Sie sind auf Seite 1von 32

My Banking Experience.

Copyright 2009


I was going to send this to a politician whose office is endowed by our government
to examine banking oriented issues but changed my mind since I did not like all
the required fields to submit an opinion on their website such as title, first and
last name, street address, state, zip code and email address. That's ridiculous
since I personally do not believe that such type communications to a politician
are confidential and I never will.

So I reworded the intro for the general public, in the hopes that you may better
understand the banking woes of the man in the street:

I have written this from experience just like I assume that the man in the street
experiences these things at the hands of the banking industry every day. At least
the people that I talk to anyway. I'm no legal or banking expert, just a person
speaking out as I certainly lay no claim to perfection.

I lay out what I perceive to be con games, what appears to be lies by omission,
what appears to be the purposeful withholding of critical information from the
customer, all the things that appear too trick customers into paying overdraft
fees that allegedly support, according to the various sources, 44% of yearly bank


Part 1. The Phantom Bank Receipt.

Part 2. The Phantom Bank Balance.

Part 3. The Phantom Bank Receipt Revisited; A Fake Balance.

Part 4. The Smoking Gun.

Part 5. The Fake Credit Line.

Part 6. Forced Bank Loans.

Part 7. Overdraft Fee Discrimination.

Part 8. The $1,000 Minimum Loan Illusion.

Part 9. Points To Ponder.

Part 10. End.

PART 1: The Phantom Bank Receipt.

With that much of bank income, near 50%, derived from overdraft fees I think they
would be motivated to find ways to keep that rolling in though around 44% is
outrageous. The very notion of it being near 50% demands a serious inquiry.

I have read a lot about this but it is all vague and generic and it does more to
pump up the authors name than it does to address any real issues.
I discuss in my opinion what appears to be deceptive practices or outright lies in
a form that is not currently codified as illegal that I can tell or otherwise
outlawed that seem to be very popular because only rarely can I call any of my
goods and service providers without being lied to. Until so many seemingly forms
of deception in question are outlawed it is a moral and ethical matter and the
business sector in my opinion is little interested in morals or ethics and the
existence of an endless supply of laws, probably millions of laws, prove that.

That is one reason why we have so many laws on the books is because the business
sector so greatly pursues corrupt policies and practices that it results in laws
against it later but one benefit for them is their influence in political circles
between the campaign donations and their lobbyists is that lawmakers seem not to
notice corruption for ages before they actually outlaw whatever practice it may

Kind of like Florida this month wanting to outlaw snakes kept as pets, the type of
snakes that become very large if let go in the wild but only after there are an
endless supply of them slithering through everyone's back yard. It's laughable.

The other most recent thing is the GAO stumping about special needs kids in public
schools being abused, most notably with isolation. I and millions of other
Americans were aware of this in the 70's and 80's to current date and the GAO just
figured it out last month.

Simply put, politicians and government are always a day late and a dollar short.

If it weren't for always being a day late and a dollar short they would lose
probably 3/4's of their track record but yet they can start 3 wars in about 72
hours or gut the US Constitution and the Bill Of Rights in about 45 days.

So endless laws shows endless corrupt policies and practices until it must be
outlawed due to public outrage, one policy and practice after another until you
need a super computer to store and reference the laws. This is the abuse of
Freedom and the manipulation of Liberty even up to the point of high jacking the
system itself through governmental influence because most crooked things go on for
half our lifetimes before anything is done about it.

We now live in a day where Capitalism controls Democracy instead of Democracy

controlling Capitalism and that means Big Money has more power and authority than
our government and elected representatives.

In some circles that is described as a Shadow Government plotting even bigger

things than that.

Only mass public outrage will move lawmakers to act so in that event they finally
choose which best butters their bread, the voters or Big Money. If enough people
are publicly outraged they take sides with the people or they will be voted out of

If it is an office not dependent on being voted in or out or an office not limited

in the time served in it and they know they can't be put out, they never respect
the people. Just like whistle blowers have busted open more corporate corruption
in recent history than the S.E.C. has during most of my adult life.

So goes it will the regulatory bodies of the financial communities. They are
either hired or appointed so they don't need the votes of the people so are
independent of the people so they really have no overbearing need to investigate
and take their findings to lawmakers or issue warrants. They can just sit back and
let it all ride and then blame someone else.

They even care so little about oversight that the second biggest Ponzi scheme in
history, possibly the largest in world history goes on right under their nose for
most of our lifetime while they claim they knew nothing about it. They cannot even
look at a column of numbers compared to a financiers assets and see that something
is desperately wrong.

It's like everyone is under constant orders to look the other way making all their
titles and positions to be a matter of image and not functionality.

So obviously their jobs and positions in society are a worthless failure that has
no social value regardless if they knew about any scheme or not. They are a moot
body that sucks up huge amounts of money as they refer to it as income. No
different than a no show job because the massive scheme forges ahead whether they
show up for work or go play golf. They don't have a clue.

When Big Money gets busted, in most cases the source was not in the regulators but

If there is some manner of lying, deception, fraud, bait and switch or any other
form of hustle that is not actually codified as illegal, word for word, this is
the most popular thing in the business community. Over the past 10 years or so I
have gotten so sick and tired of goods and service providers lying through their
teeth to make a buck or lying due to plain ignorance of what they are talking

The second greatest source of money is the point blank taking advantage of peoples
ignorance (mainly lacking math skills and little understanding of legal ease) and
when exposed simultaneously blaming the victim. Taking advantage of someones
ignorance is only illegal if it is done to a child or mentally incapacitated
person otherwise only the victim is to blame.

The third greatest source of money would be the withholding of critical


Are they any less a predator for doing it to someone who is not under age or
mentally retarded? No. It is still just as much predatory, it's just not illegal.

So much for looking up to and trusting the so called pillars of the community (as
the elite and power brokers like to describe themselves).

Lately with corruption abound in the White House (this was written both before and
during Obama) and on Wall Street I have been paying attention to the bank as have
a lot of people. I have had 2 overdrafts in life so I'm not keeping an eye on the
situation for myself but because of the alleged 44% of income banks derive from
overdraft fees. The percentage of revenue varies from source to source so don't
take 44% for granted.

So finally today the bank employee on the phone slipped up and said something
incriminating but the best form of evidence to demonstrate that they actually said
it is illegal such as recording a conversation without the other persons

Asking permission or telling a person up front that you want to or are recording a
call and they deny permission or hang up. Go figure. They record it though for
training or quality assurance or other as most times you get that notice before
they get on the line. I suppose they don't mind recording themselves provided that
they could use it to protect themselves and at the same time know the likelihood
of you not having access to tens of thousands of dollars, maybe millions even and
a squad of lawyers you could never get a copy of that database to prove anything
against them.

Since it isn't "official" bank business and it's for training or quality assurance
they probably can scrub those hard drives on a daily basis so by the time you did
ever get access to that recorded conversation it could be long wiped out. If they
do keep all those calls on a permanent record just imagine the potentially
incriminating content that may show established deceptive patterns of conversation
that could be used in a court of law. A few incidents could be excused away in
themselves but thousands of them reflecting practices of deceptive behavior and
the policy of withholding essential information? No way.

At one time in our history "snake oil" medicine was legal. It still is but the
trick is to be devious enough to offer the snake oil in a manner that isn't
actually codified as illegal but yet is still just as much the same undiluted
snake oil.

I want to address what I am under the impression of whats seems to be the

purposeful practice of withholding of critical information from the customer and
the manipulation of the word "balance" as it applies to a bank account and how in
my layman's opinion that manipulation is used to deceive people about what their
"balance" is in the hopes of leading the customer into an overdraft situation on
their account so that the bank can slap them with an overdraft fee. With around
44% of bank income derived from overdraft fees that in itself implies to me that
something unscrupulous could be going on. 44% gives the clear impression that
garden variety bank customers never got past third grade math class since addition
and subtraction are usually begun to be taught no later than second grade and
addition and subtraction is all that is necessary to keep your bank balance

Since it is safe to assume that probably 99% of bank account holders can do
addition and subtraction of at least 2 columns of a row of 5 numbers of dollars
and cents:


then something is wrong because US citizens just aren't that ignorant. We aren't
the brightest at math in the world but still we aren't that dumb. I don't think
they are that irresponsible either because everyone hates overdraft fees with a
passion and with the dollar amount of them running into tens of billions of
dollars would be desirous to avoid being overdrawn.

