99%er arrested for trying to close their account at Citibank!

[PLC1]

Another interesting development on this story.

Apparently, Citibank may have been following a "policy" that all major banks agreed upon (could be an "emergency plan" put in place specifically for this OWS occasion). Why do I think this might be the case?

I found this incident that happened in a MUCH smaller city with BANK of AMERICA as early as October 9th.

Two female customers went to their BofA branch in Santa Cruz, CA with ONE sign to close their account (no big crowd, no big noise, no painted faces).
They entered the bank with one other person who was filming them. They sat peacefully in the chair provided, and waited to see the manager. The manager arrived and ordered them to leave because, even after they stated they were there to close their account. The manager stated " you can't be both protesters and customers, and if you don't live right now, I'll call the police." After some (very mild) protests, and the offer to abandon the ONE sign they were carrying, (which was refused by the manager), they left the bank and called the police themselves. The policemen came back out of the bank and explained to the two women protesters that the bank had this new policy that they couldn't be served as customers if they were protesters. . .

Does that sound right to ANYONE? Is someone allowed to withdraw their money or close their account ONLY if one gives up (even temporarely) one's right to free speech?

I know that you, Doctor, do not like video. . .however, if you do not watch this one, do not come back with the argument that these customers were probably "disturbing the peace," because they were OBVIOUSLY not!

It is difficult to conclude anything from a video without some credible explanation as to what is happening in it and why.

I share Dr. Who's aversion to videos.

 

[Openmind]

It is difficult to conclude anything from a video without some credible explanation as to what is happening in it and why.

I share Dr. Who's aversion to videos.

Well, this video is so clear that NOTHING is left to subjectivity.

But obviously, if you didn't watch it and if you didn't listen to the very clear exchange between the manager and the customers, and between the customers and the police, you will not know.

I posted this specific video (among many in existence) because it is very clear and there isn't a lot of people or screaming, or signs to "muddle" the issue.

I also posted it because I KNOW Santa Cruz, and the spirit of Santa Cruz.

And. . .I have never heard either you or the Doctor complain about videos before.

So. . .if you do not believe what I state in my descriiption,and when I make a statement, it is usually ridicule for not providing a link, but in this case, the link IS a video, and a very clear one, however you don't want to see the actual exchange. . .what does that mean?

That you prefer not to see what you may not like?

Where does it say that a customer is not allowed to be a protester?
Where is there a law that state that a bank can video everything that happens inside, but you and I "can be arrested" for doing a video?

And. . .by the way, the girl who did the video is heard saying that she thinks she cannot enter the bank, because she thinks they may not want her to use a video camera inside. . .and she actually looks for a sign that indicates that restriction. . .and there is no sign stating that it is not allowed to video inside the bank. And only after that, she follows her friends in the bank where they are already sitting in the waiting area, peacefully waiting for the manager.

 

[steveox]

This is Police corruption. This is why i cheer when i hear an officer or a deputy get shot on the news.
ICE T was right

Why should somebody give a **** about this guy? He never gave a **** about anyone else.
http://www.odmp.org/officer/39-corporal-theodore-dennis-wolf-sr

 

[dogtowner]

Well, this video is so clear that NOTHING is left to subjectivity.

Yes it is. The customer a protestor and a videographer entered the bank and were informed that this was unacceptable and that they needed to leave.

But obviously, if you didn't watch it and if you didn't listen to the very clear exchange between the manager and the customers, and between the customers and the police, you will not know.

I posted this specific video (among many in existence) because it is very clear and there isn't a lot of people or screaming, or signs to "muddle" the issue.

There need be only the one + videographer, not a question of degree.

I also posted it because I KNOW Santa Cruz, and the spirit of Santa Cruz.

And what has that to do with it ?

And. . .I have never heard either you or the Doctor complain about videos before.

Yes you have, several times.

So. . .if you do not believe what I state in my descriiption,and when I make a statement, it is usually ridicule for not providing a link, but in this case, the link IS a video, and a very clear one, however you don't want to see the actual exchange. . .what does that mean?

Means you seem to not understand the bank's valid response.

