General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Sean
CBS Chicago
comments

Comments by "Sean" (@sean2015) on "Naperville woman sues Bank of America for discrimination over mishandling $24,000 check" video.

@nuttybar9 course she is. I knew 5 seconds into this segment that they would not include the bank’s side of the story, just a snippet of a “written statement”.
20
I worked in the Fraud department of a large bank for years, and it takes much longer than a “matter of hours” to verify a check. It can take weeks. Next time don’t comment on things you have no knowledge of or experience in. Aren’t you gonna call me a rathist now?
7
@Random_Identity pay ATTENTION to what I wrote (since you’re the only one in this comments section that seems to have a brain). She may have deposited the check and THEN — expecting the funds to be available to her immediately — wrote other checks which caused her account balance to become overdrawn some days later. 99 percent of the time, that is why a bank will close an account. Banks don’t close accounts just for fun. At the time she made the deposit, the instructions on her receipt would’ve CLEARLY explained to her (and/or the teller told her) that those funds would not be available for at least a couple of days, but she didn’t listen to the teller and/or she didn’t bother to read the fine print. The bounced check(s) is still 100 percent her fault. You WAIT for a check to clear and the bank to release a hold on the funds. If she had opted to receive her payment by direct deposit (and you can BET she was given that option) she could’ve avoided all this hassle AND saved herself a trip to the bank. With direct deposit, there is no “waiting” or “verification”. The minute the funds are in your account they are available for your use. Lack of familiarity with technology is not an excuse. Are you also going to say that we shouldn’t have vending machines because they take jobs away from cashiers? Are you going to say we shouldn’t have computers because they take jobs away from typewriter repairmen? (Edit: I changed the word “cash” to “deposit”. I meant deposit).
7
Of course there is more to this story. For one thing, the new station didn’t even give the bank’s side of the story, only a snippet from a “written statement”. I’ve worked in customer service for longer than most of these YouTube commenters have even been alive. I also spent three years working in the fraud department of a large bank, but these 17 year-old YouTube commenters act like they’re the experts. The report says that the bank closed this woman’s account. If a bank closes your account, 99% of the time it’s because you’ve overdrawn. Based on the circumstances I strongly suspect that the woman deposited the check and then simultaneously wrote out some very large checks (because she was dumb and thought that the funds would be available to her almost immediately) which bounced and resulted in a negative balance. Of course, she won’t tell you that, and the rest of these race-baiting commenters will get angry unless you agree with them that this was entirely motivated by racial discrimination.
6
Yes genius. Not only is it legal for banks to hold a check, they are REQUIRED to do so. Federal Reserve rules require banks to hold checks for a “reasonable period of time” , which means two business days for checks issued by the same bank and no more than seven business days for checks that are drawn from a different bank, which was the case here. It’s possible that a bank may impose a longer hold window on checks in certain circumstances if the bank can demonstrate that such a hold is necessary. Next time don’t comment on things you don’t understand. Aren’t you gonna call me a rathist now?
6
EDIT: I will no longer be responding to any more comments by any of you race-baiting Biden-voting DemoKKKrat trolls. I don’t respond to racists, and the DemoKKKrat party is the party of the KKK. Besides, I’ve already commented plenty (which you would see if you weren’t lazy to scroll through). What are you talking about? She has an ambulance-chasing lawyer who’s representing her on a contingency agreement. She doesn’t have to pay the lawyer one dime unless she wins (and good luck with that, because there’s no evidence of discrimination in this case, just a “belief” that there is).
5
@Sorel366 oh so you like facts do you? Okay here are some facts for you. Aren't you gonna call me a rathist? From the Federal Reserve website: There is no federal law that requires a bank to cash a check, even a government check. Some banks only cash checks if you have an account at the bank. Other banks will cash checks for non-customers, but they may charge a fee. You should shop around for the bank that best meets your needs. From the website of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency (what THEY say matters a hell of a lot more than what YOU say): For check deposits over $5,525, banking laws and regulations allow for exceptions to the rules on availability of funds. These exception holds may be applied to any checks (including official or government-issued checks) to any account where the aggregate amount of the checks deposited on a banking day exceeds $5,525. All of this comes from 12 CFR 229 "Availability of Funds and Collection of Checks" (Regulation CC). You know, that's what's called "the law". But I'm sure your idea of "the law" is to scream at a judge that he/she is a racist if they don't rule in your favor. Good luck to the lady and that idiot lawyer of hers trying to prove that ridiculous lawsuit. She won't win.
5
@starmsjc I actually said that myself to another commenter. Why didn’t she opt for direct deposit? With direct deposit there’s no check verification or waiting for the hold on your funds to be released. As soon as the money is in your account it’s available for your use. No chance of a paper check being lost or stolen, not to mention it saves a trip to the bank (in her case she made TWO separate trips, one to make the deposit and one a day later to berate the tellers and scream racism). Ironic how she makes it a point to whine about being asthmatic and disabled and yet she had no problem wasting time and gas to get her fat ass to the bank in person. I wonder just what her angle was behind requesting a paper check. I’d love to go into that bank and talk to the staff to get their side of the story.