So what gives? Now with all that out of the way I'm not going to offer vague and
generic topics or solutions to things that lawmakers could care less about anyway.
I'm going to offer the tangible. I offer what you can examine in your hand and
hear with your ear.

Prove it to yourself:

Since so many activist judges have set the standard in saying that the victim is
always to blame and society in general saying that bank customers are en masse
incompetent for not doing their banking homework:
Before you do your own investigations, first you need to know how much money you
have in the bank, have your column of numbers handy, the dates of the transactions
and what they were for, two columns actually, one for your balance and the other
column will be your balance without your last transaction being subtracted from
the amount in the bank.

So from here on out this is how it works EVEN THOUGH YOU DID DO YOUR HOMEWORK:

For the ease of explanation I'll use the following examples of numbers. Let's say
you have $50.00 in the bank. Let's say the teller machine you use (not one owned
by your bank) costs $1.00 transaction fee.

So you withdraw $20.00 and the teller machine automatically prints you out a
receipt (which may or may not use ink that later disappears). I have 2 years worth
of monthly receipts from my former ISP that are like that, 104 blank pieces of
paper but were plainly printed when given to me. Plus I always paid cash. You know
what would happen if they ever came back on me and said I owed them money? Go

Never trust anyone or any entity whose printed word disappears leaving you with a
blank piece of paper. It should be illegal including the machines that "print"
such receipts because it violates in whole every context and principle of a
permanent record of a financial transaction. It isn't even ink from what I hear. I
hear that it is just very lightly burnt into the surface of the paper with a laser
creating a micro-fine ash on the surface that just falls off as a powder later
leaving nothing behind but blank paper.

So after looking at your receipt you do the math and see that you have $29.00 in
the bank after you get $20.00 and the bank takes the $1.00 fee.

So apparently you did your homework. OK.

It didn't do you a bit of good. In fact, you may have been set up for the kill.

For some comedy relief before this gets a bit heavy, recall the public
advertisements issued by the banking community that you have seen during your life
that employ the word "trust" and keep that in mind as we go through the rest of

Now, as you were doing your homework, you look at your teller machine receipt (a
machine not owned by your bank) which is your only source of info for the
transaction so that you can tally up your balance and you now have $29.00 in the

Right? No.

So you call the bank and ask them what your balance is. They tell you your balance
is $28.00.

How did that happen?

Also note that 99%, if not the whole lot of 100% of households depend upon
receipts and their totals to be correct for their personal records since their
receipts are really the ONLY records they legally have on such things.

Your proper homework is showing that you have $1.00 more in the bank than your
bank is reporting to you. Look again at your teller machine receipt. If yours is
like mine is it is not listing the price of the transaction of your bank which is
$1.00 ($1.00 is for example they charge more really).

It only lists the $1.00 fee of the bank that owns the machine and that leaves you
under the impression that you have $29.00 in the bank which is actually $1.00 more
than you really have.

You automatically trusted the banks teller machine receipt correct? Correct.

That accounts for the extra $1.00 in YOUR bank balance but the balance your bank
tells you is $1.00 less.

Remember, even .01 incurs an overdraft amounting to tens of dollars.

Even though you did your homework according to the receipts and the proper math
that does not remove the seemingly slight of hand or slight of eye so to speak on
the receipt does it?

No. That is extant. Sticks out like a sore thumb.

That transaction cost you $2.00 but only half of that is itemized on the receipt.
Even if Einstein used the teller machine only the bank would be solely to blame
for that dollar in question not being itemized on the receipt correct? Correct.

I'm aware of the two fees so I get the right amount of 28.00 the first time (Did
you or did this catch you? Be honest.), but, what unfortunate and expensive
process does one have to go through to learn that and how many Americans will not
know that or catch that until they incur an overdraft and the outrageous fee that
it costs? I think that would be a rather large number of people.

In my opinion, the bank is gambling on the odds of the customer not knowing to
include the missing $1.00 that is not itemized on the receipt. To me that is
predatory and taking advantage of peoples ignorance and the deliberate withholding
of critical information that the customer needs on their receipts. Apparently it
is not illegal to leave that $1.00 off the receipt of a transaction that costs

1 transaction at 1 bank, 2 fees, one taken by each bank, not a fee that is split
between them either, only the owner of the machine lists their machine fee on the
receipt, most people trust their receipts, they get their balance wrong then incur
an overdraft fee.


The customers commits 1 transaction at the teller machine but the banks behind the
scenes split that 1 transaction into 2 transactions with each one charging a fee
for what the customer did 1 time. Doesn't that split result in a hidden fee that
does not show up on the receipt for the 1 transaction with the customer being
$1.00 to the + which isn't a real balance and ends up overdrawn? Looks like it.

It is a simple "scheme" so to speak regardless of any justifications given for

this scenario, keep $1.00 off the receipt of a transaction that costs $2.00. That
cannot be denied or explained away and I think is a purposeful gesture to throw a
persons balance off to look like they have more in the bank than they really do in
the hopes that the customer does not know about or doesn't catch onto the $1.00 in
question and creates an overdraft thus generating free revenue for the bank.

So Einstein goes and writes a check for or uses his bank card for $29.00 and what

How many lawmakers break out in a sweat, stuttering, wringing their hands and
shaking in their boots at the mere mention of introducing legislation and
implementing a law that would require the bank that owns the machine, in the event
the machine is one not owned by your bank, to print on the receipt the full fee of
both banks charged upon the customer for that transaction for the express purpose
of the customer knowing their CORRECT bank balance? If I was them I'd probably
running for liquor bottle and the headache powders.

In essence, YOU ARE TO BLAME for your bank balance being incorrect and YOU ARE TO
BLAME for the missing $1.00 on the teller machine receipt.

So that demonstrates what I perceive as the the predatory act of taking advantage
of the assumed ignorance of the general public by the withholding of critical
information on a receipt by only listing half the fee for the 1 transaction which
apparently isn't illegal and I'm sure delivers a boat load of revenue to the bank.

Sometimes I wonder, if in some form or another, if the bank printing the teller
machine receipt gets a kickback of part of the overdraft fee if it was ascertained
by the bank charging the overdraft fee that the other bank was a party to helping
the overdraft come to pass by providing the bogus receipt. Can I use the word
bogus? The receipt is bogus isn't it? Only half the fee is listed for the 1
transaction? Sounds bogus to me. What could we call that? Split Billing with only
half the fee being recorded for the customer on the receipt?


Of all the hundreds of thousands of receipts that I have garnered in my life from
a huge variety of goods and services providers, the receipt from the teller
machine has been the only one that is blatantly false compared to the actual price
you pay for the 1 transaction which in the example is a whole $2.00.

Just imagine how many Americans get nailed with that per year and it's not their
fault. That's the only way who knows how many people can catch on to the missing
$1.00 isn't it?

It is like you wanting to build a house. You have the final floor plans and a deal
with the General Contractor at a price of $75,000 for a completed house. 30 days
after the house is finished, tens of thousands of dollars worth of bills start
arriving in the mailbox. By some method or another the General Contractor kept the
$75,000 for his services and all these other bills are from the sub-contractors so
suddenly you have $130,000 worth of bills laying on your desk.

The bank that owns the teller machine = General Contractor.

$75.000 for a completed house = 1 transaction at the teller machine not owned by
your bank.

$130,000 worth of bills laying on your desk = the exampled $1.00 fee your bank
charges you for the SAME transaction.

How many people have been and will be rooked AT LEAST ONCE until they catch on to
the missing fee not listed on the receipt? With so many people in our country how
much revenue can be derived if even half of them get taken 1 time?
150 million (half the population) X $30.00 (overdraft fee in general) = $4 billion
500 million free dollars doesn't it?

According to
"In 2009, banks are expected to reap a record $38.5 billion from overdraft

If half the population, 150 million people had an overdraft this year that's $4
billion 500 million so imagine how many instances of overdraft there needs to be
by dividing $38.5 billion by $30.00.

38.5 billion divided by 30 = 1.28333333 � 10 to the 9th power, according to Google


Spread that out over 300 million people as if they all had bank accounts and
that's how many overdrafts per citizen in 2009? Do it again to just those citizens
who have bank accounts. Then again minus those who watch their balances like
hawks. Then minus again those who would never get anywhere near an over draft fee.

