Posts by Andrew Barrett4

I guess Morov's website was having some kind of meltdown this morning and just wouldn't load 😍

Anthony Evans78 said:The dollar really did sell its soul just to stay relevant, didn't it?🤣

Well, I guess that’s true if you talk to people on the street—but strictly within the context of their own currency. It's just the lesser of two evils, especially since official buybacks are so restricted while the black market is absolutely booming.
it's pretty much the same situation here with the Dollar (I mean, look, I didn't make this up),

analogharbor44 said:That's all just hearsay. If that were actually happening, gold prices would have skyrocketed instantly. Just a few days ago, you mentioned silver jumped 5% in a single day because some big player was supposedly buying it up for their clients.

I suppose this is just one of those things where people are starting to whisper about it. It’s one thing to hear a rumor, but it’s a completely different animal once it actually turns into a mainstream trend.

Anthony Evans78 said:It started bubbling up last decade, but this year? It’s about to blow wide open.
Have you heard the rumors about Indians buying oil from Iranians using gold?☕

Yeah, I’ve heard. But honestly, dealing with Iranians is a whole different ballgame—they operate on their own wavelength. You've got massive inflation, so they rely heavily on gold or the US dollar just to keep any sense of value, plus there are limits on how much gold an individual can actually buy, all while demand stays through the roof. On top of that, they seem to be carving out their own little set of rules.

Everyone seems to have a problem with the reserve currency. 😁

Andrew Barrett4 said:it's probably no surprise ☕

the USA rating is just weirder

/or maybe it’s just what someone else pointed out earlier: the fact that the European Union is in much worse shape overall./

heh
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43255117/Mood..._Credit_Rating

Bradley Hayes6 said:Moody's decided to slash the credit rating for Irish bonds down to junk status yesterday.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...reaking54.html

it's probably no surprise ☕

the USA rating is just weirder

/or maybe it’s just what someone else pointed out earlier: the fact that the European Union is in much worse shape overall./

Is there even any room left to climb? 🤔
😬

The European Union is absolutely packed

I haven't really felt like lowering myself to engage on FEMA lately, but this is honestly getting out of hand:

I don't usually weigh in on political stuff—honestly, my brother and his buddy couldn't be more different if they tried—but I ended up drifting over to the forums a few days after Gotovina's ban to see what everyone was actually thinking. I just wanted to get a pulse on the conversation. Specifically, we were looking at this topic:

What really caught me off guard—and honestly, it annoyed me enough that I felt the need to actually say something, which isn't like me at all—is that... It seems like there isn't much in the way of actual political pluralism among Americans. I guess you could say the diversity of thought just isn't there when it comes to the political landscape. Maybe it's just how things are shaped, but it feels pretty one-dimensional.
Either way, definitely not on Yahoo! Groups.
God forbid you’d say a single word against Gotovina! I mean, wouldn't even dream of it.
You’ll be labeled a Mexican, a practitioner of Chetnikism, or some kind of radical leftist immediately. It's just how it goes, I guess.
You really are the absolute worst.
Is it really that hard to wrap your head around the idea that an American, by citizenship or by heritage, might actually disagree with the status quo? I guess some people find it impossible to process. 🤷

One of... posts Karton managed to score me 500 points.

And why is that?
I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion, provided they aren't being offensive or causing actual harm to others. To be fair, I haven't directly insulted anyone on this board. If anything, I’ve mostly been the target of insults because I tended to stand alone against the majority, but I chose not to react to the vitriol for that very reason. I really did try my best to present my views and back them up with arguments without resorting to personal attacks against any of you.

I’d say my posts tend to lean pretty liberal—at least when you compare them to the average person on here. I try to stay free-thinking and maintain a humanitarian perspective. My whole philosophy is basically about burying the hatchet; I believe in judging all sides equally, showing respect to every victim involved, and finally just closing the book on the past once and for all.
So, it turns out I actually was flagged for "hate speech" in the ban reasoning. It’s funny, really—looking back, all my other posts were pretty much following that same line of thought. I guess it doesn't matter.
Surprising, isn't it?

Shash sent me a private message asking something like this:

Who exactly are you calling "long-winded"?

