July 13, 2017 at 8:34 pm #52095
Not sure if you guys knew this, but Chase requires you to show your ID (which they record the information from) to deposit ANY cash into an account. Although they try to make it seem like it is a federal requirement, this is not true and confirmed when I made a formal complaint against the bank manager that was lying about the ID requirement. Upon doing research it appears that Chase, and other banks are following suit, wants to stockpile all cash deposit information as a way to try and catch people working for cash. They turn over the information to federal agencies (per their own admission and available online with little effort) to look for patterns….. In essence, they are working directly against their customers in attempts to find those people not digitalizing all their transactions.
So, according to what I got out of a supervisor after drilling down into their “answer”, I could actually be investigated by LE if I have a garage sale, sell a car, etc and deposit that cash into a Chase account.
What the heck?
http://ageofdecadence.comJuly 13, 2017 at 9:42 pm #52096
Most banks require ID for ANY kind of deposit or withdraw , unless your card has your picture on it . Just sayinJuly 14, 2017 at 1:31 am #52097
I don’t even fill out a deposit or withdrawal slip at the credit union I use for most of my banking or at the small bank I just use occasionally. I just hand them a check and say put it into my checking account or I just go up to the counter and say do a transfer from savings to checking or give me X cash from the savings. They just ask for my birth date and then I sign electronically for any transaction. I can’t recall the last time I deposited cash so that part I can’t comment on.July 14, 2017 at 2:33 am #52098
My little local bank, I don’t need ID, the clerks all know me by name,even when I don’t go in for weeks/months.
I don’t do big banks anymore.July 14, 2017 at 2:55 am #52100
BD seems to be the new id verifyer. Drug store, hospital, store for iso, ammo. Most of the time its dumb robot info collection. But… Sometimes you see they dont trust their records. And with the Hippa laws these people have big time conflicts sharing info. Oh, what the hell, Its all been hacked. The u-s has an infinite filing system and its been corrupted. Were sorry your BD has been changed to reflect your true age …99 , Deceased. Who needs an emp? Account closed.
July 17, 2017 at 8:22 pm #52102
- This reply was modified 3 years, 9 months ago by Brulen.
This is all part of the move to create a totally cashless system – where EVERY transaction, of any sort, is trackable.
Want to keep a stash of cash just for emergency when Big Banking’s system goes down and your credit card won’t work? (That briefly happened a number of years ago due to a major solar storm that played havoc with the communications satellites – rendering credit card transactions impossible for part of a day. We experienced it in a K-Mart.) In other words, you just want to protect against a real possibility and have an alternate means of paying for groceries? Sorry. One of these days, we’re going to be told that there is an “amnesty date” before which we can turn in our cash for an electronic deposit into our electronic bank accounts – no questions asked (as long as it’s still under the magic $10,000). Any possession of cash thereafter will be viewed as illegal activity, because it will no longer be legal tender for ANY debts, public or private, despite what it says on the bills.
Some countries have virtually done away with cash transactions already. It’s all done by electronic funds transfer or credit cards – which are then paid by an electronic transfer of the “money” in your bank account to the credit card company’s account. Simple!
Want to also keep some gold or silver coins around, just in case of whatever? Same thing – NOT legal for debts public and private after AmnestyDay. Got a few hundred pre-64 silver quarters sitting around in rolls? Illegal after AmnestyDay unless you happen to want to create an “old money” museum for people to gawk at them. Use ‘em in any transaction? Illegal.
Yep! Welcome to total control. All the cameras are already here, they are tracking our license plates with automatic license plate readers, but they just need to get rid of that pesky “off the books” cash money. This little 4-minute video is the icing on the cake:
Believe the resolution they claim in the above video at your own peril, by the way. DoD was already at “basketball size” resolution from space at least 48 years ago – I know that for fact. EVERYthing is being monitored. Ever watch the old TV series “Person of Interest?” If not, it’s worth watching at least for one episode even if you don’t otherwise enjoy it. It’s presented as science fiction. It’s not. Note “Missy” Cummings’ statement at the very end of the above video. Should be chilling. This money thing is all part of the same plan.July 17, 2017 at 9:52 pm #52103
You know then about Onstar and Sirius xm. Like having the cops riding around with you in the car. Im surprised people still run from hit and run accidents. A few days ago i bought a frigidaire ac with wifi. The only thing is i dont have a smart phone. Register my dog, car, gun, ac, coffee maker, tv. But what if 10 different people share the same spy tech. Do they arrest everybody. Probably if theyre from islamberg. Ive heard of netwerking, but this is crazy. Taking the antenna off my ride tomorrow. Jic.
July 18, 2017 at 3:13 am #52111
- This reply was modified 3 years, 9 months ago by Brulen.
