2 years ago, we told you about the hidden but serious problem termed “debanking”—suddenly your bank (and many or all others) no longer wants to do business with you.
<<“The debanking hysteria is all smoke, no fire,” said Adam J. Levitin, a professor of law and finance at Georgetown University. “It’s a lot of self-serving and unverifiable allegations from risky businesses and customers.”>>
Gosh it sure is good to have Georgetown U, home of Lawrence Gostin and the Fauci sinecure, to step in again and set the record straight.
We need to be careful, don't we, in limiting debanking powers. Remember, Larry Fink is forcing behaviors, and we can't strip him of all the tools in the toolbox, now can we?
I guess we should ask, "what is the equally bad, but opposite thing, of yelling fire in a theater."
The proof the violations of administrative due process guarantees are real can be found anywhere state weed laws changed in the last few decades.
Banks were forced, by federal agents working on the sly, to refuse to allow pot farms and sales outlets to bank with them. However, not such law existed. And the weed related stuff was not illegal, as long as it was INTRAstate commerce type activity.
Actually, the whole weed thing stands as proof of why our agents need the chains of the FIFTY-ONE constitutions on them.
Only a few short years ago, ATF used to barge into states carrying fabricated presumptions individuals using, growing and selling weed were doing it across state lines. With a few rare exceptions, no proof supporting the allegations was ever entered into the record. Still, the feds stole EVERYTHING the people owned under yet another unsupported allegation - that everything they owned, even the generational family farm, was gained by INTERstate commerce of drugs.
HOWEVER, as soon as state actors saw the potential for yet more taxes, so made weed legal, the feds started limiting their raids to incidents in which actual proof of INTERSTATE commerce existed.
NOW add to this your consideration of AFT activities with regard to guns, gun accessories and ammo that were never in interstate commerce.
LGB, during his remarkable basement campaign, bragged about getting gun free zones in place. However, he neglected to mention the U.S. Supreme Court, in U.S. v LOPEZ (1995) shut all those laws down. In doing so, the Court stated: "[S]chools have nothing to do with INTERstate commerce, the ONLY authority under which CONgress could have enacted such laws." (empasis added)
The simple of it is, the ATF has a time honored pattern of violating clearly established common (constitutional) law (e.g., the separation of powers between the states and the feds, as was addressed when Roe v Wade was struck down as federal overreach).
You might enjoy this exchange from a couple of years ago, between one of the newer, better reps in the House, Harriet Hageman (R-WY), and former ATF Director Steven Dettelbach. She absolutely dismantled him.
Yes the control of corporations and individuals is increasing year by the year. I recently read the below article, that is the most comprehensive article I have read, about the plan created and implemented over many years to control us and the corporations to drive us toward a totalitarian structure globally. It does cover the ESG scam as part of the plan. It is long but an excellent read. It shines a light on all aspects of what we see happening in the world.
Another problem, which was scarier...the taking over of the money in personal accounts by the bank, if and when, the bank needed money to bail itself out. i saw information regarding a takeover every day on the internet. i still see this, but not as much.
Saw this in 2008. Freezing accounts from business to related personal accounts for people tied to businesses with extensive property/commercial loans regardless of standing, ie the loans were current.
& Don’t forget before the Credit Cardholder’s Bill of Rights was passed, arbitrary interest rate hikes (large ones) were happening to people who were current on accounts but simply owed money.
I recall Chase bank refused to do business with anyone who had a cash business. You were assumed to be guilty of something. Of course they looked the other way when international money was being laundered. Yet when these same banksters get together for public meetings they say they want everyone to have a bank account. Just with digital money they control. One solution I see is to form credit unions outside the centralized banking system.
"Debanking" is the monetary-economy form of "shunning", which was a sentence of slow death to the shunned person in antiquity, because you can only eat "locusts and wild honey" in the wilderness for so long before something happens or you get sick enough to need care.
If banks have a right to debank, then citizens should have a right to use other alternative means to transact and do business, otherwise access to banking services should be a legal right, same way as a right to vote, etc.
You know a way to make a living without a bank account? You cannot even possibly survive without a smart phone lately unless with major restrictions to your lifestyle
Out government does not control banking, but the banks control the government and us. The Federal Reserve is,in fact , not reslly federal but independently run by private banks and affiliated with globalism
Do you think if the public had any say, that banks would pay virtually no interest on savings accounts, bur charge usurous interest on loans, especially credit cards which are often needed by those who have the most trouble making king ends meet?
Also, Mortgages are a real scam of these charlatans. Each time a home is turned over, the seller/buyer loses their old rate and begins anew. A worse kicker is that the banks charge upfront interest on the amortization of the loan. Virtually noone pays their bininning stated rate unless they hold the loan to maturity. And who does that? The bankers are among our worst globalist enemies. They pick the bones of our most needy citizens.