5
@ephraimdelacroix427 how about not believing every accusation without hearing both sides of the story? I’d sure hate to be ever falsely accused of a crime with someone like you sitting in the jury box.
5
@ladymacan7874 thank you, you just proved my point. When there’s pending litigation, businesses usually cannot comment. The key words here are “pending litigation”. It would be nice if the media waited until this case were decided and the dust settled before running the story… But noooooooo, they choose to run the story anyway (knowing that the business’ hands are tied and they can’t comment) knowing fully well the bank cannot speak up for itself. Even the tellers and branch manager can’t speak to the media or they’ll be fired. I’m not sure how long I can take a case like this to be arbitrated, But once it is arbitrated then the bank’s legal team can speak to the media OR we can get a hold of court records to get both sides of the story.
4
@Random_Identity you wrote previously that “the bank likely lost or misapplied the deposit”. Let’s suppose you’re right. Losing or misapplying a deposit is a matter of negligence or incompetence. It has nothing to do with discrimination, and discrimination is the basis of the woman’s lawsuit. Good luck to her trying to prove that, because there’s no evidence of it. She’s just trying to play victim. All these other commenters are here saying ”Thuch a thtrong woman! Oh honey I hope you win against that rathist bank! The bank is RATHIST honey there’s no question of that!” I suppose you and I really can’t comment too much without hearing more details from the bank (can we) because there are WAY too many holes in this story for me to just trust one side without getting the other. I have way too much life experience to be like that , unlike all these other 17 year-old lawyers in the comments section who pass themselves off as Yale-educated legal experts.
4
There's a lot more to the story. I went to the court's website and read the full complaint of the woman's lawsuit against BofA. You can read it yourself if you google Warren v. Bank of America, NA , Case No. 1:23-cv-03254). BofA had been notified by the government (Social Security Administration?) that the woman may have owed back taxes, so the account was frozen. How interesting that the woman never mentioned this to the news reporter. It's pretty goddamn relevant and important so the fact that she didn't disclose it makes me not believe one word out of her mouth. And the news reporter could've easily found this out on her own by questioning the woman's lawyer, but then again that would ruin the race-baiting narrative. Oh, and did I mention that the woman's lawyer (Gail Eisenberg) has just filed a Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice on June 16, 2023. That means the woman has dropped her lawsuit. The bank gave her back her funds with interest and the matter is settled. There's no discrimination, case closed. Aren't you gonna call me a rathist now?
4
@ladymacan7874 she walked into the bank with a check for $25,000 . Any check even HALF that amount is gonna have an automatic hold placed on the funds by the bank for verification. I’ve deposited checks for only $200 that took like 2-3 days to clear. But according to the report, she went back into the bank a day later (with her daughter no less, who does that unless they’re looking for trouble?) demanding that the funds be available to her. That’s absurd. How much money you want to bet that she and her daughter walked into that bank loaded for bear and started screaming racism accusations at the tellers for not bending all the rules just for them? From the Federal Reserve website: There is no federal law that requires a bank to cash a check, even a government check. Some banks only cash checks if you have an account at the bank. Other banks will cash checks for non-customers, but they may charge a fee. You should shop around for the bank that best meets your needs. Following is from the website of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency (what THEY say matters a HELL of a lot more than what YOU say): For check deposits over $5,525, banking laws and regulations allow for exceptions to the rules on availability of funds. These exception holds may be applied to any checks (including official or government-issued checks) to any account where the aggregate amount of the checks deposited on a banking day exceeds $5,525. Good luck to the lady and that idiot lawyer of hers trying to prove that ridiculous lawsuit.
4
@Random_Identity for the third time, the account was not closed at the time she attempted to make the deposit. It was only AFTER this mess that the bank did so. Yes, banks do close accounts for confirmed fraudulent activity. But this is pretty rare. 99% of the time, it’s due to a persistent negative balance (overdrafts). Which itself can sometimes be fraud-related (ie- if a criminal steals your account information and drains money from your account). Usually though it’s the account holder failing to maintain a positive balance (when fraud does occur, it is far more common against the credit or debit cards rather than the accounts to which those cards are linked). This can also depend on whether or not the accountholder has overdraft protection. What I’m suggesting is that the woman caused an overdraft when she deposited the check and then wrote other checks immediately afterwards because she wrongly assumed the $20K would be available to her right away (the report says she went into the bank the day after the deposit asking about the availability of the funds, so that tells me she had other pending payments she was worried about).