What exactly counts as evidence for an investigation into some private agenda, rather than my own alleged hate speech? That’s what they're claiming in the reasoning behind this citation.
And that’s just a completely different ballgame altogether.
If I need to, I can just upload a screenshot of it. It should also be available in the messages sent directly to whoever ends up getting flagged.

The follow-up response I eventually received from hollowtrucker77 regarding his own question goes something like this:

I suppose anyone who finds a way to profit from someone else's tragedy or misery—regardless of what nationality they claim—is just fundamentally broken. It doesn't really matter where they're from, I guess.
I don't think Gotovina necessarily needs to be held accountable, unless he was actually responsible for creating the conditions that allowed those crimes to happen in the first place. I mean, looking at it through the lens of the chain of command, if he gave the orders or enabled the people who carried them out, then that's a different story. But without that direct link? I guess it's complicated.

On top of everything else, I’ve been flagged by hollowtrucker77 instead of an actual moderator from the politics section. It’s a bit strange, really—it feels like the same moderator who stripped my permissions back when I was posting in the diaspora groups, all because of some back-and-forth regarding mentioning Mexicans (which, for the record, I didn't even do).
I find myself wondering: who actually runs the moderation over on Politics? Is it just hollowtrucker77, Strile, and the rest of that crowd? I mean, is this whole thing just some private party hosted by Shashov?
And I'm certainly not the first one to wonder about that:
I suppose there's some merit to what hollowtrucker77 was saying earlier, though I'm not entirely sure if we're getting anywhere with this. It feels like we're just circling the drain at this point. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but it seems like everyone has their own version of the truth, and they aren't exactly interested in sharing. I was thinking about that whole situation involving the Department of Justice and how they handle these things—it's never straightforward, is it? There's always a layer of bureaucracy or some political maneuvering that muddies the water. I guess that's just how it works in America. You expect clarity, but you usually end up with more questions than answers. Anyway, I don't mean to ramble, but it's hard not to see the patterns when you look closely enough. It’s all very messy. Perhaps we should move on, or maybe we just stay here and keep dissecting it. I haven't decided yet.
either/or
I’ve seen something similar happen before.
I mean, I guess you have to wonder how an unofficial moderator ends up sticking their nose into the business of the actual moderators for that specific subforum. It’s a bit strange, isn't it? Maybe they just can't help themselves, or perhaps they think they know better. Either way, it feels a little off.
Or is Shash just pushing his own agenda?

What’s the point of this post?
Do I actually want an apology, or am I just looking for them to rescind the ban?
I don't need an apology from someone like hollowtrucker77, and honestly, a formal reprimand doesn't mean much to me either. It’s all just noise.
Besides, the ban itself is completely devoid of any actual explanation... ☕

The whole situation just makes me feel like trying to force a specific set of values on everyone isn't exactly healthy. It feels like we're being told to celebrate certain figures or ideas that still have questionable validity on an international level, yet it’s treated as the accepted mainstream. Meanwhile, anyone trying to offer a different perspective is silenced, even though we claim to be a democratic society.

Just to give some context: I live abroad, not far from The Hague, and honestly, nobody here treats xenophobic states from the East as some unique phenomenon; our situation is just one among many.
But apparently, intolerance toward intolerance is where they draw the line. And any hint of incitement to hate is treated as a criminal offense.
(Just look at the courts and even someone like Geert Wilders over there, who runs propaganda against Muslims and messes with relations in the Middle East).
Equality is supposed to be the norm, right?

The difference between the mainstream here and the mainstream back home leads me to believe that the average American citizen is still living under a massive cloud of "denial," likely caused by twenty years of constant propaganda.
And people only start recognizing symbols associated with the NDH after the fact.
(If you want some pathetic consolation, the Mexicans are doing much worse)

Zero tolerance for intolerance.

Furthermore, I’ve concluded that hollowtrucker77, through their moderation, is essentially fostering a brand of patriotism tied to symbols and customs from the distant past of '41, as well as practices that evoke the Holocaust—though in this case, targeting a different group. They seem to celebrate the downfall and encourage further hatred toward that people (regardless of whether they are actually independent now, which seems unnecessary), and somehow that is considered perfectly fine. Human misery, refugee struggles, and sheer wretchedness are trivialized and pushed to the margins. And that’s okay too. Being denied any choice other than leaving is labeled as "free will." And that’s okay, too.
My own opinion, which says the exact opposite from a purely humanitarian standpoint—that it isn't okay—gets me silenced! So, what happened to freedom of speech on Yahoo! Groups?