Who is left to pay 38.5 billion in overdraft profits? IT STAGGERS THE MIND.

Even with all the public information available about the 2 fees incurred by using
a teller machine not owned by your bank what are the odds that X people are still
not going to know that and fall into this trap of only one fee listed on the
receipt? That I think is what they are betting on.

It's two fees for one transaction with the second fee not listed on the original
receipt and they aren't splitting the first fee you paid.

How many people have received property tax bills for a vehicle they sold months or
years ago? The purchaser put the signed and notarized title in their lock box and
the car in the backyard or garaged it without ever officially claiming ownership
of the vehicle with the state by getting the title in their name so as far as the
state is concerned the tax bill went to the legal owners of record but if any
inquiry shows up at the front door of the purchaser they can show they are the
legal owner of the vehicle.

Both seller and purchaser are 50% to blame. Why?

The seller failed to notify the Department of Motor Vehicles in writing within 30
business days of when and who they sold the vehicle to and the purchaser failed to
within 30 days to acquire the title in their name though state by state law may
vary. A reasonable and expedient solution to the tax bill would be for the seller
and purchaser to split the tax bill in half then both report the purchase/sale to
the state.

THE BANK IS AT FAULT. 50% at fault for any over draft fee because the receipt that
99% of Americans depend on to be accurate records is false. So if this matter ever
caused you to get into an overdraft fee and if you can show that the receipt is
false the bank in my opinion owes you back half the overdraft fee. Or better yet,
I think the bank that owns the teller machine owes your bank account half of the
over draft fee because they are the ones who provided the receipt.

So as far as the bank that owns the teller machine and the person using the teller
machine compared to the seller and purchaser of the vehicle both the machine owner
and user are 50% to blame for the overdraft fee BECAUSE the machine user was
ignorant of the missing fee not listed on the receipt which is their own fault and
the bank is guilty for not listing the full fee for the single transaction on the

Remember that the primary transaction was between the customer of one bank using
the teller machine of another bank and the secondary transaction came into
existence invisibly behind the scenes when the two banks split 1 transaction to be
2 transactions when really the second transaction was bank to bank and not the
bank to their own customer.

The customer should owe no fee beyond the fee they already paid that is listed on
the receipt because there is or was no transaction between the machine user and
their bank. The second transaction is between bank to bank but the second fee
doesn't show up until you hear it through the grapevine, figure it out the hard
way, or it shows up on your bank statement at a later date.

You hearing it through the grapevine or figuring it out the hard way is exactly
what I think they are betting on to generate revenue from overdrafts. All that
could be wiped out if the receipt contained THE TRUE PRICE of the single
transaction INSTEAD OF JUST PART OF IT but mention that to a lawmaker and watch
them run for cover.

What would a lawmaker or politician be doing with a teller machine receipt in

order to know these things anyway? Aren't teller machines pedestrian and beneath
the elite?

Can any evidence be obtained that shows that competing banks purposely conspired
to accept each others cards but to conveniently not list the true amount of the
transaction between the two banks on the receipt or was there no conspiracy to
withhold that fee from being listed on the receipt but the machine owning banks do
it as a courtesy to one another knowing up front what the possible result will be?
The very existence of this situation shows that something just isn't right.

So if there is no overt conspiracy involved other than just a nod and a wink if
they keep each others fees off of their receipts so that by default will
inevitably create mutual overdraft revenue on both sides of the bank street so
doesn't that have the same effect as a kickback?

It sure seems that way to me. Could part of the fee for the 1 transaction that
does not appear on the receipt be considered a commercial bribe that is mutually
honored by both parties in perpetuity?

Let's say that a wholesaler offered a purchasing agent a 10% of a 100k sale if the
purchase was made through him. That 10% is a kickback. Let's say the same
purchasing agent who is desperate for a go getter guy that gets the job done
reputation the following month offered the wholesaler $10,000 to sell to him? That
is a kickback. Lets say that the wholesaler and the purchaser are once a month
exchanging $10,000 back and forth for these reasons for as long as they do
business. That is the same as competing banks swapping back and forth the missing
fee on the receipt of the bank that owns the teller machine right?

The first such receipt spit out by the teller machine of each bank long ago
started the perpetual kickback cycle didn't it? They make money on each others bad
receipts so inside the bank system that missing item on the receipt is actually
worth cold hard cash to the competing bank and mutually vice versa but outside the
bank that missing item on the receipt is of no financial value to anyone else
except for the customers losses in potential over draft fees.
The missing item on the receipt mutually benefits both banks (the odds of an over
draft occurring) but it sets up the customer for a potential overdraft when in
fact if that missing item was actually listed on the receipt the only cause of an
over draft would be bad math on part of the customer.

Right? Right.

If so then the alleged kickback has ingrained itself into the system as standard
operating procedure instead of two bankers and a briefcase of cash that you could
bust in some back room somewhere like you could between the wholesaler and the
purchasing agent.

Anyway, since the secondary transaction was bank to bank, basically the machine
user is paying the machine owner for the use of the teller machine then also
paying the fee for the machine owners bank computer to do a second transaction
with my bank because if i used that same card at the grocery store the transaction
is automatic between my bank and the stores bank without a fee and there is no fee
to use the card swiper at the cash register.

Why not play the odds in an attempt to dupe the customer by charging fees and
falsifying the receipt from the card swiping machine from the cash register but
they reserve this hidden item action on teller machine receipts?

It seems obvious that almost exponentially more people use the card swiping
machines at the cash register than use teller machines that charge fees so by
doing it to the customer at the cash register it exponentially increases the odds
of incurring public outrage doesn't it?

Keep a low profile while maximizing profits? Make lots of campaign donations and
employ lobbyists to later keep lawmakers and other influentials off your back?

Imagine the social and political turmoil if such a fee was to be charged on card
wiping mechanisms at grocery stores but half that fee does not appear on the cash
register receipt?

Using that card swiping machine at the cash register is no different than using
the teller machine except that your bank and the stores bank does not charge you a
fee to use the card swiper or to exchange money between their banks and even more
especially so if they allow you to get cash back which is the same as a teller

It is the same bank software that does these transactions but the receipts spit
out by teller machines certainly appear to be rigged. I suppose they don't rig the
card swiping cash register receipts because so many more people use the card
swiping machine at the store so it would not take long before this kind of funny
receipts business would be front page news until someone possibly got prosecuted
or censured for it, or, as is more popular, fined, that way in the event of
illegal activities they stay in business and out of jail and the fine collecting
office takes in a huge windfall while all of that is labeled justice. That just
means that the illicit profit is split between the perpetrator and the office
collecting the fine and in many cases the fine collecting office is the office of
the regulators who are supposed to be the watchdogs of unethical and illegal
business practices.

Oh the horror.

Their office is getting a cut so to speak so what real motivation do they actually
have to regulate or enforce laws or rules? The longer they wait, the bigger the
dollar value of the questionable practice becomes which means the fine also
increases so the longer they turn a blind eye the bigger the cut their office gets
later right? Just because the money does not go into the personal bank accounts of
the people who work at the fine collecting office doesn't make it any less of a
cut does it? Not to me.

It's similar to illegal drugs with the legitimate part of the court system making
so much money off of it indirectly in the form of fines compared to the price the
dope dealer gets for a gram of marijuana. It's massive amounts of revenue which in
my opinion is why they do not want to take it out of the hands of gangs by
legalizing and regulating marijuana which is proven to be a hundred times safer
than alcohol.

Guilty, 50% to blame goes to the machine owning bank for any overdraft fee on
another bank that can be traced to such a receipt. Guilty, 50% goes to the machine
user who is ignorant of the second fee on the same transaction that does not
appear on the receipt.

The customer paid full overdraft for their half of the error right? So who is
going to make the banks make good on their half of that? Which bank owes the
customer half of the over draft fee they paid?


Wonder why?

Since it is just a text reference entry that would appear on screen with the rest
of the text a simple software update could handle that since it would not be a
program code update.

Maybe they don't give that kind of notice/warning since in doing that they fear
they might be cutting into their own overdraft fee revenue because the potential
customer upon reading that could just roll up the car window and move on to a
store that offers cash back out of their bank account for free without any fees
charged by them or charged by their bank since they are going to be shopping there

Maybe because it would put thoughts in the customers head to start taking a hard
look at what appears to be the clandestine nature of these billing arrangements?