4
@ij2750 were you trying to deposit a $20,000 check from a different bank like this woman was? Yeah, I bet not. Who the hell uses a check anyway besides a landlord? How come people don’t sign up for something called “direct deposit”? Are people just stupid?
4
@Too510 were you trying to deposit a $20,000 check from a different bank like this woman? Yeah, I bet not. Sorry to debunk your race-baiting narrative. Aren’t you gonna call me a rathist now?
3
@Scallop I didn’t catch the fact that she had never had a bank account before this. Shes at least 50, so to have never had a bank account at that age, that’s pretty unbelievable. How does she even have a house or car? How does she pay rent? In any case, this is shoddy race-baiting journalism.
3
@lucyall1898 your comment is so idiotic it actually made me chuckle. It doesn’t MATTER what she “wants”, the law is the law. Under federal law, any transaction over $10,000 must be reported to the IRS (Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, amended by the PATRIOT Act of 2002).
3
@MsArLee1105 you’re welcome! The media are bad enough (I’ll be sending a complaint to the reporter) but look at all these sheep who just swallow whatever is fed to them without even bothering to ask for the other side of the story. Actually, most of these people get angry and lash out at me when I present them with facts that debunk their narrative. I would hate to ever be falsely accuse of a crime and have some of these people sitting in the jury box.
3
@hippychick420 read the rest of my comments DemoKKKrat and your answer should be there. I’ve already written enough on this subject. Aren’t you gonna call me a rathist now?
2
@truthseeker3376 dang, so you know for sure these bank employees are racist huh? You must have ESP huh? Or are you just one of these racist Leftists who thinks all white people are thyth-temically rathist? Okay now you're call me a rathist and deny you're a Leftist, deny you're a Liberal. You're all so predictable, like broken records.
2
@tigreactivo517 I think the racist here is you. Typical DemoKKKrat. The party of the KKK. ”No Sean you’re wrong! And you’re a rathist for thaying that! And Trump is a rathist! And…and…Orange Man Bad! And Black Lives Myehtter!” Go suck an egg you racist piece of garbage.
2
@lynx70123 you’re a typical Leftist who goes around saying crap like “racism is everywhere” and “all white people are racist” and yet here you are accusing me of being “eager” to hear it. Ahhh the hypocrisy. ”No Sean you’re wrong I’m not a Leftist waaaah waaaaah! You don’t even know me Sean waahhhh! You’re just a rathist white thupremacist who thupports Trump! Orange man bad!”
2
I don’t understand why she didn’t sign up for direct deposit. With direct deposit, there’s no waiting and no verification. As soon as the funds are in your account, they’re available for you to use. Saves you a trip to the bank, and you don’t have to worry about losing the check or someone stealing it.
2
@Earringbacks omg ma’am, well I guess your opinion is a fact then isn’t it?
2
Your opinion is worthless. You are not a lawyer. You are not a banker. Stop trying to pass yourself off as an expert. Everything you’ve written is incorrect by the way.
2
@truthseeker3376 the woman could’ve easily signed up for something called “direct deposit” like everyone else uses. Then she wouldn’t have had any of these problems and she would’ve had her money so fast it her head would’ve been spinning. No sympathy for dumb people. And here she is complaining she suffers from crippling asthma, yet she had no problem making two trips to the bank to chew the tellers’ asses off and basically accuse them all of being racist fascist white supremacists like what Liz Parker would do. Aren’t you gonna call me a rathist now?
2
@tigreactivo517 you again, being the racist you are.
2
@ephraimdelacroix427 many original thoughts…not “much original thoughts”. It’s ok, I understand you don’t know proper English.
2
@ephraimdelacroix427 oh yeah you really destroyed me, I don’t know how anyone can win an argument against such a brilliant polemicist like yourself. Good day Del.
2
@jmodified the bank does not have to explain to you or anybody else, about why they're not commenting. If you knew anything about banking, you would know the U.S. banking industry is HEAVILY regulated and governed by strict privacy laws. In addition to the fact that the bank likely has a policy not to comment on pending litigation, they probably are worried that discussing any aspect of this woman's visit to the bank or her account activity could violate one of those privacy laws, and constitute a far more serious offense than anything they're accused of here. The facts of this case will eventually come out in court and the bank I am certain will win in a court of law, even if they lose in the court of public opinion because of race-baiters and professional victims who choose to hear both sides of the story if it might debunk the narrative to which they cling so tightly.
2
@jmodified that's absurd. You don't know what you're talking about. Any time you have pending litigation, your lawyer or legal team will tell you not to talk to the media. When I got into a car accident, the very first thing a lawyer told me was "don't talk to the insurance company". It's not only a legal matter, it's also a matter of internal policy for almost all companies to prohibit their employees from speaking to the media about company-related issues. If you work as ticket agent or ramp agent for an airline for example, you learn in training from the very first week not to comment and to refer all questions to the airline's public affairs office.