That you prefer not to see what you may not like?

Or what matters not ?

Where does it say that a customer is not allowed to be a protester? Where is there a law that state that a bank can video everything that happens inside, but you and I "can be arrested" for doing a video?

You need to understand the nature of private property better. Free speech ends where the rights of others begins. Think why its not OK to yell "fire" in a theater. Bank video aids law enforcement and deters crime. If you video inside a bank it is possible surveillance to prepare to rob the bank.

And. . .by the way, the girl who did the video is heard saying that she thinks she cannot enter the bank, because she thinks they may not want her to use a video camera inside. . .and she actually looks for a sign that indicates that restriction. . .and there is no sign stating that it is not allowed to video inside the bank. And only after that, she follows her friends in the bank where they are already sitting in the waiting area, peacefully waiting for the manager.

They don't post that its not OK to poop on th4e floor of the lobby. The videographer knew it was wrong and chose to do the wrong thing anyway.

 

[Dr.Who]

Another interesting development on this story.

Apparently, Citibank may have been following a "policy" that all major banks agreed upon (could be an "emergency plan" put in place specifically for this OWS occasion). Why do I think this might be the case?

I found this incident that happened in a MUCH smaller city with BANK of AMERICA as early as October 9th.

Two female customers went to their BofA branch in Santa Cruz, CA with ONE sign to close their account (no big crowd, no big noise, no painted faces).
They entered the bank with one other person who was filming them. They sat peacefully in the chair provided, and waited to see the manager. The manager arrived and ordered them to leave because, even after they stated they were there to close their account. The manager stated " you can't be both protesters and customers, and if you don't live right now, I'll call the police." After some (very mild) protests, and the offer to abandon the ONE sign they were carrying, (which was refused by the manager), they left the bank and called the police themselves. The policemen came back out of the bank and explained to the two women protesters that the bank had this new policy that they couldn't be served as customers if they were protesters. . .

Does that sound right to ANYONE? Is someone allowed to withdraw their money or close their account ONLY if one gives up (even temporarely) one's right to free speech?

I know that you, Doctor, do not like video. . .however, if you do not watch this one, do not come back with the argument that these customers were probably "disturbing the peace," because they were OBVIOUSLY not!

You are right that in this case they were not disturbing the peace. They were still on private property and they have to abide by the rules of the person that owns the property. They did not and the manager had every right to ask them to leave until they might return at a later time both without signs and cameras. I don't blame the manager at all. neither would I blame planned parenthood if they refused to let Brietbart in with a camera - which is no doubt why he uses hidden cameras. The fact that they carried a sign and a visible camera is evidence that they really did intend for this to get blown out of proportion - and they got what they wanted.

Reasonable people will know that they acted like idiots and take that into account. REasonable people will know that the same scenario with much larger crowds is even more idiotic and will take that into account. The conclusion to be drawn is that most of the time they trespassed. We all know where this is heading though - just give it time.

 

[Dr.Who]

And. . .I have never heard either you or the Doctor complain about videos before.

There is a search feature at the top of your page. You will easily find that I have had an aversion to watching videos since I joined this site. Nothing personal about you it is just that people usually want someone to sit through ten minutes of a video to listen to a soundbite that upon scrutiny never says what they implied that it said. Text is much better.

In this case a video wouid be better since we are not being asked to listen for particular words and you were right to post a vid. Who knows I may watch it yet.

 

[Dr.Who]

Does that sound right to ANYONE? Is someone allowed to withdraw their money or close their account ONLY if one gives up (even temporarely) one's right to free speech?

One would think that most people would know that on private property one hs to follow the rules of the property owner. ( I bet some of these protesters don't believe in private property)

Now if this had been a public sidewalk they would obviously have free speech rights - unless they were protesting abortion. Then there would be a special application of a law reserved just for them. An abortion protester can ONLY walk on a public sidewalk if one gives up (even temporarely) one's right to free speech?

