA PATRIOT Act and similar legislation.
A variety of banks have been fingerprinting, for years. The first time I saw it was at least ten years ago, with a bank in Maine. Some guy had lettered the back window of his pickup truck's cap with a request that folks boycott that bank because of their fingerprinting policy. IIRC, they stopped doing it within a couple months.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on February 20, 2009, 01:09 PM NHFTMaineShark, haven't you repeatedly pointed out that all corporations are, as a result of being nothing more than State-created entities, aggressors by definition?
On those grounds, it would be morally permissible to smack any corporation with the law—again, it's just one organ of the State fighting with another. But in practice I myself would reserve doing so only with the most egregious of corporations (ones in bed with the State in a deeper manner than just possessing a corporate charter), or ones engaging in the most egregiously statist actions (corporations acting as law enforcement, as BofA is doing here).
It's morally-permissible to use lethal force to prevent the theft of a stick of gum. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Additionally, we're not talking about response to something that the corporation is doing, as a result of being a corporation, such as avoiding full liability for some action, by using the legally-mandated limitations of liability. We're talking about something that the same business could do, even if it had not incorporated.
Many restaurants are corporations, as well. I don't think that makes the smoking ban legitimate, even if it only applied to them. The action being mandated (not allowing smoking / not fingerprinting) isn't relative to the fact that the entity is incorporated.
Quote from: Kevin Dean on February 20, 2009, 04:53 PM NHFTQuoteAny bank that's part of the Federal Reserve System (isn't that all of them nowadays?) is by no means a private entity—such a bank is, virtually if not literally, an organ of the State. Thus, going after an intrusive bank policy with laws that protect people's privacy is perfectly acceptable to me. It's a nice example of, as some people have recommended on occasion, getting the bureaucracies to all fight with each other and waste each other's time and money.
I would agree with this IF I could choose to go to a different DMV that didn't require privacy invading information. You're not forced to do business with Bank of America, not even to bank! You ARE forced to do business with the DMV if you with to drive without frequent visits to the rape cage.
Exactly. I've been banking for decades, without ever giving a fingerprint.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on February 20, 2009, 07:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on February 20, 2009, 01:09 PM NHFTMaineShark, haven't you repeatedly pointed out that all corporations are, as a result of being nothing more than State-created entities, aggressors by definition?
On those grounds, it would be morally permissible to smack any corporation with the law—again, it's just one organ of the State fighting with another. But in practice I myself would reserve doing so only with the most egregious of corporations (ones in bed with the State in a deeper manner than just possessing a corporate charter), or ones engaging in the most egregiously statist actions (corporations acting as law enforcement, as BofA is doing here).
It's morally-permissible to use lethal force to prevent the theft of a stick of gum. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Exactly. That's why I said in the case of the vast majority of corporations, I wouldn't support or advocate using government force against them. There are only a few particularly egregious criteria—actively seeking out government largesse beyond mere incorporation, or acting as an agent of the State—that would cause me to advocate turning the tables on them and pushing back with other laws.
I sort of view incorporation akin to getting a drivers license (to use yet another DMV analogy). It's buying into and supporting the system, but it's mainly being done for one's own self-protection against
other actions of the government, so I've no issue with it.
Quote from: MaineShark on February 20, 2009, 07:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on February 20, 2009, 01:09 PM NHFTOn another note, BofA only has these policies as a compliance measure with the USA PATRIOT Act and similar legislation.
A variety of banks have been fingerprinting, for years. The first time I saw it was at least ten years ago, with a bank in Maine. Some guy had lettered the back window of his pickup truck's cap with a request that folks boycott that bank because of their fingerprinting policy. IIRC, they stopped doing it within a couple months.
Quote from: MaineShark on February 20, 2009, 07:17 PM NHFT
Additionally, we're not talking about response to something that the corporation is doing, as a result of being a corporation, such as avoiding full liability for some action, by using the legally-mandated limitations of liability. We're talking about something that the same business could do, even if it had not incorporated.