Every bank I have looked up in Australia has "woke" hate speech clauses in their banking conditions- such as the following condition from a major bank, I won't use their name as they most probably will debank me for publishing their conditions!!
" we reasonably believe the use of an Account has caused or will cause harm (for example financial abuse or other abuse) to another person;"
What is a reasonable belief?
What does harm mean?
What is financial abuse?
What is other abuse?
What right of appeal is there?
What method of judgement and assessment is undertaken, and does the account holder have any capacity to basic legal rights, such as innocent until proven guilty??!!
Can "hearsay" be sufficient grounds for closing an account?
Who determines the above and if they are not defined, are such conditions illegal, as we can't possibly agree to a Condition without knowing what it is we are agreeing to?
While debanking may not be illegal all of the above questions need to be answered for such outrageous conditions to be legal.
Just look up an electronic version of your banking conditions for the terms "harm" or "abuse" and you should find them buried in there somewhere.
It seems that none of the offending institutions were local banks, nor credit unions. Another reason to prefer them. (Also, if possible, one should maintain accounts at more than one institution.)
Using businesses to make life difficult for people feels like a mafia tactic on the part of the political class. Using gov agencies to do the same, with blind eyes turned, plenty of red tape, no or wrong answers to complaints, and no attorneys or ACLUs willing to touch anything that doesn’t address the “correct” type of topic renders the system of rules illegitimate.
Except the public agents are the ones pushing the crap, just as they did with social media.
We need laws making such things crimes for which prosecution is mandatory.
NOW, inasmuch as public agents contract to represent us, we have the right to expect that performance (represenation).
Imagine, say, 3,000 people, or even 1,000 emailing (it leaves a documented paper trail via meta data- ask Hildo) contact their reps and demand specific acts. Things like term limits, the ability to stop profitable overdrafts of debit cards, AFT overreach on things not in commerce, and so on.
If the agent, instead of listening to the 3,000, goes with the five in line with his/her agenda, the contract was just breeched and, from that, comes the grounds to remove them and recoup all the moneys paid for them to represent citizens.
Some of us have been fighting city hall for years. We figured out that obnoxious clerk or planner was no smarter than us, but was and is bound by powerful laws she/he should never have ignored.
Legal provisions inspired by what exists for utilities like water and power.
More specifically, we need to enshrine access to checking accounts and debit cards as a human right and to govern how companies can profit off of those tightly. Of course, that does not extend to any other financial services, nor does it grant the recipient access to credit or allow him/her to go into overdraft. If the recipient does so, then the account can still be useless for all practical purposes.
My old bank immediately terminated my account during convid, when I asked them if I should violate a federal law that prohibits entering a financial institution with a face cover, or I should follow the bank's rule that mandated it. They had a "compliance officer," and it was his/her "decision." Shortly after causing me a whole month of trouble by making me change banks, I couldn't help but told the bank to stick their compliance officer where the Sun don't shine. :)
No, I didn't have my 15 minutes of fame, but at least enjoyed what was left of the Freedom of Speech. :)
Coutts!! They closed Farage’s account, initially citing that he no longer met their financial threshold of £1 million in investments or £3 million in savings. However, after Farage submitted a subject access request, it was revealed that the bank’s internal documents also cited concerns about his *political views and public profile*. The dossier described his views as being at odds with the bank’s values of inclusivity.
The fallout was significant: the BBC issued an apology for its reporting, and the CEO of parent company NatWest, Dame Alison Rose, resigned after it emerged she had discussed Farage’s account with a journalist prior to the story breaking.
Go read the details of the Trading With The Enemy Act.
Things like this make clear why we have not just one, but instead have FIFTY-ONE constitutions, and by the 9th and 10th amendments make clear to our agents feds do not have all the cards for good cause.
In the end, our lawbooks are replete with proofs our agents are no less capable of evil than is the common man. In them can be found case upon case of agents being found guilty of rape, murder, arson, theft, extortion, pedophilia, incest, bribery, treason, negligence, failure to perform on their contracts (every job is a contract) and so on.
My job which was since laid me off gave a bad check
.
The bank froze my account although I'd paid back the check.
They threatened to close my account. Ms Jay, but said they hadn'tt, that they'd closed it at my request, which I was forced to do once they'd froze it.
People have always hated my Russian guts forever especially in SF.
I just want to tell you that I very much like Russian people who I find to be especially smart. I worked with many in SF at a company called Genesys telecommunications. It was founded by Russians and the engineers and creators of the complex software were Russian. They were good people to work with!
<<“The debanking hysteria is all smoke, no fire,” said Adam J. Levitin, a professor of law and finance at Georgetown University. “It’s a lot of self-serving and unverifiable allegations from risky businesses and customers.”>>
Gosh it sure is good to have Georgetown U, home of Lawrence Gostin and the Fauci sinecure, to step in again and set the record straight.