 

[dogtowner]

One would think that most people would know that on private property one hs to follow the rules of the property owner. ( I bet some of these protesters don't believe in private property)

Now if this had been a public sidewalk they would obviously have free speech rights - unless they were protesting abortion. Then there would be a special application of a law reserved just for them. An abortion protester can ONLY walk on a public sidewalk if one gives up (even temporarely) one's right to free speech?

there are laws against inciting bank runs. luckily these kids are sufficiently inept to have touched the edges of the law.

 

[Openmind]

You are right that in this case they were not disturbing the peace. They were still on private property and they have to abide by the rules of the person that owns the property. They did not and the manager had every right to ask them to leave until they might return at a later time both without signs and cameras. I don't blame the manager at all. neither would I blame planned parenthood if they refused to let Brietbart in with a camera - which is no doubt why he uses hidden cameras. The fact that they carried a sign and a visible camera is evidence that they really did intend for this to get blown out of proportion - and they got what they wanted.

Reasonable people will know that they acted like idiots and take that into account. REasonable people will know that the same scenario with much larger crowds is even more idiotic and will take that into account. The conclusion to be drawn is that most of the time they trespassed. We all know where this is heading though - just give it time.

Obviously I disagree. Since when did banks stop providing "service" to customers, and became doing "favors" to customers?
Since when did the banks become able to refuse to give people THEIR OWN money. . .because they didnt' like the "attitude?"

Well, I don't like the new "attitude" of the big banks.

And, I already said that, OBVIOUSLY these women wanted to make a statement, they even SAID it clearly in the video: THEY WANTED TO SHOW the bank that their new policies of pushing customers around and charging them ever increasing fees to access their OWN money was not acceptable, and that they were "voting with their feet."

You sound like an "Uncle Tom."

 

[dogtowner]

Obviously I disagree. Since when did banks stop providing "service" to customers, and became doing "favors" to customers?

the customer would have been accommodated, the protestor not.

Since when did the banks become able to refuse to give people THEIR OWN money. . .because they didnt' like the "attitude?"

if the customer had entered the bank, no problem.

Well, I don't like the new "attitude" of the big banks.

You will get the same treatment at a small bank too..

And, I already said that, OBVIOUSLY these women wanted to make a statement, they even SAID it clearly in the video: THEY WANTED TO SHOW the bank that their new policies of pushing customers around and charging them ever increasing fees to access their OWN money was not acceptable, and that they were "voting with their feet."

So send the lone customer to conduct her business and then make their declaration in a public place. And risk prosecution for inciting a bank run.

You sound like an "Uncle Tom."

I just wait for the other liberals to smack you around over that comment. That may become a tarbaby for you...

 

[PLC1]

Obviously I disagree. Since when did banks stop providing "service" to customers, and became doing "favors" to customers?
Since when did the banks become able to refuse to give people THEIR OWN money. . .because they didnt' like the "attitude?"

Well, I don't like the new "attitude" of the big banks.

And, I already said that, OBVIOUSLY these women wanted to make a statement, they even SAID it clearly in the video: THEY WANTED TO SHOW the bank that their new policies of pushing customers around and charging them ever increasing fees to access their OWN money was not acceptable, and that they were "voting with their feet."

You sound like an "Uncle Tom."

If I had had an account at Citi, and wanted to close it, I would have just gone to the teller window, withdrawn all the cash in the form of a cashier's check, and taken it to another bank.

No cameras and no drama necessary.

 

[Openmind]

If I had had an account at Citi, and wanted to close it, I would have just gone to the teller window, withdrawn all the cash in the form of a cashier's check, and taken it to another bank.

No cameras and no drama necessary.

All that say is that you are not an activist.

But what we need now are STATEMENTS that can't be ignored by the Banks.

To each its own. . .but when I closed my account at BofA, I at least made sure they knew WHY I closed my account, and gave them a chance to fix that issue.

They chose not too. . .but what is very funny is that they later were sued in a class action suit for the exact "excess" I had complained about (charging my account with FOUR overdraft fees, for a total of $140.00, while the TOTAL of the first three check was under $60.00, and my bank account was overdraught by $71.00 total!. . . .