I'm reasonably confident they're doing this because of Federal regulation, though, if not specifically the PATRIOT Act. Jack showed me some of the history he'd collected on this when we talked about this yesterday. The Feds have set some sort of minimum identity-verification standards that banks
must use, and then left it up to the banks to actually figure out how to implement this. That's why things like fingerprints, DNA samples, and blood tests are suddenly so en vogue with these faux private companies.
If a private company did this of their own accord, I'd agree with the "take your money elsewhere" answer.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on February 20, 2009, 07:58 PM NHFTI'm reasonably confident they're doing this because of Federal regulation, though, if not specifically the PATRIOT Act. Jack showed me some of the history he'd collected on this when we talked about this yesterday. The Feds have set some sort of minimum identity-verification standards that banks must use, and then left it up to the banks to actually figure out how to implement this. That's why things like fingerprints, DNA samples, and blood tests are suddenly so en vogue with these faux private companies.
The plethora of banks that
don't do anything of the sort would tend to disprove that assertion.
As I said, I've been banking for years, and have not had to deal with this at any bank which I used. I've rarely even had to show ID. I've even opened a new account since the "Patriot Act" nonsense, and not had to do more than flash a driver's license at them. Either every bank I've dealt with has been engaged in civil disobedience, or there really are not legal requirements.
Off the top of my head, the only bank I can think of that does it is BoA. I'm sure there are others... does anyone have an actual list of banks that require fingerprints, or even know what percentage of them do?
Joe
Instead of continuing this in two places, I'm just posting over here (https://www.nhteaparty.org/index.php/topic,1547.msg12864.html#msg12864) now.
OK, we met at Panera at 10:30 AM today to review the research to date and the process to go through at the bank. One person was designated as the "Civil Rights Observer" to notate a checklist of items and take other notes.
We went to the teller window at about 11:10AM to try to cash the check and explained that I tried to cash it Thursday afternoon, declined to give prints for religious reasons and was refused and was insisting that they honor the negotiable instrument draft (check) that was drawn on their bank. The teller said we'd have to take that up with Nate, the branch manager.
Nathaniel Chapman, a chipper young "Banking Center Manager" cheerfully met with us and I insisted 3 times during our half hour meeting that the bank honor the demand deposit draft drawn on their bank. He explained their policy and that they don't make exceptions, so wouldn't make one for me. I countered with reference to the UCC paragraphs on Presentment and that I had met the "reasonable identification" requirements of the law by showing him my New Hampshire drivers license, so now he was bound by law to honor the draft.
Also reviewed with him the Commerce Committee's bill prohibiting the practice of fingerprinting as ID and he said he was familiar with the bill. He had attended a meeting with Jerry Little of the Bankers Association on that.
I mentioned that I had contacted the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights and that he might be hearing from their investigator.
Stated to him that I believed that his dishonoring of a check drawn on his bank was a violation of New-Hampshire law - he stated that they weren't bound by New Hampshire law, but federal (United States) law, since they were a nationally-chartered bank. We both admitted that we weren't lawyers, but I told him that I believed he had mis-spoken in that they are regulated by a federal agency since they were nationally chartered, but they are still bound to obey New Hampshire public laws and that I believed he was in violation of those laws.
Also reviewed with him the media interest in the human interest angle, so he gave me the media contact for the bank: Anne Pace, Senior V.P. of Communications, tel: 646-855-5996, email: anne.pace@bankofamerica.com. Noted to him that this was a very unpopular policy, that I get 10,200 hits when I Google: Bank of America thumbprint, that I know several people who either intend to close their BoA accounts or refuse to accept BoA checks from now on.
He asked if I would like to further discuss the matter with his boss, and I responded affirmatively, so he gave me: Dawn Champiny, Consumer Market Executive for New Hampshire, tel: 222-3023. This is probably the person to direct calls and mail to to express your opinion about their fingerprinting policy, since her influence would be state-wide, rather than just concerning one branch.