Maybe it would get the customer to wonder why they are charged twice by two banks
for 1 transaction when there was only 1 transaction with the customer with one
bank and the second transaction was bank to bank and did not directly involve the
customer so the fee for that second transaction should have been eaten by the
machine owning bank?

So an automated teller machine really isn't that much of a courtesy after all is

So that takes care of overdrafts generated by such type of phantom receipts.

Now, in light of your homework, that you took a hard look at your receipt and are
aware of the mysterious discrepancy in your figures lets talk about your actual
bank balance how I feel is is purposely misrepresented by the bank when you call
them and ask them what your balance is.
But before you move on, look at your banking history to see if your previous
overdraft(s) was due to the second fee not being listed which left you under the
immediate impression that you had more in the bank than you actually had.

PART 2: The Phantom Bank Balance.

In the former event you see the withholding of critical information on the receipt
that in my honest opinion is designed to lead many people into an overdraft
situation (is an unfair practice since the odds favor the house that this will
happen) so now you will see the withholding of critical information as far as your
bank balance goes but this time it is with a live person instead of an automated
teller machine.

As stated earlier, finally the bank employee on the phone today slipped up and
said something grossly incriminating but the number one form of evidence to
demonstrate what they actually said is illegal such as recording a conversation
without the other persons knowledge. Actually there are two methods that I believe
that are legal to record phone calls without notice or permission to or from the
other party and the second method is recording phone calls to banks or others who
record their calls by default but that's another issue entirely...

...although if you call some company that automatically records their phone calls,
the employee is clearly aware of that fact by their employer and has in that
knowledge given their consent to have their conversation recorded without further
notification right? Could be.

A paraphrase (paraphrase prevents them from searching their phone call database
for exact quotes of me or the "banker" on the phone) of my question was something
like, "What isn't my balance minus the pending transaction?"

The response was something like, "I'm sorry, we can't tell your balance like

That is what set me off. I mean off. The straw that broke the camels back.

That leads me to believe that they aren't speaking out of ignorance but are
ordered as company policy to purposely withhold this info from the customer.

Remember that you are on your own to hear it through the grapevine or figure it
out the hard way about the missing fee not listed on the teller machine receipt.

Now, if you call the bank and talk to a "banker", if they are like my bank, and
you have any "pending transactions" waiting to be applied to your account, such as
the teller machine transaction, the "banker" you are talking to will say nothing
of this pending transaction when they give you your bank balance.

A "banker" in this context to me is just the lowest paid person they can get their
hands on that met the security clearance requirements needed to access info on
peoples bank accounts on the bank computer when the customer calls.

This is ANOTHER one of those things you must hear through the grapevine or figure
out the hard way so if you want to know if there are any pending transactions on
your account, YOU MUST ASK, or else if they are like my bank they purposely
withhold this information when they plainly see it there on their computer screen
so you only get part of the information that you need to keep your records updated
on the receipt and none of it is volunteered in the phone call.

Each of these individual things is critical:

1. Only a partial listing of the fee on the receipt.

2. The no mention of pending transactions when you ask your balance.

3. No mention of any tentative balance.

4. The garden variety trust in the bank to have a more correct column of numbers
than the customer has.

5. The likelihood that when the call is over the "banker" will apply the pending
transaction to your account thus leaving you under the impression of having more
money in the bank than you actually do.

Add 1 through 5 together in succession and it seems a downright evil practice,

possibly even illegal.

Each CAN BE EXPLAINED AWAY INDIVIDUALLY as each of these things is on opposing

sides of the street at a 5 way intersection but if you put them in succession of
one another it all smacks of a trap to set the customer up for an overdraft
because look at the profitable results of this sequence of events when the bank
knows that the customer is going to be coming down all 5 streets to get to the end
of their journey.

Here is where I draw the line between a "bank balance" and a "tentative bank

If you have any pending transactions, if like my bank, they will not tell you your
balance and mention any pending transactions so that you can do the math. They
will not tell you your "tentative" balance which is conditional on the pending
transaction but will remain silent on any pending transactions and state your
current "balance" only.

The very existence of the pending transaction on the account makes the balance
TENTATIVE and not an actual BALANCE.

If you have written a check, you have done your column of numbers to know your
balance before you even handed over the check right? Most likely, yes because you
know the balance is tentative because the check is in essence is a pending

A bank balance is not a bank balance if there exists a pending transaction on the
account so that makes it a tentative balance. There are three columns of numbers
involved for 1 bank balance:

One belonging to the customer and TWO simultaneously belonging to the bank with
one of those belonging to the bank being completely abstract compared to what they
tell you on the phone. The abstract one, not being here or there, they know you
need it in real time but voluntarily withhold that info since it grants them the
ability to change the numbers after telling you your "balance" after they get off
the phone with you and whenever is convenient for them and without any
notification to the customer as long as the numbers are changed sometime before
your next bank statement goes out.

Here's 3 samples though the prices of stuff are just examples:

$1000.00 (in the bank)
- $400.00 (rent or house payment)
- $20.00 (water)
- $20.00 (electric)
- $20.00 (gas)
- $100.00 (groceries)

So your bank balance is $440.00.

So you go get $20.00 from a teller machine not owned by your bank. Let's say that
bank charges you $1.00 for that transaction and that you are AWARE IN THIS NEXT
COLUMN that your bank charges you $1.00 for the same transaction so you count both
$1.00's coming out of your column of numbers ending at a proper balance of $418.00
and looks like this:

$1000.00 (in the bank)

- $400.00 (rent or house payment)
- $20.00 (water)
- $20.00 (electric)
- $20.00 (gas)
- $100.00 (groceries)
- $22.00 (your $20.00 plus $1.00 for each bank)

Here is the banks column of numbers prior to the pending transaction:

$1000.00 (in the bank)

- $400.00 (rent or house payment)
- $20.00 (water)
- $20.00 (electric)
- $20.00 (gas)
- $100.00 (groceries)

"Hello, can I have my balance please?"

"Yes, your current balance is $440.00. Is there anything else"

"No, that's all thank you."

Now here is the "abstract" column of numbers the bank uses when you call and ask
for your balance AFTER you use the teller machine which results in a pending
transaction that can take place at any time of who knows when between the time it
was created and the time you get your next bank statement:

$1000.00 (in the bank)

- $400.00 (rent or house payment)
- $20.00 (water)
- $20.00 (electric)
- $20.00 (gas)
- $100.00 (groceries)
- $22.00 (pending transaction)

"Hello, can I have my balance please?"

"Yes, your current balance is $440.00. Is there anything else"

"No, that's all thank you."

The "banker" plainly see's that -$22.00 pending transaction right there on their

As I stated earlier, they even told me that they can't tell you your balance like

Then most likely when you hang up the phone they complete the pending transaction
later leaving you with the correct $418.00 while they had you to write down

Now here is the scenario of those who get messed up even if they did their
Ask them if there are any pending transactions and they say yes there is one of

(those who became savvy know that that is really $21.00, $1.00 for each bank to
withdraw the $20 in question)

Even though you know you properly deducted the $22.00 and your numbers are correct
so you redo your numbers to the tune of $21.00 and you end up with an extant
$1.00. After a while you decide that you may decide that you messed up on a $1.00
somewhere and decide to take the banks word for it.


You had it right the first time.

Never sacrifice that in exchange for implicitly trusting a bank.

So this incurs what I think is another trick which is why they tell you $21.00
instead of $22.00. Even if they do tell you about the $21.00, they don't mention
the extant $1.00 they are going to charge your account with because THEY HAVEN"T

So that's really 2 pending transactions waiting to happen subsequent of one


I think they they are betting on the odds that this scenario will get you to trust
them over your own numbers to set aside that $1.00 ($22.00) that gave you a
correct total of $418.00 in exchange for them only mentioning $21.00 so that you
will switch to $419.00 which is one more $1.00 than you actually got.

So that's how I think that so many people end up in an overdraft EVEN IF THEY DID
DO THEIR HOMEWORK is because the bank doesn't mention that $1.00 they are going to
charge because they haven't conducted the pending transaction yet so many people
will go with the extra $1.00 because they inherently trust the bank.


The bank by not mentioning their yet to be added $1.00 could be betting on the
odds that the customer will second guess their own knowledge and math of the
impending $2.00 or may not even know about the second transaction waiting in the
wings because it isn't on the receipt.

