Bank of America Freezes Gun Company's Customer Deposits..

because they said they this not believe this company should be selling guns over the Internet.

WHAT????

REALIST NEWS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeaHaQYU1xA

Our rights are being taken away little by little.

Well.... yes but that is not the point here.

Bank of America HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT to put a hold on that company's funds just because they don't feel guns should be sold over the Internet!

WHO THE HELL DO THEY THINK THEY ARE?

And is the NSA or the Patriot act involved.

Do I see NRA and Lawsuits coming up in the same sentence soon?

pretty disgusting!
Hope they apply some anti-Trust-Laws against those Idiots!
Wonder how much strong-arming went on behind the scenes!

The banks are now letting everyone know who's really in charge. They have been committing rampant fraud and getting away with it. They have been telling the government what to do and getting away with it. They have taken cotrol of the courts and got away with it. They are well above the "law" now and they know it, so they're rubbing the "serfs' " noses in it.

We aren't gonna get justice until we start meting it out ourselves. The way I see it, it's just about time for a global lynching of the bankers!

(No wonder they don't want the people having guns...They know who the people would probably shoot!)

I dont have any monies in Bank of America, but if I did, I would drink Dos Equis.

They (we) need to go the route that Iceland did. Put the banksters in jail.

Yup!...Whattya waiting for?...If I'm not mistaken, the Icelanders had to force their government to resign, so you should work that into the deal too...Then you can kill two birds with one stone.

I don't know how a person would go about doing that. If a bank ceases your assets illegally (just because they don't like you selling guns on the Internet) and your money that you placed with them for safe keeping, you should be able to charge them with theft pure and simple.

If a robber stopped you on the street and ceased your wallet, you could arrest him. So how would you find the single entity that made the decision within the bank, to cease your assets?

That is what he should do. Track down that person. There has to be one person that made that decision. If there are more than one person, then it is a conspiracy.

If the NSA is behind it and it is "classified" I would track down the person in the NSA who is responsible.

If no one would tell me who is responsible, I would make a huge public stink about it, hire a lawyer and sue the bank.

But in this corrupt system, what can a single person do other than that?

If you did find the person or persons responsible, and the Sheriff refused to arrest them, what else can you do?

Hire a hit man?

Not a good idea. That is resorting to their M.O.

You will be amazed at the power a single individual can have! {and for God's sake, don't hire a lawyer; (they aren't all as evil as I like to kid that they are, but they are restricted by their oath insofar as what they can do, so) if you become a lawyer's client, even as a plaintiff, you have tied your own hands and are more restricted in what you can do. You will have essentially said you are not at all competent in law and now leave everything up to him and his own (questionable) judgment.}

I've been dropping clues in some of my posts and recommending you study law, however there are thousands of law books and you no doubt feel you wouldn't have an inkling where to start. Here's where you should start...Law (natural law) is UNWRITTEN...it is based entirely on reason & human compassion. While it would probably help to read the works of the old Greek Philosophers & Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Paine, jefferson, John Rawls et al, it really shouldn't be necessary. LAW is CONTRACT. Natural law is based on the universally accepted "implied social contract." the place to start then is to see if you can derive everyone's rights & duties from the way everyone (who is reasonable) has tacitly agreed to behave. (e.g. You want the right to live and so does everyone else, so there is an unspoken agreement between everyone in a society not to kill anyone else unjustly (your "duty"). In exchange, and as valuable consideration for doing your duty, you have a right to expect you will not be killed unjustly...This is only one of a myriad of "implied" contracts which all civilized people have "accepted"...that taken in total, become your natural rights and duties.