At all times I was courteous and he was a cheerful, friendly guy who said things like "that's what's so great about the freedom in this country - you can choose which bank to deal with." He also mentioned that he'd be glad to open an account for me and would gladly accept the check as a deposit. I told him that especially because of this policy and many bad experiences my daughter had with them, I would not possibly consider opening an account with them.
Report to go out to concerned reps, media, CASPIAN and other interested parties. Dave Ridley says he would do a Ridleo, especially if we did a demonstration out front and he'd throw in other stills, interviews, etc. I know there is a lot of opposition to this policy, so maybe we can organize a protest (would have to be some time after Liberty Forum/Alt Expo, for sure). Hmmm, might make a good Alt Expo topic!
Oh, one more thing: I asked Nate, my good buddy by now ;D to see a printed statement of their policy. He gave me the packet that they give to new account applicants with a booklet inside entitled
"Deposit Agreement and Disclosures", 91-11-2000B (11/08) ©2008. In the section entitled
Processing Withdrawals (p.19), it states:
QuoteCashing Your Checks for Others
If a person wants to cash your check in one of our banking centers, we may:
• require identification satisfactory to us,
• charge them a fee for cashing the check; and
• impose additional requirements, such as requiring their fingerprint or limiting the locations where we will pay the check in cash.
If the person with your check fails or refuses to satisfy our requirements, we may refuse to cash the check. We are not liable to you for refusing to cash the check or for charging a check-cashing fee.
Quotewe may charge them a fee for cashing the check
Wow! I think I need to have a word with my Merrill rep about this. At least thus far along the companies' integration, Merrill Lynch checks are not drawn on B of A. However, if this becomes their policy for written checks, I will probably cancel my accounts.
I must remember not to accept Bank of America checks from anyone.
Good work, Jack.
Just curious: did he ever address you as "Jack" or "Mr. Shimek" or otherwise acknowledge that you are the person you present yourself to be, which matches the name on the check?
Quote from: KBCraig on February 22, 2009, 01:23 AM NHFT
Good work, Jack.
Just curious: did he ever address you as "Jack" or "Mr. Shimek" or otherwise acknowledge that you are the person you present yourself to be, which matches the name on the check?
Oh, yeah, he did. And, by the way, I went to a friend who volunteered to cash my check by depositing it in his BANK OF AMERICA account and withdrawing cash. The deposit went smoothly and the ATM he deposited it in makes a scanned mini copy of the check and prints it on the deposit slip, which he gave me for my file. Too funny - no print required.
Quote from: Roycerson on February 20, 2009, 12:25 PM NHFT
I cash lots of checks at clients banks. If you don't have an account there, they want a thumb print pretty much everywhere, doesn't bother me.
If this is true, then there's no point in me moving my money out of Merrill Lynch, but this is the first I've heard anyone say someone other than BofA did this to them. I'll have to check TD Bank North's policy on this.
Quote from: dalebert on February 23, 2009, 08:48 AM NHFT
Quote from: Roycerson on February 20, 2009, 12:25 PM NHFT
I cash lots of checks at clients banks. If you don't have an account there, they want a thumb print pretty much everywhere, doesn't bother me.
If this is true, then there's no point in me moving my money out of Merrill Lynch, but this is the first I've heard anyone say someone other than BofA did this to them. I'll have to check TD Bank North's policy on this.
First Union does it.
I've cashed many client checks at various banks in N.H. and Mass. and BoA is the only one I've run into that required it. Nate, the branch manager at the So. Willow Street BoA said they have been doing it elsewhere for a while and just started implementing it in New England recently. Maybe we can push that policy out of NH, at least and let those southerners fight it out w/ BoA if they don't like it in their areas.
I think Wachovia also requires it somewhere, but my reporter in Connecticut hasn't mentioned it there, but she has mentioned the BoA requirement there.