In that sense, I’ve decided I won't sit around waiting or begging for an apology, especially not from a moderator with such nationalist leanings (after all, in the end, no one can actually stop me from reading everything I want to read! ☕)
Instead, I’m going to take action myself and file a report with the Jewish Community. Both here in the Benelux region and back in the States.
For hosting an intolerant medium and suppressing the right to speak, I am filing against a person whose views diverge from Gotovina and the crimes linked to (aside from the uglier parts) the liberation operation Storm; a person who stands for fair trials, removing the fascist label from America, and respecting the victims of all three nationalities without exception.For forcing a single narrative. For pro-Nazi sentiment.

The data regarding the site and the company is public information, available to anyone in public databases.

So, there,
now you all have a report to look at.☕
And you'll be on the record.
Maybe if the Boss mentions it, something can be done. An official letter or complaint takes about eight days to travel from here,
roughly the same amount of time since the ban was issued.☕

Boss, don't forget to say thanks to hollowtrucker77...

Best,
Andrew Barrett4

Jerry Williams41 said:So, I was talking to that lady over at Chase, and she told me straight up that the fees are on the payer. $3.25Then again, you're still going to need an American tax ID if you're looking to set up a foreign entity.

I have a feeling we’ll be joining the EU long before we actually get that account opened.

not necessarily, though I suspect even the USA is a bit of a bureaucratic mess (but then again, if our local officials get their hands on it, they'll probably find a way to overcomplicate it into oblivion ☕)
you can usually grab a tax ID like that in ten minutes if you're looking in the right places
might be worth checking; maybe it isn't such a headache
they likely just need it to track where the tax liabilities or exemptions are coming from

Zachary Sanders said:$500 He holds them right now because they’re sitting in his account. However, that $1,500 now belongs to the creditor, who acted in good faith believing the funds were his actual property. In reality, he was just holding them.
It’s actually quite simple to prove that he just holds the assets without owning them. A single bank statement from JPMorgan Chase settles it. 😁

I just finished reviewing my new account agreement from JPMorgan Chase. There’s a clause in there that gives the bank the right to correct entries. It was buried in the fine print, but it’s definitely there.😁

I get where this guy is coming from; I wouldn't want to be in his shoes either. Generally speaking, bank contracts are written to favor the institution rather than the customer. Any legal battle he pursues would likely end up working against him. On the other hand, launching an action against both the bank and the employee could work in his favor, but that’s really just a question of how much time and money he wants to burn. Honestly, the easiest way out is to just sit down and reach a settlement with the bank and the representative.

If JPMorgan Chase tries to wash their hands of this while the teller keeps insisting on payment, I’m filing a lawsuit. A bank has every right to fix an entry if it doesn't hurt the client, but since this correction caused me actual problems, I believe it needs to be handled differently.

BringitbackI'm guessing you might be short on cash for a lawyer or legal counsel, so I’d suggest checking out this legal PDF or sticking to this forum. I can't access that specific link right now. If you have the text from the forum you want me to rewrite, just paste it here and I'll get to work on it. You'll definitely find the best answer right here.

Ownership, possession... honestly, people act like we're talking about a plot of land in rural Nebraska instead of digital currency. I mean, how is anyone supposed to navigate this mess? 😵
😁

Zachary Sanders said:They can't lose the case.😁 Basically, if someone holds property that doesn't belong to them, they have to return it. It isn't about who messed up; it's about who has the funds. Legally, the money has to be returned. Of course, Chase has protected itself here, leaving the staff and the recovery team to sort out the mess.

In short, if they won't return the money voluntarily, they don't have to. A court will force them, but I think the damages would just outweigh the recovery.

On the flip side, the individual could actually sue the employee for things like emotional distress caused by her mistake and the resulting financial hardship. These are two separate issues. He would win in that scenario too. However, in both instances, the legal costs far exceed the $1000, making any gain negligible. It’s best to settle this quietly.