Knowing that law is contract, you should now be able to substitute one word for another in the maxims of law, so I would suggest reading law maxims twice, making the word substitution on the second reading. (It's easy to look up maxims of law...just google them and you'll find thousands...some of them are fallacious (feudally based, but you don't have to worry about that right now..they are adages, not axioms; truisms, not necessarily true in all cases)

Before you read the maxims, I would suggest you read a quick nutshell on things like natural law, natural rights, natural justice, a bit on the types of contracts (not many), what constitutes a lawful contract (e.g.: meeting of the minds, consideration, agreement, acceptance), what constitutes "agreement", definitions of "contract" "agreement", "tacit agreement", "tacit acceptance", etc. on sites like wikipedia and a few online (preferably legal) dictionaries to get the definitions and a sense of things.

The next thing to realize is that all real positive law must be based on natural law to be genuinely lawful. At this point you might be thinking that even proponents of natural law had things like unwilling slaves, which have since been outlawed, but you have to realize that human reason is not perfect, and much of it will be erroneous and based on fallacious assumptions. In Jefferson's case and in his day, slaves were not considered "men", but "persons" and property...and the status quo (accepted social norm) caused most not to give it a second thought. In short, slavery was always wrong, but long tradition and the social norm didn't see it that way.

Even little kids have an instinctive knowledge of natural law. What do you hear on playgrounds practically all the time?..."Hey!...No fair!!" (an inherent sense of what is and isn't fair...justice) A socil conscience, and rudiments of the concepts of "right & wrong" starts in infancy. By the time someone is a normal reasoning adult, they know exactly what is right & wrong, fair & unfair in the context of the society in which they live (human society), so it is fair to say that if they're reasonable, they know the law.

I Guess that's enough for now and ends "lesson one" LOL



You won't, but you don't have to as long as you can prove it was someone who worked for the bank in the appropriate capacity. The bank is responsible (liable) for the actions of its agents (read a bit on the law of agency), so if you can show an unlawful act (like fraudulent misrepresentation) was committed by a bank agent, you may consider the act as committed by the bank itself, which after all is just a "person" in law which you can sue...As far as the individual at fault, don't worry...He is liable to the bank, which will probably take a pound or two of his flesh for costing them money).

It does make things much easier all around to always get an identifier from the person you're talking to. Written (signed) communication is better, but verbal is OK, as long as you record the conversation for future evidence and get the guy's name and/or rank & employee number (You don't wanna talk about your account to the bank janitor do you?)...Warning, true in all cases, but especially in real-time conversations...Don't get sucked inadvertently into a contract!



That isn't what I would do, however, if your case is good enough, you can even win it with a lawyer...and making it as public as possible can only contribute to the public good, as it can serve to show people that justice CAN be achieved, even in the face of apparent tyranny...That gives everyone hope. Yo might want to read about this case:

http://dailybail.com/home/man-forecloses-on-bank-and-wins.html



Based on the presumption that you had obtained a lawful warrant for the arrest from a judge of a court of competent jurisdiction, I'd recommend you sue the sheriff civilly for dereliction of duty and hire an outfit like Blackwater to take the warrant and make the arrest.

Is that the same BoA that gives home loans here in the US to Illegals?
The same one that will open checking and debit accounts without the person having to provide an SSN?

If the banking system there is similar to Canada's (and I'm sure it is), a SSN would not be required for any non-interest-bearing account. You could be Mao-Tse-Tung with no papers and open an account like that at any bank in the world I'm sure.

For the home loans, you could have been Rin Tin Tin and gotten one of those loans with your paw print.

My bank requires a SS # to have an account.

So people who have never applied for an SSN are not allowed to have bank accounts in the US? That alone is a violation of their human rights on the part of the bank and therefore unlawful under international law. If an SSN is required, the potential depositor should then order the federal government to give him one (He should NOT have to apply for it) or show lawful cause why they should not.

Lillott, it seems that you and I may disagree in a lot of areas, but I emphatically agree with you here. This is definitely happening, and its definitely a problem.

Here you are assigned a SSN when you are born. The only way to avoid it is to be born at home and not tell anyone.

For me, I had to get one in order to get a job. I don't know what you mean by "apply" for one. You just prove who you are, and they give you a number. All employers insist on having your SSN. It is not really a bank account that you can access.

In reality, it is a way to identify you.