Quote from: MaineShark on February 20, 2009, 08:22 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on February 20, 2009, 07:58 PM NHFTI'm reasonably confident they're doing this because of Federal regulation, though, if not specifically the PATRIOT Act. Jack showed me some of the history he'd collected on this when we talked about this yesterday. The Feds have set some sort of minimum identity-verification standards that banks must use, and then left it up to the banks to actually figure out how to implement this. That's why things like fingerprints, DNA samples, and blood tests are suddenly so en vogue with these faux private companies.
The plethora of banks that don't do anything of the sort would tend to disprove that assertion.
As I said, I've been banking for years, and have not had to deal with this at any bank which I used. I've rarely even had to show ID. I've even opened a new account since the "Patriot Act" nonsense, and not had to do more than flash a driver's license at them. Either every bank I've dealt with has been engaged in civil disobedience, or there really are not legal requirements.
Off the top of my head, the only bank I can think of that does it is BoA. I'm sure there are others... does anyone have an actual list of banks that require fingerprints, or even know what percentage of them do?
Joe
Ummm, this only applies to people trying to cash a check who don't have an account with the issuing bank, not to opening an account or cashing a check if you have an account. Most banks require this these days.
My personal story - I confronted B of A on this four years ago in Phx. My angle was that when x signed up for an account with them, they agreed to cash his checks if there was money in the acct. By refusing to cash the check, they were breaking the contract with their client. The end result would be that they were costing their clients time and money because I was going to refuse to do business with them in the future.
They tried to fall back on the security nonsense which is easily debunked. I ended up downtown at the corporate office talking to one of their lawyers. He spewed out a bunch of non-sense but in the end admitted that it was not corporate policy and was up to the discretion of the branch manager (that appears to no longer be the case).
With these words I headed to the branch down in the lobby, had the company which issued the check call the branch manager directly and tell him that they knew who I was, had issued the check, had the money in their account and they expected him to make good on the check without forcing me to give a fingerprint.
I did finally get the check cashed without the thumbprint but since then have used the glue / smear technique to get around the hassle.
Quote from: Keyser Soce on February 23, 2009, 03:15 PM NHFTUmmm, this only applies to people trying to cash a check who don't have an account with the issuing bank, not to opening an account or cashing a check if you have an account. Most banks require this these days.
I've cashed customer checks at banks on several occasions. Never had an issue.
As I've asked elsewhere, it would be useful if there were a list of which banks do and do not require fingerprints or other biometric ID.
As far as the check being a contract, it is. But it's a contract between you and the individual who signed it, not between you and their bank. That individual promises to pay, and engages the bank as their agent. If there is fraud, it's on the part of the individual who hands the check to you, without warning you that they have contracted with the bank to require a certain level of identification.
Requiring that checks be labeled to indicate that they will require biometric ID would, at least, be vaguely-excusable as a means to prevent such fraud, versus an outright prohibition, which is no different than smoking bans or any other interference in free trade.
Joe
I'm moving any strategy info for this continuing action over to the secure forum here (https://www.nhteaparty.org/index.php/topic,1547.0.html).
I'll continue to post news here, tho, just to keep people up-to-date.Will be posting a stock report to the reps who were interested, the UL, WMUR and mebbe the governor's office.
Moneygram wire transfers are able to be picked up without even showing ID if the amount is less than $900 (maybe has changed to a lower amount). The sender is required to show ID but the receiver only needs the answer to the security question. No thumbprint, no ID, no SSN, no DNA, no anal probe.
Of course it costs about $50 to wire $900 and that's a fee the user would have to pay deducted from the total amount of money you're expecting but you may consider paying for your privacy. I haven't tried saying I'm Donald Duck yet, but having the sender send it to "Bob Smith" when your name is Chris Jones feels kind of satisfying.
Bank of America sucks. Not only will they fingerprint you, but they just announced at my local BofA (Portsmouth) that they would start to charge a $6 fee to cash a paycheck drawn on a BofA account if you do not have an account there. It's a goddamn Bank of America check and they want to charge me $6 for the trouble of giving me my money that they have. Grrr....