So as you can see, you can EASILY end up in an overdraft even if you did your
homework or are a person who hasn't heard it through the grapevine yet or figured
it out the hard way.

The one who did their homework then wasn't aware of the extant $1.00 that isn't on
the receipt then made the mistake of trusting the bank and the other guy learned
the hard way because of missing information.

Between the two banks its all circular. Why all the smoke and mirrors?

Both scenarios are a reverse image on both sides of the street right? Right, but
blame defaults to the customer as a rule on both sides of the street. There is a
word for that but I don't readily know what it is. Either way, right becomes left
and left becomes right and in each individual instance the bank chooses which is
best for them, the left or right image. The only person who won't get taken in
such a "scheme" is a person who can read or never yet learned to read both images
simultaneously and there is an endless supply of people who have not figured that
out yet so that is the gamble while the bank covers itself of wrong doing on both
the left and right sides.

That gives substance to the old adage, "They get you coming and going."

Either way, even if they do tell you about the impending transaction they only
report it to you in the form of the amount you withdrew and the other banks fee
which comes to the amount you took plus $1.00, they withhold the info that they
are themselves going to charge you another dollar when they push the button on
that pending transaction some time after the phone call ends.

So that in essence if two instances of withholding critical information from the

customer by first giving you your balance without mentioning any pending
transactions and if they do they don't mention their fee that they will add to

So, if they didn't get you the first time they got you the second because YOU
DIDN'T ask the their fee that will be placed on that pending transaction.

There is no moral or ethical justification for withholding those two bits of

information when it takes all of 10 seconds to speak it:

"OK, your tentative balance is $440.00 since there is yet to be applied a pending
transaction of $20.00 plus the $1.00 fee with another banks teller machine plus a
$1.00 fee we will add for that transaction."

By not saying that results in how much overdraft revenue per year from both people
who did and did not do their homework and those who haven't figured it out the
hard way yet?

It seems a 10 second sentence is too many words in a row for a "banker" even if
the info is right there on their computer screen.

I even asked them one time to go ahead and put the pending transaction through and
give me my balance and they refused just like they refused to quote my balance
minus the pending transaction. What was wrong, no calculator handy? Duh.

It's all about odds. Maybe the customer knows, maybe they don't. I just know they
aren't there to serve me.

Obviously, either way you slice it, it throws your figures off thus leading you to
believe that you have more money in the bank than you thought and this includes
AFTER DOING YOUR HOMEWORK or subsequently trusting the bank to have better numbers
than you.

If there was a secondary source available to find out about any pending
transactions then the bank could easily weasel out of the accusation of
withholding critical information from the bank customer but since the BANK IS THE
ONLY source of this information they are on the hook for that. I think they are
just playing the odds on whether you are savvy to the game or not or the odds on
bank customers having figured it out or not.

So, the fee is missing on the receipt and they make no mention of pending
transactions when you ask for your balance then there is another unspoken pending
transaction waiting on top of that then you may trust the banks total instead of
your own. Even if you go fuming over your records to find that extant $1.00 in
question you won't find it because its not on the receipt and the bank doesn't
voluntarily tell you so what are the odds that the customer would, after all of
that, take the banks word for a balance?

Very good odds in favor of the bank.

Then in all likelihood when you hang up the phone after they gave you your balance
then they conduct the pending transaction and wham, now you're overdrawn and
paying overdraft fees to the bank.

I think it's a conspiracy.

All this revolves around what I see as the manipulation of not only the numerical
record of a bank balance but around a real time conversation with a bank employee
and around the human mind and social behavior that is taken for granted. It leads
the customer to implicitly trust the bank as if the customer will dismiss their
figures in favor of the banks total but then the bank turns tail and shows that
the customer has committed a moral error in trusting the banking institution
because of the resulting overdraft fee since it seems to me that they tell you
your balance and then apply the pending transaction to your account when you hang
up the phone and then suddenly wham, you're overdrawn.

After forcing the issue, which by then I was running out of diplomatic steam, they
FINALLY got it correct with MY numbers which included the price of the money I got
from the teller machine, the $1.00 fee for the bank that owns the machine and my
banks $1.00 fee so now we both had the same correct total!!!!


Their process is not moral or ethical and could possibly even be illegal at some
point and at the minimum if it is not illegal it is possessed of no integrity

So they say a fee for the pending transaction but after they apply it they give me
a total and if I'm using their column of numbers (as I keep track of their side,
if I don't I'll get ripped) I say something like:

"You said the price of the transaction but now that you do the transaction its
more than you stated it would be."

"OH, we add our fee to the transaction."

See, the third instance in a row of purposely withholding critical information

from the customer.

First the receipt only including the $1.00 when it should be $2.00.

Secondly, not mentioning any pending transactions but conducting that after giving
you your balance and ending the phone call.

Thirdly, conducting the transaction in real time but you only find out about the
dollar after the fact. Had you taken their word and hung up the phone you still
would have been $1.00 off because of "You said the price of the transaction but
now that you do the transaction its more than you stated it would be." "OH, we add
our fee to the transaction."

In my opinion its all scripted. Which is worse, an outright lie or withholding

critical information? They both have the same effect right?
Given that I would like to know why periodically when I call the bank their fee
for that pending transaction of using another banks teller machine using keeps
changing so that invokes the question of whether they are outright liars or do
they keep changing the price to keep the odds still in their favor against those
who know about the game?

If you are counting on a certain fee and calculate that into your figures but they
changed it without notice that keeps the odds in their favor right? Yeah. So, even
if you did your homework twice you still can't win with these people because they
just simply change the rules.

I would assume that is the customers who have the least amount of resources that
get hit with the majority of overdraft fees because who else, of all people, would
really have to know about that extant $1.00 or be overdrawn? Think about it. I
would again assume it would be those on a fixed income or free checking and those
who live month to month or paycheck to paycheck who would need to know about that
extant $1.00 compared to the rich man or the middle class right?

That is why I believe that lawmakers know nothing of these things as the man in
the street does because the amounts of money they have keeps them out of touch
with banks and teller machine receipts since when would a rich politician need to
call the bank to inquire about their balance or when does the elite use a teller

They are out of touch with the system and the American people.

If I were a bank and knew by looking at your account that you use up your money or
most of all your money each month and if I could contrive some legal way or policy
to keep throwing you off by $1.00 in either direction the odds are I could beat
you 50% or more of the time until you finally caught on.

You are responsible to keep your figures straight yes but that is in many cases,
for who knows how many of the population, given the circumstances is near

Even today I called the bank to get my balance, knowing that the pending
transaction had already occurred, and ask them what was the amount of the last
pending transaction, as in the numbered examples, you know what they said? Yeah,
they said the amount of it was $21.00 SAYING NOTHING OF THE $1.00 when that whole
deal was really $22.00.

So knowing that I was being lied to I ask something like, "Why are you withholding
critical information about that former pending transaction?" They still insisted
that it as $21.00 (they can plainly see the $1.00 on their computer screen that
they charge(d) which is why I think they are purposely misleading customers into
an overdraft which in essence is stealing and bank fraud in my opinion). So I said
something like, "Why are you not mentioning that $1.00 that you charge for that

(about 5 looong seconds of silence) Yep, caught them red handed.

Obviously the gears in their head started going in opposing directions wondering
what to say when I confronted them POINT BLANK in withholding critical information
about a bank transaction. Then it was one of those "OH sorry" kind of things so
playing it off was really the best they could do because I had them dead to

So I pressed the matter about why they didn't say $22.00 instead of saying $21.00.
So in order to compensate (and in such giving me plain proof that they SEE that
dollar they charged right there on their screen) they read off to me an ITEMIZED
LIST such as the amount of my withdrawal on the other banks teller machine, that
banks fee, the fee my bank charges, all coming to $22.00.

Still for the third time I asked why did you not mention your fee when I asked the
total of the last pending transaction. They said they did and I say something
like, "Yeah but only after I forced the issue then you give me an itemized list
totaling $22.00 instead of the $21.00 that you quoted to me." Then gain it was the
OH sorry routine.

This tells me that they know full well what they are doing to the customer and
even on a good day it seems so malicious.