2
@jmodified you're completely glossing over my other point which concerns the privacy laws. I've worked for a bank fraud department - a bank cannot discuss or divulge any information about an account to anyone not listed as a co-signer on that account - not even a spouse. I personally probably caused one or two marital fights or divorces because of this. So, the bank manager can't simply go on camera and say "Well what happened was the woman's check was held because her account was brand-new, she's never had an account with us before, she has a non-existent credit history blah blah blah..." ....the bank could get SUED for that and they would lose big time. That's not state, that's FEDERAL. Bank privacy laws are governed by TILA, the PATRIOT Act, Dodd-Frank and the like. I'd still like for SOMEONE to explain how this case was based on discrimination or racism. I see an awful lot of people making that accusation here in this Comments section (...are you in that school of thought? Because if you're gonna make an accusation like that, you'd damn well better back it up with a stack of evidence as tall as the Sears Tower, and when I say "evidence" I don't mean "Well Sean 60 years ago we had Jim Crow laws..." ...no. Gotta do better than that, kid.
2
@nkotbsouth thank you. And yes the media take advantage of those privacy laws knowing the bank cannot speak up for itself.
2
@alisonf6478 I don’t have to disprove an accusation nitwit. The bank is the defendant (the accused). The woman is the plaintiff, so the burden of proof is on HER. You’re on the side of the plaintiff, so YOU’RE the one who has to prove that this was because of racism, “banking while black”, systemic rathism, white supremacy and Orange Man Bad. So where is the proof that the bank discriminated against this woman because of her skin color? Tell me. Make your point without your usual pathetic talking points about Trump and January 6th and George Floyd. Btw, how do you know what my skin color is anyway? ( ”Oh shut up Sean i know you’re White and you’re a MAGA Republican white thupremacist and I don’t need to prove it because rathism is everywhere and Trump is a rathist and Black Lives Myehtter so take THAT Sean” ) Aren’t you gonna call me a rathist now?
2
@sarahsimpkins1311 thank you for proving my point, you are most definitely a race-baiter. Reverend Al must be your dad. Aren't you gonna call me a rathist now?
2
@thecountrygirl3040 I would like for you to explain to me why the bank was racist or discriminatory. There is absolutely no proof of that. FYI, 50 percent of Bank America's workforce is female and 12 percent of its workforce is African-American, 20 percent is Hispanic and 17 percent is Asian ( "Noooo! But Sean, just because they have black employees, that doesn't mean they're still not rathist! Because Sean, systemic rathism is everywhere...and...and...Trump is a rathist...and...and...Orange Man Bad...that's why they're guilty Sean!" ) Just because the woman may have received bad customer service? We all experience bad customer service in our lives but it's not something you can sue for. Good luck to this pathetic race-baiting woman and her ambulance-chasing idiot attorney on their ridiculous lawsuit. Aren't you gonna call me a rathist now?
2
@lizparker3472 why are you so racist? Is it because you’re a Democrat and they’re the party of the KKK? Nooooo Sean you’re wrong! I’m not a Democrat! And you’re a rathist for thaying that! And Trump is a rathist! And..and…thyth-temic rathism…and Black Lives Myehtter ✊🏾✊🏿✊🏿
2
I went to the court's website and read the full complaint of the woman's lawsuit against BofA. You can read it yourself if you google Warren v. Bank of America, NA , Case No. 1:23-cv-03254). BofA had been notified by the government (Social Security Administration?) that the woman may have owed back taxes, so the account was frozen. How interesting that the woman never mentioned this to the news reporter. Oh, and did I mention that the woman's lawyer (Gail Eisenberg) has just filed a Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice on June 16, 2023. That means the woman has dropped her lawsuit. There's no discrimination, case closed. Aren't you gonna call me a rathist now?
1
@m.g.3021 you keep accusing me of having misrepresented the case. Why don’t you question all of the hundreds of other commenters who are here automatically assuming that this entire incident was racially motivated when they don’t even have the facts of the case nor have they even heard the bank’s side of the story? So, which law school did you graduate from Mr. Legal Expert? Was it Harvard or Yale? Oh well, I guess I won’t be hearing from you again. Sick and tired of all these morons asking me questions and then disappearing when I confront them with simple facts and logic.
1
I went to the court's website and read the full complaint of the woman's lawsuit against BofA. You can read it yourself if you google Warren v. Bank of America, NA , Case No. 1:23-cv-03254). BofA had been notified by the government (Social Security Administration?) that the woman may have owed back taxes, so the account was frozen. How interesting that the woman never mentioned this to the news reporter. Oh, and did I mention that the woman's lawyer (Gail Eisenberg) has just filed a Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice on June 16, 2023. That means the woman has dropped her lawsuit. The bank gave her back her funds with interest and the matter is settled. There's no discrimination, case closed. Aren't you gonna call me a rathist now?