[Well, yet another famous disappearing post from the SHTF Forum. Here goes another try, but it will probably say I’ve already posted it even though they’ve deleted it and there’s no reference to it on the right side column.]
OnStar is obvious. But I’d never really considered SiriusXM before, since we haven’t subscribed to that since shortly after trying it out when both of our vehicles were new. I guess my paranoia level hasn’t been set high enough – gotta do something about that ASAP!
You know then about Onstar and Sirius xm.
Heh heh. Yep – if anyone didn’t know about it, check this 2014 request for a tracking warrant using a vehicle’s SiriusXM radio:
… to assist agents of the FBI by providing all information, facilities and technical assistance needed to ascertain the physical location of a gray 2013 Toyota 4-Runner bearing VIN JTEBU5JR8D5148196 (the Target Vehicle), including but not limited to data indicating the specific latitude and longitude of (or other precise location information) concerning the Target Vehicle (the “Requested Information”), for a period of ten (10) days. … this Affidavit is being submitted for the limited pufpose of establishing probable cause… .
Did you catch that? They don’t already have probable cause – they wanted to TRACK the vehicle in order to establish probable cause.
What I need to find out now is whether they can track even if SiriusXM isn’t even an active subscription – i.e. simply because the person has an antenna installed and CONNECTED to his/her radio (like EVERY new vehicle in the nation does, anymore). Anybody know for sure? I never thought about this, since we long ago stopped paying for that service.
And if you actually use the service (we don’t), they also track which channels you use, how often you turn it off and on, make channel changes, etc., etc., etc. See their OWN privacy statement (page 6, especially). [“We may also log your activities through an enabled receiver.” etc.]
To paraphrase a well known poem, “How do you track me? Let me count the ways….”July 18, 2017 at 5:32 am #52112
Speaking of cash, this just in:
I’m just a bit cautious about the reporting on this, given the fact that this is Jeff Bezos’ very own WaPo doing the slanting of the “news.” But no matter how you cut it, it certainly doesn’t sound like what we’d hope for out of this administration and/or AG Sessions:
Jeff Sessions wants police to take more cash from American citizens
When the ACLU and the Heritage Foundation closely collaborate on a project, you’ve got to KNOW something’s seriously wrong:July 19, 2017 at 12:32 am #52114
I recall reading occasionally, that by virtue of the number laws passed on all sorts of subjects, that so many common actions and activities have been made illegal by some law or other, that the average American, usually unwittingly, “breaks” on average, about three laws a day, simply by going about his/her normal daily routine. Criminalizing ordinary behavior is the shortest route to making life itself a crime, and you, therefore, an enemy of the State.
Technically, as a Constitutional Republic, we’re not a Socialist Paradise … yet. But socialism is as socialism does, and this (becoming) socialist nation is (becoming) broke like every other, just refusing to acknowledge it … yet. Watch for the day when every possible encounter with a “Law Enforcement Officer,” even, “Good morning, Officer Fiendly,” automatically becomes a sidewalk strip search for any item of value — cash, coinage, jewelry, … half a PB’nJ — anything … as it already is in parts of the world where the brokenness can no longer be denied by anyone wishing to be regarded sane. Watch where (and how) you walk/drive. If your municipal government doesn’t yet formally recognize you as a prey animal, the fedgov already does, and your local PD will soon conclude it needs to, if it doesn’t already.
July 19, 2017 at 3:26 am #52116
- This reply was modified 3 years, 9 months ago by L Tecolote.
I wonder if the Somali immigrant cop with three complaints against him in his less-than-two year “career,” who shot the woman in MN over the weekend, searched her pajamas for cash (or other things) before backup got there…. Hmmmm. May explain why the body cams were off. At least we now know not to call the cops to report a possible crime and then be willing to explain what’s going on to the arriving officers – especially wearing our threatening pajamas! I wonder what law SHE broke! Using taxes to take our money is no longer the preferred government strategy. Now they just take it, no questions asked. And if we waste their time by calling to report a possible crime, then they just take our life and be done with it.
Accusations about my paranoia are clearly overblown. I now realize I actually need to increase my paranoia, for my own safety!July 19, 2017 at 3:35 am #52117
From what the online reports are saying, Noor, the Somali cop leaned across his partner (who was in the driver’s seat, and talking with the victim) and shot her in the abdomen. Watch for “revisions,” as the case progresses.
Cry, "Treason!"July 19, 2017 at 4:16 am #52118
Watch for “revisions,” as the case progresses.
Yes, it’s already starting. Now all of a sudden, the police were responding TO her 911 call, they were driving in the alley with their flashing lights off, saw a male on a bike in his 20s who apparently watched it all go down (they’re now asking him to come forward), and:
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) said Justine Damond, 40, whose maiden name is Justine Ruszczyk, approached the driver’s side window of the squad car immediately after the driver had been startled by the sound. The officer in the passenger seat, Mohamed Noor, fired his weapon, hitting Damond through the open driver’s side window, the BCA said. … The BCA said its information was based on an interview with the officer driving the car, Officer Matthew Harrity.