What I would like to see is some bank tellers to come out of the closet so to
speak but our dear former President refused to offer any protection to whistle
blowers to prevent them from being fired for exposing corruption. At that time
with the S.E.C lacking any real functionality, whistle blowers were the only
protection the American people had against financial corruption.

I think whistle blowers when found to be correct, should be moved to the head of
the company when the boss is shoved aside because of corruption or put in prison
and whistle blowers should hold the top three positions in the S.E.C. since they
are the only ones who for what seemed to be ages, demonstrated any care or concern
for and run the risk to expose financial corruption.

Wouldn't you want a corporate whistle blower as C.E.O. making money for you on
your investment in the company? I would. Wouldn't you want whistle blowers in
positions as top financial cops? I would but these jobs are appointed on the crony
gravy train, so, go figure.

Who else has demonstrated honesty and integrity in the financial industry aside
from whistle blowers?

So if an employee reports their employers corruption they can be legally fired for
that reason of whistle blowing just like a "snitch" will receive retaliation in
the event that the drug dealer finds out who the snitch is right? Right.

Since the gangs had that long standing policy before our dear former President
publicly made it policy it seems obvious that he was scraping the bottom of the
barrel for corporate policy about a citizens duty to report crime. You lose your
job for it. Doesn't that threat silence honest employees? Of course. Having no
protections punishes the honest. Just the opposite, it victimizes them for
reporting crime.

Well, so much for civic duty.

Firing an employee for reporting their employers corruption is in my opinion

unconstitutional because the citizen has an obligation to report crime regardless
of who the suspect is.

The whole system has gone to hell and all these hopelessly embedded politicians
who hate term limits as much as dogs hate cats are the ones who let it happen
right under their nose, nay, I think most likely knew what was going on all along,
are now standing up on the soapbox to be the savior of the day and pulling it out
of the fire.
If I ever saw a situation of people creating a platform for themselves that has to
be it.

Just imagine how much at risk of who knows what the employee would be in by going
to their employer, the same person who is most likely the king pin of the
corruption and say, "Over a period of time and little bits and pieces at a time,
your multi-billion dollar scam has jumped out of the computer screen at me so I'm
reporting to you these illegal activities." Would the employer try to bring them
into the fold or would the employer cease the multi-billion dollar scam?

Pick one of the 4:

1. Have them killed.

2. Cut them in on the deal (pay them to keep their mouth shut).

3. End the theft/scheme.

4. Just sit there and let them walk out to talk to the financial cops or the

Obviously one would want to avoid their employer on such matters at all costs.

PART 3: The Phantom Bank Receipt Revisited; A Fake Balance.

So not only does the machine owning bank not count your banks impending fee
(withholding of critical information from the customer) such as the example
numbers I cited:

$20.00 (withdrawal) + $1.00 (machine owning banks fee) + $1.00 (your banks fee) =

the receipt is a blatant lie about my bank balance. Why?

YEAH, YEAH!, they print my available balance after the $21.00 has been "deducted"
from my balance of the exampled $50.00

$20.00 (withdrawal)
+ $1.00 (machine owning banks fee)

$21.00 - $50.00 = $29.00 (NOTE: It's only correctly $28.00 for those "in the know"
and everyone else gets duped.)

$29.00 is not my balance because I go home after withdrawing the money with the
teller machine and call the bank and ask my balance and for the record it is what?

$50.00. Can you believe that? It's true. My bank tells me its $50.00 when the
teller machine receipt show my balance as if the $21.00 has been deducted.

Even days later I call and still that pending transaction is still pending. Many
days had passed actually with several of them being business days and they don't
conduct that pending transaction until I demand that they do it in order to get a
proper balance report from them (and still it is not correct as I showed earlier).
Why the long delay in conducting the pending transaction? The teller machine
showing my balance was fast enough wasn't it? Are they waiting for all this to put
a customers numbers off enough so that the amount of money in the bank is low
enough to go ahead and do the pending transaction (a direct play on the extant
$1.00) for the benefit of collecting an overdraft fee?

Is it all a trap?

Two banks officially reporting to me, one in writing (the receipt) and the other
verbally two different bank balances, one of $29.00 and one of $50.00 WHEN NEITHER
IS CORRECT because the proper amount of money available to me is $28.00.

What a crock. There outta be a law.


Remember earlier that I said that there is 1 transaction but I'm billed twice for
one transaction? The second transaction is bank to bank and not by me to my bank
but I still have to pay the $1.00.


Obviously the bank that owns the teller machine knows my current balance right?
Right. In order to print my balance the transaction is completed right? Right. If
the transaction is not completed the receipt is a fraudulent bank document right?

So 5 days later my bank still reports to me that my balance is $50 and I have to
force them on the telephone to apply the pending transaction and even then after
they didn't tell the truth 4 times in succession. One must wonder if that is by
design or by ignorance?

The machine owning bank lies about my bank balance on the receipt, twice, because
my banks fee isn't listed and the transaction did not actually take place at that
time for my balance to be $29.00.

Two lies from the machine owning bank.

Once from my bank about my balance.

3 more lies from my bank about the value of the pending transaction.

So that is 5 provable lies in a row, 2 from one bank, 3 from another and all about
the same transaction and the same bank balance.

1 lie could be a mistake, glitch or an oversight. At a desperate stretch possibly

even 2, but 5 in a row with all the financial banking wizards that there are
overseeing the situation? No way. Freaking impossible. I don't buy it.

I think this is designed this way.

The transaction was complete or else the machine owning bank could not print my
available balance on the receipt. Apparently the bank software is doing the math
and deductions but none of this is actually applied to my account. So if my bank
in turn does not honor that transaction in real time as it is reported on the
teller machine receipt from the other bank but yet they hold that transaction in
limbo for who knows how long, the only possible reason to do that is to charge me
a second fee for the same transaction.

Two different sources prove the same transaction is conducted twice.

The 1 transaction was finished because of the balance is printed on the receipt.

So since my balance is listed on the teller machine receipt but yet a call to my
bank relates that the pending transaction has not been completed yet for a matter
of days, that means both banks are counting the same money as part of their net
worth or holdings for that period of time when in reality it can be possessed by
ONLY ONE. My balance printed on the receipt says the machine owning bank was
compensated for fronting me the $20.00 + $1.00 profit and the call to my bank says
I/they still possess the $20.00 + $1.00 in my bank account.

What is the difference in that than if they cut a $20.00 bill in half, each put
half in their vault but both counted it as $2.00 on the record? Fraud? It seems
that way to me since half a bill is only good for face value in the event that the
other half was destroyed like in a fire or something. Then you turn the wrecked
half in and get a usable $20.00 bill.

If all the daily transactions could be added up that are held in limbo for a
matter of days while both banks are counting possession of the same money, how
many millions or billions of dollars of over inflating net worth could we be
looking at?

My balance is printed on the receipt so does that mean that the machine owning
bank is lying to me about my balance or is my bank lying to the machine owning
bank about my balance or are both banks forging their record to both claim the
same money as an asset while hoping on the odds of getting paid nice over draft
fees for their trouble?

Who knows. It's diabolical.

Either way, there are quite a few nasty discrepancies flying around on both sides
the customer that is the victim of all this garbage.

How many millions or billions of dollars per day are the banks "sharing" like this
when only one of them can actually possess the amount of the transaction and the
fee? The bank owning machine possesses the $20.00 + $1.00 or else they could not
print my bank balance on the receipt but yet my bank still has not processed any
pending transaction so they are both counting the same money in their overall
holdings right?

I really would like to take a serious look at their banking software. Do they use
a commercial product? Do they hire out their own software writers? Do they have a
commercial license for freeware?

By being double billed for 1 transaction or by having to pay the transaction fee
that occurs between bank to bank instead of the second transaction being between a
bank and me, I suppose that makes up for me not paying a fee to the bank in order
to swipe my bank card at the grocery store.

So the balance is fake because my bank did not in real time honor the transaction
printed on the receipt. It is a done deal or else the machine owning bank would
not know and print my balance right? Right.

Even many days later they have not conducted that transaction and when they did
they were forced by the customer to do it on the telephone. They should be paying
me, I'm doing their job.

I am doing their jobs so they should pay me a billing consultation fee every time

So between the balance printed on the receipt and the balance quoted by the bank I
wonder how many people get messed up?

I think quite a lot of them would be getting messed up if around 44% of bank
revenue is from over draft fees with 89.5 billion in such projected revenue for
2009 don't you think?