1
But credit unions be racist too doe
1
How long did it take for you to get your funds? This woman is saying it took her bank 50 days.
1
I went to the court's website and read the full complaint of the woman's lawsuit against BofA. You can read it yourself if you google Warren v. Bank of America, NA , Case No. 1:23-cv-03254). BofA had been notified by the government (Social Security Administration?) that the woman may have owed back taxes, so the account was frozen. How interesting that the woman never mentioned this to the news reporter. Oh, and did I mention that the woman's lawyer (Gail Eisenberg) has just filed a Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice on June 16, 2023. That means the woman has dropped her lawsuit. The bank gave her back her funds with interest and the matter is settled. There's no discrimination, case closed. Aren't you gonna call me a rathist now?
1
All you race-baiting nitwits don't realize that there's a lot more to the story. I went to the court's website and read the full complaint of the woman's lawsuit against BofA. You can read it yourself if you google Warren v. Bank of America, NA , Case No. 1:23-cv-03254). BofA had been notified by the government (Social Security Administration?) that the woman may have owed back taxes, so the account was frozen. How interesting that the woman never mentioned this to the news reporter. It's pretty goddamn relevant and important so the fact that she didn't disclose it makes me not believe one word out of her mouth. And the news reporter could've easily found this out on her own by questioning the woman's lawyer, but then again that would ruin the race-baiting narrative. Oh, and did I mention that the woman's lawyer (Gail Eisenberg) has just filed a Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice on June 16, 2023. That means the woman has dropped her lawsuit. The bank gave her back her funds with interest and the matter is settled. There's no discrimination, case closed. Aren't you gonna call me a rathist now?
1
@jackieclan815 baloney. Nothing I can’t stand more than a liar.
1
You ask good questions eslis. I hate bad customer service too, but it’s just not something you can sue for. That is probably why this disgusting woman is trying to make the issue about race, in the hopes of making a quick buck. Good luck to her and her scum bag attorney because proving discrimination isn’t a simple matter of ”they’re racist cuz I said they are!” I’d like to know how much $$$ she’s suing for. Depositing a $25K check into a brand-new account that you just opened the same day…and no credit history or history of prior accounts…not hard at all why there would’ve been a delay in the funds to clear. The fact that this idiot woman went back to the bank a day later demanding that her funds be available, tells me all I need to know.
1
@michaelbrooke6326 then you go to a credit union and just keep $25 in your account at all times and it’s free. Not that freaking hard to have a simple bank account. Aren’t you gonna call me a rathist now?
1
@michaelbrooke6326 You are judging her without knowing her circumstances …says the guy saying the bank and all its employees are racist white supremacist Ku Klux Klan members who organized a intricate conspiracy to keep a woman waiting six weeks for her check because they’re bigots who don’t like black people. Did I about sum that up correctly? Good. And you’re the one saying I’m making assumptions. See how hypocritical you look? Aren’t you gonna call me a rathist now? Michael Brooke • 1 day ago (edited) No Sean you’re wrong - you’re a hypocrite not me. And it’s racism because I said it is. We don’t need proof of racism. That’s because racism is systemic and all white people are racist. But if you’re black you can’t be racist. That’s a fact Sean. I know it’s true because I saw it on MSNBC and Dr Rashad Richey. And Trump is a racist. And Orange Man Bad. Haha you lost the argument Sean!
1
@imajhawk11 if her asthma was that bad she could’ve signed up for direct deposit like the rest of the world. She would’ve saved herself two trips to the bank and there would’ve been no verification or waiting. With DD, as soon as the money is in your account it’s available for you to use immediately. I guess asking people to sign up for direct deposit is RATHIST.
1
esilis great points!
1
All you race-baiting nitwits don't realize that there's a lot more to the story. I went to the court's website and read the full complaint of the woman's lawsuit against BofA. You can read it yourself if you google Warren v. Bank of America, NA , Case No. 1:23-cv-03254). BofA had been notified by the government (Social Security Administration?) that the woman may have owed back taxes, so the account was frozen. How interesting that the woman never mentioned this to the news reporter. It's pretty goddamn relevant and important so the fact that she didn't disclose it makes me not believe one word out of her mouth. And the news reporter could've easily found this out on her own by questioning the woman's lawyer, but then again that would ruin the race-baiting narrative. Oh, and did I mention that the woman's lawyer (Gail Eisenberg) has just filed a Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice on June 16, 2023. That means the woman has dropped her lawsuit. The bank gave her back her funds with interest and the matter is settled. There's no discrimination, case closed. Aren't you gonna call me a rathist now?