It was at the end of March 20010, I kept the money destined to pay my Federal tax return in my SAVING account (in the same bank), and was planning on making the transfer on April 1st then send the check to the IRS. Instead, my husband sent the check early without notifying me. When I realized that he had already sent the check, I checked my bank account on line. . .at 11:11 at night. NONE of the debit were posted as yet. I made the transfer from my saving to my checking. The next day, the bank DEBITED my account with the large check first, then the 3 small ones, but only credited my account with the transfer made at 11:11 the night before the same day as the debits, but AFTER 4:00 pm. If they had debited the three small checks first, they would have been totally right in charging me for ONE overdraft fee. . .as there was PLENTY of money in my current account to cover the 3 small checks. But since they debited the large check first, they took this as an excuse to charge me FOUR overdrafts!)

We had been customers of BofA for 37 years!

 

[dogtowner]

All that say is that you are not an activist.

But what we need now are STATEMENTS that can't be ignored by the Banks.

To each its own. . .but when I closed my account at BofA, I at least made sure they knew WHY I closed my account, and gave them a chance to fix that issue.

They chose not too. . .but what is very funny is that they later were sued in a class action suit for the exact "excess" I had complained about (charging my account with FOUR overdraft fees, for a total of $140.00, while the TOTAL of the first three check was under $60.00, and my bank account was overdraught by $71.00 total!. . . .

It was at the end of March 20010, I kept the money destined to pay my Federal tax return in my SAVING account (in the same bank), and was planning on making the transfer on April 1st then send the check to the IRS. Instead, my husband sent the check early without notifying me. When I realized that he had already sent the check, I checked my bank account on line. . .at 11:11 at night. NONE of the debit were posted as yet. I made the transfer from my saving to my checking. The next day, the bank DEBITED my account with the large check first, then the 3 small ones, but only credited my account with the transfer made at 11:11 the night before the same day as the debits, but AFTER 4:00 pm. If they had debited the three small checks first, they would have been totally right in charging me for ONE overdraft fee. . .as there was PLENTY of money in my current account to cover the 3 small checks. But since they debited the large check first, they took this as an excuse to charge me FOUR overdrafts!)

We had been customers of BofA for 37 years!

A customer can complain, a protestor cannot. At least on private property.

Typical customer service from BofA and that has been their standard practice for a while as it maximizes fees.

Just curious to know if you had approached them asking for them to waive the fees BEFORE telling them you intended to close the account. Even in a lousy bank you can attract more flies with honey than vinegar.

 

[PLC1]

All that say is that you are not an activist.

But what we need now are STATEMENTS that can't be ignored by the Banks.

To each its own. . .but when I closed my account at BofA, I at least made sure they knew WHY I closed my account, and gave them a chance to fix that issue.

They chose not too. . .but what is very funny is that they later were sued in a class action suit for the exact "excess" I had complained about (charging my account with FOUR overdraft fees, for a total of $140.00, while the TOTAL of the first three check was under $60.00, and my bank account was overdraught by $71.00 total!. . . .

It was at the end of March 20010, I kept the money destined to pay my Federal tax return in my SAVING account (in the same bank), and was planning on making the transfer on April 1st then send the check to the IRS. Instead, my husband sent the check early without notifying me. When I realized that he had already sent the check, I checked my bank account on line. . .at 11:11 at night. NONE of the debit were posted as yet. I made the transfer from my saving to my checking. The next day, the bank DEBITED my account with the large check first, then the 3 small ones, but only credited my account with the transfer made at 11:11 the night before the same day as the debits, but AFTER 4:00 pm. If they had debited the three small checks first, they would have been totally right in charging me for ONE overdraft fee. . .as there was PLENTY of money in my current account to cover the 3 small checks. But since they debited the large check first, they took this as an excuse to charge me FOUR overdrafts!)

We had been customers of BofA for 37 years!

When enough long term customers leave, that will make a statement that they can't ignore.

 

[Openmind]

When enough long term customers leave, that will make a statement that they can't ignore.

I am not sure we have that long.

And besides, I am a supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement. And as such, I wish I could do something. Too bad I don't have a bank account in a large bank anymore. . .

Pretty happy with my credit union though!