PART 4: The Smoking Gun.

So, in my opinion I think there is enough evidence at hand to take a hard look
into these chronic instances of what appear to be clandestine billing procedures
and the withholding of critical information from the customer.

Part of it would depend on whether they wipe out the record of their recorded
phone calls or keep them permanently. There I'm sure is a treasure trove of

So between these billing procedures and the withholding of information and if you
were a bank, what would you do if you wanted to know the odds of approximately X
people getting into an overdraft because of all of this and know the projected
profits from it?

Count the victims then you can make overdraft profit projections based on your
practices and policies.

Firstly, I would red flag all my customers accounts that have paid me overdraft
fees since the year 2000.

Secondly, I would red flag all transactions of my customers using their cards on
teller machines not owned by me and note the time stamp of each.

Thirdly, I would ask my buddy bank across the street for a record of the same,
including the time stamps of my bank customers using using their cards on their
teller machine.

Fourthly, as my customers accounts were accessed by my employees on the phone, I

would red flag all those phone calls that had the pending transactions of the
teller machines of other banks waiting to be conducted on them.

Then I would go over the flagged phone calls to see what was actually said to the

Then I would co-relate them all to know the odds of how well my practices are
paying off.

The statistical odds would be right there on the computer screen of how much
projected profit from over drafts that I could make off all this tangled mess.

If they did this research to know such statistics that would be on their computer

The recorded phone calls themselves are a wealth of evidence especially where the
price and total end price of the transaction is concerned if those conversations
are retained on a permanent basis.

PART 5: The Fake Line Of Credit.

I think that what appears to me as a fake credit line is a major conductor of

generating overdraft fees from customers.

I said that I've had two overdrafts in life: The first was based on a fake line of
credit so that made me over drawn and the second was a billing mistake by a
service provider charging me too much and at the wrong time.

I don't know about your bank and account but here is how the fake line of credit
got me into my first over draft:

Since I first signed up at that bank I have had a $*,000 credit line on my account
at whatever the current going rate of interest was as my bank card has a credit
card company logo on it. It can be used 3 ways: As a debit card which is the same
as cash or check and as a credit card at X interest if I have no money in the
bank. This $*,000 credit line on my account, at whatever the current going rate of
interest was, was available beyond whatever amount I actually had in the bank is
what the bank always told me.

The dollar values are the same but I'll use lower numbers to make it simpler.

At the time let's say I was in a tight spot and I used $1.00 of that $*,000 credit
line at X interest and let's say that interest rate was 10%.

As I was $1.00 beyond what I actually had in the bank that means I used $1.00 of
my credit line and in my column of numbers it showed that I owed the bank $1.10.

Since I don't spend money that I don't have I left my bank account at that and
waited as usual for my source of funds to be deposited in the bank, let's say that
was $50.00.

So on the day of my deposit my column of numbers at home says that I have a total
of $48.90 available to me because the bank took their $1.10 correct? Yeah, but no.

Irregardless of my numbers I always verify my money before I start using it so I

called the bank and asked my balance. They said my balance was $18.90.

Now how did that happen?

It happened because of the fake line of credit.

The $19.00 balance they report to me represents:

= $31.00 (the $1.00 plus a 30.00 over draft fee)

As you can see I as lied to about any line of credit at X interest as did not get
any credit line. What I did get in exchange for a credit line at X amount of
interest per dollar was a $30.00 overdraft fee for being $1.00 overdrawn.

So that is how I incurred my first over draft was being blatantly defrauded by the
bank many years ago since this line of credit is or was non existent. I think this
is an ongoing practice of policy because what happens if I should want to use any
of that "credit" at the X rate of interest? I get the old bait and switch so
suddenly I am overdrawn and paying overdraft fees which are galactic in comparison
to the interest rate I was always told by the bank.

How many other banking Americans (maybe millions or tens of millions) can cite
this same story (dollar values would vary) about a fake line of credit resulting
in overdraft fees?

So instead of me paying the bank the $1.00 and the .10 I paid back $31.00 which is
the $1.00 plus a $30.00 over draft fee.

Is that 100% interest on $1.00 X 30 = $30.00?

So the first lie was about the fake line of credit and the second lie encompassed
inside the first lie was the rate of interest.

100% interest would be if I borrowed from them $1.00 and paid back $2.00. What
really happened was that I paid that $1.00 back 31 times.

As this scene is transacted, in the customers mind they are using part of a line
of credit at 10% on a $1.00, the customer really paid 100% interest multiplied by
30 because they didn't receive what they were promised, bait and switch, they
ended up overdrawing their account and paying galactic sized interest in over
draft fees.

To this day I still have this same "line of credit" (though they have increased it
in dollar value by around $1,000) and if I used any part of that line of credit at
X interest rate, if the last time is of any example, all I will get is overdrawn
and over draft fees.

Right now I could call them and they would tell me what my line of credit is and
the interest rate.

So the way I see it, the bank owes me any amount that I paid past the example of
$1.10 and possibly millions or tens of millions of banking Americans a lot of
money if they can demonstrate that they by this method ended up overdrawn and
paying over draft fees.

There would be no problem or deception if they changed their policies and

practices and told the truth such as something like:

"There is no line of credit at X interest rate. We will let you be overdrawn to

the sum limit of $*,000 and charge you an over draft fee."

They wouldn't be to eager to say that since it would sound like they are charging
3,000% interest on a dollar wouldn't it?

I seriously believe that banks should be audited even as high up as the private
banks consisting of the Federal Reserve by force of legal warrant if necessary.

The massive amount of evidence contained in their recorded phone call database
showing what they say to their customers in relation to the actual state of their
bank account is nigh astronomical. That is if they keep those records and if they
talk to their customers the way they talk to me. If they aren't required to keep
them then I'm sure they wipe those hard drives with a fury.

I guess they could always say something like, "Ooops, sorry, that was a trainee on
the phone with you." in perpetuity.

So as far as public relations go, did they replace the toaster with a fake line of
credit at X interest rate?

PART 6: Forced Bank Loans.

They insist on forcing their money on people not out of generosity but out of
greed because when they force their money on people it goes back to the issue of
paying back that figurative $1.00 thirty one times.

Banks constantly whine about people not being responsible with their money but at
the same time they won't stop fronting money to customers who allegedly can in no
way demonstrate that they are good for it and providing the money outside of any
loan agreement.

They won't stop activity on your account even if there's no proof that you can
make good on more than you actually have in the bank but they will refuse you a
loan for that same amount of money.

Remember the $*,000 line of "credit" I have. They won't loan me that officially on
a loan application at X interest rate (my rate of income doesn't qualify me for a
loan ha ha ha) but they will (or did) allow me to be under the impression that I
have a $*,000 line of credit which is no credit line but if I use even a tiny
fraction of that I get hit with overdraft fee.

It is still a loan and the overdraft fee is the interest rate you pay.

By allowing transactions on a bank account when there is not enough money in the
account, they front the banks money to whoever is requesting the funds and that in
essence IS A LOAN to the customer but look at the exampled $31.00 paid back on the

So, they will not loan you that amount beyond what is in your account if in the
event you walked in the door and asked to fill out a loan application. But if
there is a request made on your account for more funds than you have available
they will front you the money.

Banks will not loan less than $1,000 but they will front the customer $1,000 on a
bank account that does not have sufficient funds to cover the request.

If the bank decides that your income is not sufficient enough to give you a loan
why do they turn tail and say that your income is good enough for them to front
you money?

That's pure double talking BS.

Both situations are a loan. If you qualify they will loan you $1,000 or more on a
loan application but if it is less than the $1,000 minimum on a walk in request,
they still loan you the money, they put the money up front for you, they provide
bank money to cover insufficient funds, IT IS A LOAN, but look at the interest
rate disguised as an overdraft fee ON THAT LOAN.

An overdraft fee in essence is nothing more than interest charged.

If they disguise the interest as an "overdraft" it's no mystery why one pays back
$31.00 on a $1.00 loan because doesn't that suddenly fall completely outside of
any laws?

By disguising these types of bank loans to customers as overdrafts that explains

how they can with impunity collect $30.00 on $1.00 which is how much interest on
the $1.00 loan? Plus they don't even ask you if you want them to front you some
money, they just do it even if one of your creditors made a mistake in billing,
you're screwed.