1
@γένεσις-ο9ψ Possibly. That's what I thought too. BUT...didn't the woman sue for racial discrimination ? That's what this news story says and that's what her complaint says (did you READ the complaint?) So getting her money back seems to be a separate issue from her and her lawyer whining about how she was the victim of racial discrimination by the bank employees. There are hundreds of commenters here all saying that this is clear-cut discrimination, open-and-shut-case, systemic racism blah blah blah. Well if it's such a slam-dunk case of racial discrimination, then why drop the lawsuit? We don't know the answers to those questions, BECAUSE (I've said this about twenty times now and I'll say it once more) We. Never. Got. The. Bank's. Side. Of. The. Story. Oh by the way, I won't tell you what race I am (because it's irrelevant) but I, too, once had to sue a bank (a credit union actually). $2000 was fraudulently stolen from my account which the credit union didn't refund me. They later refunded me under my threat of a lawsuit.
1
@dcg590 oh be quiet you racist, it’s very clearly discrimination. The woman doesn’t need any evidence and she doesn’t need to prove to you anything. The bank is racist and that’s it. Because of Jim Crow and Trump. So the bank should pay the woman $800 million at least. I’m a lawyer and I’m an expert in discrimination matters. All you need to do is say it’s racist and that’s it. Okay?
1
All you race-baiting nitwits don't realize that there's a lot more to the story. I went to the court's website and read the full complaint of the woman's lawsuit against BofA. You can read it yourself if you google Warren v. Bank of America, NA , Case No. 1:23-cv-03254). BofA had been notified by the government (Social Security Administration?) that the woman may have owed back taxes, so the account was frozen. How interesting that the woman never mentioned this to the news reporter. It's pretty goddamn relevant and important so the fact that she didn't disclose it makes me not believe one word out of her mouth. And the news reporter could've easily found this out on her own by questioning the woman's lawyer, but then again that would ruin the race-baiting narrative. Oh, and did I mention that the woman's lawyer (Gail Eisenberg) has just filed a Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice on June 16, 2023. That means the woman has dropped her lawsuit. The bank gave her back her funds with interest and the matter is settled. There's no discrimination, case closed. Aren't you gonna call me a rathist now?
1
I went to the court's website and read the full complaint of the woman's lawsuit against BofA. You can read it yourself if you google Warren v. Bank of America, NA , Case No. 1:23-cv-03254). BofA had been notified by the government (Social Security Administration?) that the woman may have owed back taxes, so the account was frozen. How interesting that the woman never mentioned this to the news reporter. Oh, and did I mention that the woman's lawyer (Gail Eisenberg) has just filed a Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice on June 16, 2023. That means the woman has dropped her lawsuit. There's no discrimination, case closed. Aren't you gonna call me a rathist now?
1
@Robin-mj6jv I'm sorry where does race come in? ...Robin why don't you ask that question of all these other idiot commenters or the woman's lawyer (Gail Eisenberg) for utterly ri-DICK-ulous discrimination lawsuit she decided to file. Let me know what type of response you get. Won't you?
1
Right, and credit unions are non profit. All of their employees are volunteers who work for free.
1
Look what we have here. Another YouTube lawyer. Where’d you get your law degree from? Was it Harvard, Yale or the Rashad Richey Institute for Advanced Race-baiting?
1
@savuense2972 wrongdoing is ONE word, not two, genius. Apparently you didn't learn grammar while you were attending Harvard Law. If you read my first comment, I very specifically wrote that the woman (through her lawyer) filed a Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice. That's voluntary ("voluntary" means she did it of her own accord). A Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice means (follow along with me here) that the woman voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit and she has relinquished all rights to ever sue again. It DOES absolve the bank from wrongdoing because the Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice prevents the matter from ever being litigated. It prevents the bank from ever being sued. I'm sure you learned this concept while you were a student at Harvard Law, but perhaps you just forgot.
1
@itrollthetrolls28 you don’t have to prove a negative nitwit. You don’t have to disprove an accusation. It’s innocent until proven guilty. The Bank is innocent until this woman proves beyond a reasonable doubt that she was discriminated against. Good luck to her because there’s zero evidence of it, just her opinion and the opinion of some race-baiters in the comments section.
1
@MSDIVASTYLE100 You know it’s always the actual racist hollering it’s racism. You seem to suffer from Jussie Smollett Syndrome.
1
@hereforit2347 another race-baiting black supremacist Aren’t you gonna call me a rathist now?
1
@SMGyal lol, news media lie ALL the time. CNN lied about January 6th, The Guardian (UK) lied about Kyle Rittenhouse. Journalists are disgusting people…
1
@itrollthetrolls28 innocence does not need to be proven. The burden of proof is on the woman.