We need to be careful, don't we, in limiting debanking powers. Remember, Larry Fink is forcing behaviors, and we can't strip him of all the tools in the toolbox, now can we?
I guess we should ask, "what is the equally bad, but opposite thing, of yelling fire in a theater."
The proof the violations of administrative due process guarantees are real can be found anywhere state weed laws changed in the last few decades.
Banks were forced, by federal agents working on the sly, to refuse to allow pot farms and sales outlets to bank with them. However, not such law existed. And the weed related stuff was not illegal, as long as it was INTRAstate commerce type activity.
Actually, the whole weed thing stands as proof of why our agents need the chains of the FIFTY-ONE constitutions on them.
Only a few short years ago, ATF used to barge into states carrying fabricated presumptions individuals using, growing and selling weed were doing it across state lines. With a few rare exceptions, no proof supporting the allegations was ever entered into the record. Still, the feds stole EVERYTHING the people owned under yet another unsupported allegation - that everything they owned, even the generational family farm, was gained by INTERstate commerce of drugs.
HOWEVER, as soon as state actors saw the potential for yet more taxes, so made weed legal, the feds started limiting their raids to incidents in which actual proof of INTERSTATE commerce existed.
NOW add to this your consideration of AFT activities with regard to guns, gun accessories and ammo that were never in interstate commerce.
LGB, during his remarkable basement campaign, bragged about getting gun free zones in place. However, he neglected to mention the U.S. Supreme Court, in U.S. v LOPEZ (1995) shut all those laws down. In doing so, the Court stated: "[S]chools have nothing to do with INTERstate commerce, the ONLY authority under which CONgress could have enacted such laws." (empasis added)
The simple of it is, the ATF has a time honored pattern of violating clearly established common (constitutional) law (e.g., the separation of powers between the states and the feds, as was addressed when Roe v Wade was struck down as federal overreach).
You might enjoy this exchange from a couple of years ago, between one of the newer, better reps in the House, Harriet Hageman (R-WY), and former ATF Director Steven Dettelbach. She absolutely dismantled him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z60KD7OTYfU
Yes the control of corporations and individuals is increasing year by the year. I recently read the below article, that is the most comprehensive article I have read, about the plan created and implemented over many years to control us and the corporations to drive us toward a totalitarian structure globally. It does cover the ESG scam as part of the plan. It is long but an excellent read. It shines a light on all aspects of what we see happening in the world.
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/the-complete-architecture
Social Credit in action
Another problem, which was scarier...the taking over of the money in personal accounts by the bank, if and when, the bank needed money to bail itself out. i saw information regarding a takeover every day on the internet. i still see this, but not as much.
Saw this in 2008. Freezing accounts from business to related personal accounts for people tied to businesses with extensive property/commercial loans regardless of standing, ie the loans were current.
& Don’t forget before the Credit Cardholder’s Bill of Rights was passed, arbitrary interest rate hikes (large ones) were happening to people who were current on accounts but simply owed money.
I recall Chase bank refused to do business with anyone who had a cash business. You were assumed to be guilty of something. Of course they looked the other way when international money was being laundered. Yet when these same banksters get together for public meetings they say they want everyone to have a bank account. Just with digital money they control. One solution I see is to form credit unions outside the centralized banking system.
"Debanking" is the monetary-economy form of "shunning", which was a sentence of slow death to the shunned person in antiquity, because you can only eat "locusts and wild honey" in the wilderness for so long before something happens or you get sick enough to need care.
If banks have a right to debank, then citizens should have a right to use other alternative means to transact and do business, otherwise access to banking services should be a legal right, same way as a right to vote, etc.
Don't citizens already have the right to use alternative means?
You know a way to make a living without a bank account? You cannot even possibly survive without a smart phone lately unless with major restrictions to your lifestyle
Out government does not control banking, but the banks control the government and us. The Federal Reserve is,in fact , not reslly federal but independently run by private banks and affiliated with globalism
Do you think if the public had any say, that banks would pay virtually no interest on savings accounts, bur charge usurous interest on loans, especially credit cards which are often needed by those who have the most trouble making king ends meet?
Also, Mortgages are a real scam of these charlatans. Each time a home is turned over, the seller/buyer loses their old rate and begins anew. A worse kicker is that the banks charge upfront interest on the amortization of the loan. Virtually noone pays their bininning stated rate unless they hold the loan to maturity. And who does that? The bankers are among our worst globalist enemies. They pick the bones of our most needy citizens.
Every bank I have looked up in Australia has "woke" hate speech clauses in their banking conditions- such as the following condition from a major bank, I won't use their name as they most probably will debank me for publishing their conditions!!
" we reasonably believe the use of an Account has caused or will cause harm (for example financial abuse or other abuse) to another person;"
What is a reasonable belief?