Quote from: Skram on February 24, 2009, 01:29 PM NHFT
Bank of America sucks. Not only will they fingerprint you, but they just announced at my local BofA (Portsmouth) that they would start to charge a $6 fee to cash a paycheck drawn on a BofA account if you do not have an account there. It's a goddamn Bank of America check and they want to charge me $6 for the trouble of giving me my money that they have. Grrr....
Yeah, this is where I believe they are in violation of the UCC, which says they have to honor checks properly presented to them. A couple of the state reps on the Commerce committee are rippin' about this, too: Winters and Sapareto.
Quote from: Skram on February 24, 2009, 01:29 PM NHFT
Bank of America sucks. Not only will they fingerprint you, but they just announced at my local BofA (Portsmouth) that they would start to charge a $6 fee to cash a paycheck drawn on a BofA account if you do not have an account there. It's a goddamn Bank of America check and they want to charge me $6 for the trouble of giving me my money that they have. Grrr....
Yeah, that's ridiculous. In keeping with Joe Brown's suggestion for the biometric warning, I think they should be required to update their cheques with a message in at least 12 point text on the face of the check that says something to the effect of, "Upon presentment, we promise to pay the bearer the actual value of this check which is six dollars less than the face value, this difference being a bank charge to the drawer. Unless of course you use your own bank to clear this check, in which case the actual value shall equal the face value. In case you were wondering, we're a bunch of assholes."
Quote from: Skram on February 24, 2009, 01:29 PM NHFT
Bank of America sucks. Not only will they fingerprint you, but they just announced at my local BofA (Portsmouth) that they would start to charge a $6 fee to cash a paycheck drawn on a BofA account if you do not have an account there. It's a goddamn Bank of America check and they want to charge me $6 for the trouble of giving me my money that they have. Grrr....
Several years ago when I worked a real job they started charging to cash my company's checks. The guy who handled payroll called the bank and threatened to take his business elsewhere, they must have stopped because I didn't hear anymore complaints.
Quote from: Donald McFarlane on February 24, 2009, 05:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: Skram on February 24, 2009, 01:29 PM NHFT
Bank of America sucks. Not only will they fingerprint you, but they just announced at my local BofA (Portsmouth) that they would start to charge a $6 fee to cash a paycheck drawn on a BofA account if you do not have an account there. It's a goddamn Bank of America check and they want to charge me $6 for the trouble of giving me my money that they have. Grrr....
Yeah, that's ridiculous. In keeping with Joe Brown's suggestion for the biometric warning, I think they should be required to update their cheques with a message in at least 12 point text on the face of the check that says something to the effect of, "Upon presentment, we promise to pay the bearer the actual value of this check which is six dollars less than the face value, this difference being a bank charge to the drawer. Unless of course you use your own bank to clear this check, in which case the actual value shall equal the face value. In case you were wondering, we're a bunch of assholes."
That last line was the best!
Quote from: Roycerson on February 24, 2009, 07:19 PM NHFT
Quote from: Skram on February 24, 2009, 01:29 PM NHFT
Bank of America sucks. Not only will they fingerprint you, but they just announced at my local BofA (Portsmouth) that they would start to charge a $6 fee to cash a paycheck drawn on a BofA account if you do not have an account there. It's a goddamn Bank of America check and they want to charge me $6 for the trouble of giving me my money that they have. Grrr....
Several years ago when I worked a real job they started charging to cash my company's checks. The guy who handled payroll called the bank and threatened to take his business elsewhere, they must have stopped because I didn't hear anymore complaints.
I'm glad to hear the payroll guy got all over them. I heard reports from Rep. Joel Winters that BoA does that elsewhere and I've heard (this thread?) that they've announced they're going to do it here. The best way to handle it is, of course, to refuse to do business with them then. I think they'll learn quickly enough - that is, if they don't become the Bank of the United States of America in a week or 2, after being nationalized. That's the reason we've got to develop alternatives, eh? See http://AltExpo.org. Speakers schedule will be announced soon.