1
All you race-baiting nitwits don't realize that there's a lot more to the story. I went to the court's website and read the full complaint of the woman's lawsuit against BofA. You can read it yourself if you google Warren v. Bank of America, NA , Case No. 1:23-cv-03254). BofA had been notified by the government (Social Security Administration?) that the woman may have owed back taxes, so the account was frozen. How interesting that the woman never mentioned this to the news reporter. It's pretty goddamn relevant and important so the fact that she didn't disclose it makes me not believe one word out of her mouth. And the news reporter could've easily found this out on her own by questioning the woman's lawyer, but then again that would ruin the race-baiting narrative. Oh, and did I mention that the woman's lawyer (Gail Eisenberg) has just filed a Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice on June 16, 2023. That means the woman has dropped her lawsuit. The bank gave her back her funds with interest and the matter is settled. There's no discrimination, case closed. Aren't you gonna call me a rathist now?
1
@debbieframpton3857 don’t be thuch a rathist honey. I mean it’s obvious that this nice woman was dithcriminated against because she’s Black. You don’t need to hear the bank’s side of the story and and I don’t need to show you evidence of rathism honey, because Jim Crow and Trump. ✊🏿✊🏾✊🏾
1
@savuense2972 I'm still waiting for someone to prove to me how there's no possible way where this could be a simple case of a clerical error or an incompetent 18 year-old bank teller, but instead it's 100 percent systemic racism by the bank. I'll wait for you to try to explain that. But I won't hold my breath. And you need to prove it by saying something other than "But Sean blacks have always thuffered rathism...100 years ago there was Jim Crow Sean...and it's obvious this is rathism!" I'd also like for you to explain how you're so sure about what happened when we haven't heard one word from the bank. Not one word. At least I actually read the complaint. 90 percent of the commenters here, I'll bet are just a bunch of unemployed 20 year-old SJWs who didn't even watch the video, but just looked at the thumbnail and decided "It's RATHISM!"
1
@MsArLee1105 the media are disgusting. F*ck this idiot Lauren Victory!
1
**UPDATE** Listen up all of you race-baiters. I looked up the case online. The plaintiff (that's the woman in the news report, Charlotte Warren) filed what's called a "Notice to Dismiss With Prejudice" with the court. What's that, you ask? It means she asked the court to cancel her lawsuit with prejudice which means she has given up all rights to ever sue the bank over this issue. That's too bad for her because now she's out her $400 court filing fee! If you want to look it up yourselves, you can search for Warren v. Bank of America Case No. 1:23-cv-03254 The Notice to Dismiss with Prejudice was just filed yesterday, (June 16, 2023). Aren't you gonna call me a rathist now?
1
@MsArLee1105 I went creeping on some of your other comments. Methinks you and I see eye-to-eye on many issues. You’re just my type of woman 🥰
1
I went to the court's website and read the full complaint of the woman's lawsuit against BofA. You can read it yourself if you google Warren v. Bank of America, NA , Case No. 1:23-cv-03254). BofA had been notified by the government (Social Security Administration?) that the woman may have owed back taxes, so the account was frozen. How interesting that the woman never mentioned this to the news reporter. Oh, and did I mention that the woman's lawyer (Gail Eisenberg) has just filed a Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice on June 16, 2023. That means the woman has dropped her lawsuit. The bank gave her back her funds with interest and the matter is settled. There's no discrimination, case closed. Aren't you gonna call me a rathist now?
1
@misskay313 🤣just say you're a pedophile and go
1
@User.Joshua well Joshua I have some news for you. Some lawyers and legal teams are dishonest, unethical and incompetent too. I bet you’d say the same about the prosecutor who tried (and failed miserably) to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of murder.
1
@beethao9380 shut up ya filthy racist DemoKKKrat
1
@misskay313 why are people like you so racist and anti-Semitic?
1
You mean direct deposit?
1
@AN-Nuke M so they hold the check for 50 days without saying anything? How do you they didn't tell her anything? Do you work for the bank? Unlike YOU (Miss Common Sense) I actually went to the court's website and I read the full complaint. It says the bank notified the woman about the issue with her possibly owing back taxes. That's pretty damn important and relevant to this case, and how interesting the woman never mentioned it to the media and how interesting CBS Chicago didn't report it. Smh. They would send her a notice of amount she owed. We don't know the story behind that, BECAUSE (I've said this about twenty times now and I'll say it once more) We. Never. Got. The. Bank's. Side. Of. The. Story. Oh by the way, I, too, once had to sue a bank (a credit union actually). $2000 was fraudulently stolen from my account which the credit union didn't refund me. They later refunded me under my threat of a lawsuit. It was SIX MONTHS from the time the money was stolen until the credit union finally credited my account. So, I'm sorry if I don't feel too sorry for this lady waiting six weeks for her check to clear when she opened a brand-new account with a $25,000 check.
1
I went to the court's website and read the full complaint of the woman's lawsuit against BofA. You can read it yourself if you google Warren v. Bank of America, NA , Case No. 1:23-cv-03254). BofA had been notified by the government (Social Security Administration?) that the woman may have owed back taxes, so the account was frozen. How interesting that the woman never mentioned this to the news reporter. Oh, and did I mention that the woman's lawyer (Gail Eisenberg) has just filed a Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice on June 16, 2023. That means the woman has dropped her lawsuit. There's no discrimination, case closed. Aren't you gonna call me a rathist now?