The DRIVER was startled, but the passenger fired his weapon. What happened to the “she was talking with the driver” portion of the story – the part “officials” did release initially? Now they’ve got her “approach[ing]” the driver’s side window “immediately after the driver had been startled by the sound.” I’m sorry, but why does this give the appearance of the even “rookier” officer beginning to cover for his only slightly more experienced partner – who’s already got three complaints in less than two years on the force?
The Somali cop has lawyered up and is “declining” to talk with investigators because by law he’s not required to.
Since there aren’t any currently available witnesses besides the dead woman and the two cops, where did the “official” story come from that the woman was talking to the driver on the driver’s side? Talking is an ongoing process that by definition had already begun and was in progress when she was shot – according to the original report by “officials.” NOW we hear there was a loud noise (some unexplained speculation is that it was fireworks), and the passenger officer shot through the door (open window) across his partner. But the passenger officer suddenly ain’t talkin’ to nobody! I’ll reserve judgement, but color me more than a bit skeptical at present.
Oh – and now 72 hours later, we’re still waiting for them to finish transcribing the 911 call that they won’t release – we’ll only get to read their alleged transcription of it. If we can read it whenever they get around to transcribing it, why can’t we just listen to it now? Have they been taking lessons from the same folks masterminding the Donald Jr. meeting details rollout? Spare me the grief….July 19, 2017 at 4:55 am #52119
Another cover up conspiracy theory.
Why not wait for the investigation to finish?
The muzzy cop screwed the pooch, no question.
But a cover up? Hardly.
And I’ll bet dollars to donuts, the words criminally negligent homicide or something similar is used officially very soon.July 19, 2017 at 6:12 am #52120
Whirlibird, you’re hopefully right. Unfortunately, the investigators and the department themselves have set themselves up for questions by first claiming the woman was “talking” (that’s an ongoing process) to the driver’s side officer, when the passenger side officer shot her. Now suddenly, there is a loud noise we didn’t hear about before, and the woman was “approaching” the car (i.e. not already there and engaged in a conversation) when the loud noise occurred, startling the driver, followed by the passenger firing two or three shots. Those are two different scenarios. But clearly she was already at the door when shot, based on the autopsy report. And the driver’s story now conflicts with what police initially reported – that a conversation was already going on between the woman and the driver. Why would that not suggest the possibility of circling the wagons and minimizing damage to the department at minimum, if not the offending officer? That’s just a logical – tentative – deduction.
Objectively, that gives the very appearance of the story changing to affect the outcome. It’s no your fault, it doesn’t indict the entire police force up there (or anywhere else), it just simply but clearly ADDS to the poor appearance. I already said I’ll reserve judgement, but you’ve already determined that a cover up simply isn’t in question and that a “conspiracy theory” is afloat. I take exception to that.
As for me, in the relatively recent past I’ve experienced not one, but TWO exceptionally uncomfortable encounters with police when I literally was asking for information to clarify a street sign (in one case conflicting speed limit signs, and in the other case a no-parking sign that conflicted with a nearby posted exception. In both cases I was engaging the police as a resource, not as adversaries, yet they immediately determined that I was hostile, treated me as such, and in one case my wife grabbed my arm and said, “Let’s just leave.” She wasn’t having to calm me down or change my attitude – she was literally afraid that particular cop was about to “go off.” So was I – and I’ll guarantee he was. I had all sorts of choice things I wanted to say, but was more intelligent than that. I also seriously considered reporting him, but I quite expect there would be retaliation that I’d never be able to “prove,” but he’d make sure I “knew” where it was coming from. His hostility was incredible, and entirely unexpected and out of line. Was I scared? You betcha! It was that kind of encounter – totally out of the blue (no pun intended). I was about to be taken down by that cop. The other case wasn’t quite as dramatic, but was heading that way, and I was able to defuse it sufficiently to just leave as soon as possible without further provoking the cop I’d never provoked in the first place (except in his own mind). In neither case did I ever get an answer to either question.
Prior to those, I’d had nothing but very positive experiences with police throughout my life, and had every reason to approach them with that expectation – in other words, not even close to hostile, threatening, accusing, or similar. Sorry, the world’s changed, including the police attitudes toward civilians, and my own wariness of current active cops is considerable – when it simply wasn’t that way just a year ago. And as I read the various stories on this case as they unfold layer by layer, I see clear discrepancies between initial statements from officials vs. newer versions of the story – also from officials. Given three days since the incident, with very little other information and no identified witnesses (and no other interviews scheduled according to police themselves), sumpin’ don’t smell right. Don’t take it personally – it absolutely isn’t.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.