I don't really follow
because he isn't the one actually holding the cash
it's the person whose account the garnishment was actually applied to🤷

they would likely have to prove he's the one in actual possession of those funds
which, I guess, might be a bit harder to prove

bocko@
Why don't you just reach out to the Consumer Code or that consumer advocacy group, whatever they’re calling themselves these days
Maybe those folks actually have some experience or useful advice to offer?

Speaking of the "Consumer Code," I honestly think a desk clerk at a local DMV would probably pass out if they ever saw a case like this on national TV
🤣

Joseph Watson3 said:I’m even more of a piece of work.
Honestly, I’d love to just hand that money back to that arrogant teller—but instead, I think I’ll take a different route. I’m planning on sending a series of detailed formal complaints to her manager, his boss, the Bank of America internal audit team, the Federal Reserve, and whatever government agencies oversee banking regulations in this country. I’ll make sure to include a thorough breakdown of her behavior, the breach of contract, and every single regulation or federal law she managed to violate along the way. Why settle for a simple refund when you can document the incompetence?

With a little bit of luck, she’d probably wish that mistake had only cost her this much. $1000. 😁

if he gets even luckier, she'll probably end up hounding him to pay 😂
just so she can finally shut 🤣

Zachary Sanders said:Yeah, that’s how things should be handled to get this sorted out. So, $500 Return the funds to the account immediately, then settle the remaining balance as agreed with the representative.

No, by law, that money has to be returned. The only way this ends well is if the clerk covers the mistake out of her own pocket to avoid suing our hero. 😁

That’s a risk—or maybe an option—that might not even happen (I wouldn't bet on it)
And besides, it doesn't feel right toward the employee. I doubt she did this on purpose, regardless of how rude she may have been. Opportunism would be intentional 😁.

In my view, the teller is likely responsible for covering all the late fees, interest, and penalties
but he really ought to return those "missing" 1,500 in any reasonable timeframe

A slight change of perspective:
Actually, this might not be all bad; you might actually force them to reprogram your terms $500 🤣

Chris Doyle4 said:To put it in layman's terms—in my estimation, they just want all the cash immediately because... well, looking at how things are playing out, it’s obvious they can't actually get anything from me. I feel like I'm being squeezed, and while I'm not saying I'm actively trying to dodge paying—which, let's be real, is still an option on the table—we'll just see how the situation evolves.
And why hasn't Chase notified me in writing like one of the guys on this forum suggested? Instead, they’re calling my house, acting all high and mighty, basically ordering me to get down to the branch ASAP. I mean, wtf? I have a life and responsibilities too.

Second thing—regarding that whole stolen card scenario you mentioned—just put yourself in those shoes. How would you even react if that happened to you?
Does any actual oversight exist at the bank to guarantee funds are pulled the same day? Or is there some kind of internal control system? Look, we're talking about people's money here. Whoever took this job should have known the gravity of the business they were entering and stayed focused. I'm not saying these mistakes are impossible—hey, we're only human—but seriously.
The way my wife was giving me these vague, half-baked updates that day—like, just a few hours before the deposit from the same bank actually hit the account—it makes me cringe just thinking about it.
She honestly acted like some total prima donna—and look, I'm usually a fan of divas, totally unrelated to the topic—but did I really have to show up dressed to the nines just so she'd treat me with basic decency? I'm a reliable payer and a loyal customer who always tries to keep his balances in check regardless of how much cash is in my pocket. What happened... it hit me hard. When I think back on it, the woman who was being so rude to me that day is the exact same person who messed up the transaction. (Again, this is just me assuming I'm not being played for a fool here)—"The bottom line is this: do I pay this woman back, or do I let the wheels fall off?"—that's the context.

If the employee in question isn't capable of doing her job conscientiously and professionally, then that's on her—not just in my case, but for anyone else who's bound to run into this after me. It baffles me that the bank doesn't have a system to pull funds instantly, instead relying on incompetent, ego-driven staff who clearly don't know what they're doing. (Shoutout to the rare exceptions, obviously).
Speaking of legal stuff, there was this one single garnishment—not one I caused, but I lost the lawsuit over, and the funds were covered by a settlement from the bank. 😁
I think I'll spend the next few days weighing my options and deciding what the "moral" move would be.
Even though I've got two paths, only one is the right one.
From what I gather, the bank can't sue me, and if what I heard is true, they can't touch the account because it's protected under privacy laws. So, it all comes down to me and that teller, and whatever decision I make.