Hi everyone,
I'm a reporter for The Telegraph is Nashua who's working on a story about fingerprinting at Bank of America. I'm hoping to interview by phone someone who has experienced this. If you're interested, please respond or call my office line at 594-6446.
Thanks,
Ashley Smith
I'll call you and PM you with my email address.
Jack
Ashley Smith, business editor for the Telegraph has assigned this article to a free-lance reporter named Melanie Plenda, who can be reached by email at: plendame@gmail.com.
I've done an interview with her and referred her to also speak to Katherine Albrecht. Melanie has all the reps contact info (that are interested in the privacy aspect of this BoA policy) and will be contacting them. Through her journalistic objectivity, I can tell she was equally shocked about this policy and concerned about the privacy aspects.
If you have something to add to this, you might want to email her. She had a Thursday (last night) deadline, but it got pushed back to let her continue to research. I'll ask her when she expects it to go in the paper and report that out here.
PS: I also referred Melanie to the very recent US Supreme Court case, Cuomo v. Clearing House Association, in which the Court opined that States' Attorneys General may nose into nationally-chartered banks business, especially for consumer protection purposes.
Here's an article on the Cuomo opinion: http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/06/29/daily10.html
I'll keep you updated.
Chase is requiring a right index finger for anything over $500.
Quote from: Roycerson on July 19, 2009, 10:16 PM NHFT
Chase is requiring a right index finger for anything over $500.
Is that for non customers cashing a check, or even for customers? BoA's policy applies to non-customers only. I've also heard that Wachovia in Connecticut requires some finger or thumbprint.
OK, the article on this is due out in the Sunday Nashua Telegraph. Keep a look out for it. I'm gritting my teeth worrying if she'll get the issue right. She seemed with us during the interview.
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 17, 2009, 01:07 PM NHFT
Ashley Smith, business editor for the Telegraph has assigned this article to a free-lance reporter named Melanie Plenda, who can be reached by email at: plendame@gmail.com.
I've done an interview with her and referred her to also speak to Katherine Albrecht. Melanie has all the reps contact info (that are interested in the privacy aspect of this BoA policy) and will be contacting them. Through her journalistic objectivity, I can tell she was equally shocked about this policy and concerned about the privacy aspects.
If you have something to add to this, you might want to email her. She had a Thursday (last night) deadline, but it got pushed back to let her continue to research. I'll ask her when she expects it to go in the paper and report that out here.
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_TufT5UxJYSQ/SmzMGTBEHSI/AAAAAAAAAsk/Gz5JhJ8zJHo/thumbprintpeople.jpg)
Here's the article Melanie Plenda did on BoA thumbprints: FRONT PAGE - and she exposes BoA for lying about scooping and databasing the thumbprints! Good work Melanie. She hints that there might be follow-on articles.
Thumbing their noses; Customers take umbrage over bank policy requiring thumbprints (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090726/NEWS01/307269925/-1/XML15)
And, Wow! Check out the comments. I guess we gauged this one right with the mood of the people. Now to just get them all mobilized to action! Looks like there's already a spontaneous boycott going on!
BoA refused to cash a check for a man unless he gave a thumbprint. Except, he has no arms!
http://consumerist.com/5350273/bank-of-america-asks-armless-man-for-thumbprint
holy shi-
Quote from: KBCraig on September 01, 2009, 12:40 PM NHFT
BoA refused to cash a check for a man unless he gave a thumbprint. Except, he has no arms!
http://consumerist.com/5350273/bank-of-america-asks-armless-man-for-thumbprint
This really takes the cake for inflexible policies!
When I went to BoA on my check-cashing attempts, they did act like automatons, but I never imagined they'd go this far!
Quote from: KBCraig on September 01, 2009, 12:40 PM NHFT
BoA refused to cash a check for a man unless he gave a thumbprint. Except, he has no arms!
http://consumerist.com/5350273/bank-of-america-asks-armless-man-for-thumbprint
Poor guy. He should really bitch about this. Bank of America doesn't have a leg to stand on. :P
I hear their fees are an arm and a leg!