No matter which way you slice it, when the bank fronts money on your behalf and
you have to pay it back that is a bank loan, no more, no less. You just don't fill
out any application.

Why does my bank card have the logo of a credit card company on it when my bank
card is not a credit card with the company of that logo? The card is only good for
4 things: Same as a withdrawal, check, cash and being overdrawn. There is NO
credit involved.

I can even call that credit card company and tell them I would like to check on my
account and they don't even know me. I have no account with them. Never in my life
have I ever received an account statement from them either.

Does the logo help support the slight of mind effect of the fake line of credit at
a given rate of interest?

If the credit card company is invisibly in the background in on all these

transactions and fees what is their financial cut of the deal or is the logo on
the the card a paid advertisement?

For the logo to be there I assume money must be changing hands so, from whom to
whom and why and how much?

Could it be something that is never seen by the customer like the federal liquor
tax not being on the receipt at the liquor store because that tax is paid by the
distiller before shipping but yet is passed onto the customer none the less?

PART 7: Overdraft Fee Discrimination.

All the people that I ask about it say that they pay the same overdraft fee
regardless if they are overdrawn $1.00, $10.00, $50.00, et al.

Since I have already demonstrated that an overdraft is a forced bank loan made to
the customer without their knowledge or permission and that the overdraft fee is
equal to interest paid on that forced loan:

The exampled $30.00 fee is discriminatory because an overdraft of $1.00 renders

the same punishment as being $50.00 overdrawn.

No one pays their fair share because it is not on a sliding scale. Those who are
overdrawn the least are punished more.
In order for everyone to pay their fair share the overdraft fee should be
adjustable on a set formula.

I also believe that this type of discrimination actually encourages higher dollar
overdrafts because the bank customer may be thinking something like this:

"If I am going to have to pay $30.00 to be $5.00 overdrawn why don't I get my
money's worth and overdraw the whole $30.00?"

On that point it is about the fairness of fees for services provided.

It is possible that this unfair billing practice could be fair game for a class
action law suit against the bank by millions of people who paid overdraft fees
since they were treated unfairly.

Receiving $30.00 for $1.00 is only equitable to the bank, not the customer. $30.00
for $30.00 is equitable since both parties beak even. The bank doesn't lose even
if they are receiving $30.00 for fronting you $50.00 because many people say that
if your account does not have a regular deposit record such as income you will
receive no overdraft privileges, plus, since it takes 60 to 90 days to charge your
direct deposit function to somewhere else, they know they will get the money
because overdraft fees and the forced loan itself are summarily taken out of your
account without your knowledge or permission after they forced a loan on you
without your knowledge or permission.

They do not tell the customer that they fronted them a loan or that they summarily
took it out of their account or in what amounts until after the fact.

If the bank was the police department this would be called entrapment.

It is simple to understand that since the overdraft fee is exactly like interest
in nature, the more you are overdrawn the more honey of a deal you get on the
interest because the more money a customer are overdrawn the less fees they are
paying for the service because $1.00 = $30.00 just like $100.00 = $30.00 which
makes the whole thing to be an unfair practice.

Calling it anything else such as a privilege doesn't work but yet this going on is
a paid service and as a paid service the overdraft fee is discriminatory. They
just don't call it interest and this interest is unfair as far as paid services go
therefore an overdraft cannot be called a privilege or a courtesy.

It is a paid service with unfair pricing.

An overdraft fee is financial punishment for so called act of financial

irresponsibility on part of the customer when IT IS THE BANK that overdrew the
customer without first telling the customer they were doing this. What else would
it be except entrapment? I think those customers might have some right to get
their money back because my perception of this is predatory and that the bank
customer was knowingly victimized.

PART 8. The $1,000 Minimum Loan.

This applies to people who are "allowed" or "privileged" or "granted" or "favored"

or other some such illusion that they have $1,000.00 or more overdraft limit.

As a general rule from my experience banks won't loan less than $1,000.00 but do
you ever wonder why at the same time that you don't qualify with them for some
reason or another to borrow $1,000.00 but you can overdraft $1,000.00?

Plus for no reason they keep increasing your limit from time to time but if you
asked for a loan application to borrow that amount they would reject you.

In the long run they might not get their money back plus interest on an "official"
loan but in the short run they can get it back automatically plus the overdraft
fee because whatever money you got going into the bank will disappear until they
have it all by the time the 60 or 90 days pass before you can't route your money

It is far less risk to them to loan you $1,000.00 disguised as an overdraft for a
$30.00 fee than to loan you $1,000.00 on a loan application.

This is not a convenience to the customer as if the customer may be under the
impression that they have a $1,000.00 credit line because regardless of the
household bills they have to pay, their money disappears as fast as it is direct
deposited until the bank has their sum returned.

If the bank refuses to loan you $1,000.00 as a loan they should also be legally
forbidden to place a $1,000.00 overdraft allotment on that customers bank account.

The allotment should be $0. Plus that totally stops any illicit source from
emptying your bank account plus your taking your overdraft allotment.

Every banking customer should be given the legal RIGHT to tell the bank NO. NO
money goes out of the account in excess of what is actually in the account.

A LEGAL RIGHT AS IN CODIFIED LAW, not a request to the bank. It should be that way
by DEFAULT that way the customer must knowingly add overdraft capabilities to the
account by their CHOICE and not the banks default setting of making the account a
free for all money bag.

By law, make a law if necessary, all bank accounts should be reset to $0 overdraft

Then it is the customers decision and NOT the banks.

After parts 1 through 6 this is long overdue that this decision is put into the
hands of the bank customer.

If the banking customer makes an honest mistake in their balance and ends up
overdrawn then the forced loan and overdraft fee is nothing more than a predatory
act of taking advantage of the banking customers ignorance instead of a courtesy
to the customer and even more so when the money is fronted to them automatically
without the customers knowledge.

Figuratively they are like snakes and vampires. They either squeeze you and
swallow you whole or slowly drain you depending on the size of your overdraft.

PART 9. Points To Ponder.

What I would like to know is the overdraft allowance, if any, that their rich
customers have. Not their names or other personal data, just how many accounts
have massive overdrafts on a regular basis but the money comes back and everything
is peachy. It is perfectly conceivable that they could borrow thousands or tens of
thousands of dollars logged as an overdraft for the simple price of the overdraft

For that matter, could even be loaning it out again.

Couldn't the rich keep an account on the side just for that purpose of borrowing
boat loads of money, turning it over quickly and paying it back for $30.00 and no
one would ever know it since if the bank told anyone they would be violating that
customers privacy rights just the same as you would be violated if they told
anyone about your overdrafts?

Remember that the overdraft fee isn't on a sliding scale and different people have
different amounts that they can overdraft.

Imagine being wealthy and borrowing thousands or tens of thousands of dollars

listed as an overdraft for the low price of $30.00 while you see the man in the
street being overdrawn $1.00 for the same fee of $30.00.

If so then that looks like such a possible practice could be a galactic loophole
and conceivably could be a privilege dispensed to an inner circle or other favored
persons. Plus those thousands or tens of thousands of dollars as an overdraft
would not be on a repayment schedule like a loan would be either but would be
repaid according to whatever funds are deposited in that account.

I also can't help but wonder how many entities have gone bankrupt the past 8 years
that may have had an account like this that may have been used as a source of
cheap cash but for whatever reason couldn't pay it back and went bust leaving the
one giving them such a fabulous courtesy account holding the bag meanwhile someone
got paid in full, the money is gone and nothing left but the shell of an empty

If that happened it would be one wealthy source taken to the cleaners by another
trusted wealthy source while they can't get the money back because it wasn't an
official loan that had any collateral attached to it.

PART 10. End.

I don't know what kinds of banking experience you may have had but all this is
worth taking a look at on your bank account. If it is my experience it surely must
be others. I'm not a lawyer or banker and anything I have offered should not be
taken for granted since it may not apply to you or I may be in error about
something. No one's perfect.

Non the less you have learned something. If nothing else, you found out about that
extant $1.00 and that collectively to Americans is worth millions if not billions
of dollars they keep in their pockets.

It is far better to use your bank card to buy something at the store that you are
going to need anyway and at a store that offers cash back compared to using an
automated teller machine ever again since that store receipt doesn't have all that
bs attached to it.

That receipt can be trusted to add to your column of numbers to immediately know
your correct bank balance.