What does harm mean?
What is financial abuse?
What is other abuse?
What right of appeal is there?
What method of judgement and assessment is undertaken, and does the account holder have any capacity to basic legal rights, such as innocent until proven guilty??!!
Can "hearsay" be sufficient grounds for closing an account?
Who determines the above and if they are not defined, are such conditions illegal, as we can't possibly agree to a Condition without knowing what it is we are agreeing to?
While debanking may not be illegal all of the above questions need to be answered for such outrageous conditions to be legal.
Just look up an electronic version of your banking conditions for the terms "harm" or "abuse" and you should find them buried in there somewhere.
It seems that none of the offending institutions were local banks, nor credit unions. Another reason to prefer them. (Also, if possible, one should maintain accounts at more than one institution.)
Using businesses to make life difficult for people feels like a mafia tactic on the part of the political class. Using gov agencies to do the same, with blind eyes turned, plenty of red tape, no or wrong answers to complaints, and no attorneys or ACLUs willing to touch anything that doesn’t address the “correct” type of topic renders the system of rules illegitimate.
It IS a mafia tactic, IMHO!
Debanking is a crime against humanity. We urgently need legislation that resorts checking accounts and debit cards under utility provisions.
Except the public agents are the ones pushing the crap, just as they did with social media.
We need laws making such things crimes for which prosecution is mandatory.
NOW, inasmuch as public agents contract to represent us, we have the right to expect that performance (represenation).
Imagine, say, 3,000 people, or even 1,000 emailing (it leaves a documented paper trail via meta data- ask Hildo) contact their reps and demand specific acts. Things like term limits, the ability to stop profitable overdrafts of debit cards, AFT overreach on things not in commerce, and so on.
If the agent, instead of listening to the 3,000, goes with the five in line with his/her agenda, the contract was just breeched and, from that, comes the grounds to remove them and recoup all the moneys paid for them to represent citizens.
Some of us have been fighting city hall for years. We figured out that obnoxious clerk or planner was no smarter than us, but was and is bound by powerful laws she/he should never have ignored.
What are utility provisions?
Legal provisions inspired by what exists for utilities like water and power.
More specifically, we need to enshrine access to checking accounts and debit cards as a human right and to govern how companies can profit off of those tightly. Of course, that does not extend to any other financial services, nor does it grant the recipient access to credit or allow him/her to go into overdraft. If the recipient does so, then the account can still be useless for all practical purposes.
Old Glory Bank says they won't debank
https://oldglorybank.com/
Great link 🔗.
My old bank immediately terminated my account during convid, when I asked them if I should violate a federal law that prohibits entering a financial institution with a face cover, or I should follow the bank's rule that mandated it. They had a "compliance officer," and it was his/her "decision." Shortly after causing me a whole month of trouble by making me change banks, I couldn't help but told the bank to stick their compliance officer where the Sun don't shine. :)
No, I didn't have my 15 minutes of fame, but at least enjoyed what was left of the Freedom of Speech. :)
Wow! The bank nazis at work. They LOVE being in a position to torture others "justly"
The Nazis were little boy scouts compared with these troupers:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/what-can-explain-the-jewish-fatigue
I think Nigel Farage knows the experience well, too.
Coutts!! They closed Farage’s account, initially citing that he no longer met their financial threshold of £1 million in investments or £3 million in savings. However, after Farage submitted a subject access request, it was revealed that the bank’s internal documents also cited concerns about his *political views and public profile*. The dossier described his views as being at odds with the bank’s values of inclusivity.
The fallout was significant: the BBC issued an apology for its reporting, and the CEO of parent company NatWest, Dame Alison Rose, resigned after it emerged she had discussed Farage’s account with a journalist prior to the story breaking.
What kind of fricking government do we have when they consider the citizen an enemy?
Go read the details of the Trading With The Enemy Act.
Things like this make clear why we have not just one, but instead have FIFTY-ONE constitutions, and by the 9th and 10th amendments make clear to our agents feds do not have all the cards for good cause.
In the end, our lawbooks are replete with proofs our agents are no less capable of evil than is the common man. In them can be found case upon case of agents being found guilty of rape, murder, arson, theft, extortion, pedophilia, incest, bribery, treason, negligence, failure to perform on their contracts (every job is a contract) and so on.
My job which was since laid me off gave a bad check
.
The bank froze my account although I'd paid back the check.
They threatened to close my account. Ms Jay, but said they hadn'tt, that they'd closed it at my request, which I was forced to do once they'd froze it.
People have always hated my Russian guts forever especially in SF.
Dear Russia,
Please nuke SF first.
Blow up the jail....
I just want to tell you that I very much like Russian people who I find to be especially smart. I worked with many in SF at a company called Genesys telecommunications. It was founded by Russians and the engineers and creators of the complex software were Russian. They were good people to work with!