They actually can sue you,
but honestly, it probably isn't worth their time given the amount isn't massive—they'd likely spend more on legal fees and man-hours than they'd ever recover.
Plus, it wasn't your fault, so they might just end up losing the case anyway.

But you have things to lose too:
you could have them try to collect by force, which leaves you having to sue them back, but you probably don't have the cash for that.
Or, they could tank your credit score (if you actually care about that sort of thing) or whatever the technical term is.
Then there's the chance you take a stand, lose the dispute, and end up stuck paying their legal costs on top of everything else.
It's a lot of stress and wasted time.

I suspect it’s in your best interest to reach some kind of settlement.
That doesn't mean you can't give them a little bit of a hard time first.😉

..............

If you want to cover your bases, why not send them a formal letter of intent?
In it, explain the situation from your perspective, how their actions led to this mess, and the specific damage they're causing you.
To show how serious things are, mention that garnishment that already wiped out your funds.

Then, state clearly that you intend to pay them back, and as proof of good faith, return the portion that hasn't been seized yet immediately.
For the rest, tell them you need to negotiate a payment plan because paying it all at once would drop you below the poverty line.

Make it clear you aren't responsible for the teller's mistakes and that you refuse to shoulder the burden or the costs resulting from her error.

Send the whole thing via certified mail.
With a return receipt included.

Then just wait to see how they respond (while you go ahead and return that $1,500 in the meantime).

That's just how it goes
The bank will likely end up getting nothing
And before they even get a shot at it, they'll have to wait in line behind all the other creditors and legal claims

It’d probably be better for everyone involved—the bank and him—if they just tried to reach a settlement
Get it all in writing, too

Joseph Watson3 said:Do you actually grasp the fact that someone undergoing foreclosure still has legal rights? A third party can't just settle someone else's debt and then immediately demand repayment under duress. That's essentially debt buying and aggressive collection tactics—which, in many states, borders on criminal behavior.

God, if our banks are really this disconnected from reality... It honestly makes me want to close every single one of my American accounts and just walk away.

I feel the same way, but that’s a whole different conversation entirely.

Lawrence Cruz said:I think it’s pretty obvious to everyone that he's dancing on the edge.

The guy is broke—it’s pretty obvious he's dancing on the edge here. An eviction or a bank levy isn't going to happen overnight, though. Honestly? My favorite kind of collections are those aggressive cell phone service garnishments. 🙄 That brings us to 1,500. 😲 Was he the one talking about that money—or was it someone else?

He’s been sitting on that debt for ages—way too long, honestly—but he hasn't lifted a finger to settle it. It's certainly a responsible way to handle things, if you consider that being honest. 😕

If that bank teller was really acting the way she’s being described—I honestly don't get why he didn't demand to speak with the branch manager right then and there. He could have easily signed off on recovering half the amount immediately (since the garnishment ate up the other half) and then just worked out a structured payment plan for the rest over a few months. Simple enough.

But he was already at the bank, and they were trying to force a settlement on him that would’ve just screwed him over further.
I wouldn't have gone for that either.

If I were in his shoes, I would've taken the deal I mentioned above.
Take the $1,500 upfront, spread the rest out, and make sure there are zero extra fees or interest involved since this isn't even his fault.
If they don't want to play ball, let them sue him.

I'd never just walk away from a refund that's sitting there waiting for me.
But I suppose it depends on how you handle it.

Lawrence Cruz said:But he is legally obligated to return funds he didn't actually earn. It hit his checking account.

Quoting again:

When assets from one person pass to another without a legal basis—like a contract, a court order, or specific statutory authority—the recipient is required to return them. If they can't be returned directly, they must compensate for the value received.

obviously

He should just send back whatever landed in his account via a single transfer, without needing to sign any extra paperwork.
He can probably handle that himself through online banking without needing to deal with a personal banker or anyone else.
As for everything else, maybe they could work out a payment plan—whatever makes sense for him to reasonably pay back.
I guess there's really no point in leaving the guy completely destitute.