1
@jmodified lol, oh man you're really reaching. Who cares if they screwed up the wording? That could've easily been an honest mistake by their public affairs department. I know why they can't comment, and you're reading wayyyy too much into it.
1
@ephraimdelacroix427 gee, you mean someone else made a comment about Megan Rapinoe? Well I apologize then! 🤞🏻
1
@neverendingmods your opinion is worthless and doesn’t matter. The law is the law. Stop trying to race-bait and stop trying to pass yourself off as an expert. Read. The. Law..
1
She’s too dumb to sign up for direct deposit. Actually it sounds like she’s never even had an account at all.
1
Blame the media for not giving both sides of the story
1
@Bleu413 thank you for your statistics. Now here are some for you. • In NYC, blacks make up 26 percent of the population but they account for 75 percent of all homicides, 70 percent of all sexual assaults and 66 percent of all violent crime • 1 out of every 3 Black adult males has a felony conviction • 75 percent of all black children are born into a fatherless household • Blacks consistently have the lowest median SAT scores of any race, and 85 percent of black 4th graders cannot pass a math test (…it’s all the fault of that rathist Trump!) Despite this, there is no evidence that America is a racist country or that there is systemic racism. Blacks in America have the highest incomes of any blacks in the world. America has more black millionaires and more black billionaires than any country in the world.
1
@ephraimdelacroix427 “you’re contradicting yourself”…”that’s an oversimplification of the issue”…what people tend to say when they hear facts that debunk their narrative. Reminds me of Megan Rapinoe.
1
I went to the court's website and read the full complaint of the woman's lawsuit against BofA. You can read it yourself if you google Warren v. Bank of America, NA , Case No. 1:23-cv-03254). BofA had been notified by the government (Social Security Administration?) that the woman may have owed back taxes, so the account was frozen. How interesting that the woman never mentioned this to the news reporter. Oh, and did I mention that the woman's lawyer (Gail Eisenberg) has just filed a Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice on June 16, 2023. That means the woman has dropped her lawsuit. There's no discrimination, case closed. Aren't you gonna call me a rathist now?
1
I agree. We’re seeing a lot of racism (as well as anti-Semitism and homophobia) from people like Joe Biden, Joyless Reid and Al Sharp-tone. Aren’t you gonna call me a rathist now?
1
@darnellhall8173 You sound like a race-baiting DemoKKKrat
1
All you race-baiting nitwits don't realize that there's a lot more to the story. I went to the court's website and read the full complaint of the woman's lawsuit against BofA. You can read it yourself if you google Warren v. Bank of America, NA , Case No. 1:23-cv-03254). BofA had been notified by the government (Social Security Administration?) that the woman may have owed back taxes, so the account was frozen. How interesting that the woman never mentioned this to the news reporter. It's pretty goddamn relevant and important so the fact that she didn't disclose it makes me not believe one word out of her mouth. And the news reporter could've easily found this out on her own by questioning the woman's lawyer, but then again that would ruin the race-baiting narrative. Oh, and did I mention that the woman's lawyer (Gail Eisenberg) has just filed a Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice on June 16, 2023. That means the woman has dropped her lawsuit. The bank gave her back her funds with interest and the matter is settled. There's no discrimination, case closed. Aren't you gonna call me a rathist now?
1
@addiecoelman1996 if you’re going to criticize my comment the least you could do is specify which one (I posted several). Don’t be so lazy ya jag-off.
1
So you’re sure this was due to racism eh? You talked to the bank and got their side of the story? How do you know the tellers and the bank managers weren’t POC themselves? Aren’t you gonna call me a rathist now?
1
I went to the court's website and read the full complaint of the woman's lawsuit against BofA. You can read it yourself if you google Warren v. Bank of America, NA , Case No. 1:23-cv-03254). BofA had been notified by the government (Social Security Administration?) that the woman may have owed back taxes, so the account was frozen. How interesting that the woman never mentioned this to the news reporter. Oh, and did I mention that the woman's lawyer (Gail Eisenberg) has just filed a Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice on June 16, 2023. That means the woman has dropped her lawsuit. There's no discrimination, case closed. Aren't you gonna call me a rathist now?
1
@Earringbacks wow I really triggered you didn't I ?
1
@jgibson8092 yeah because the bank tellers are gonna actually tell her we're holding your check for 50 days because your black and we don't trust you ...how do you know the tellers aren't BLACK too? But then you'd still find a way to say it was racist wouldn't you. And even if they didn't think it was real why not just give her the check back and call the police. ...because calling the police on a black person is RATHIST!
1
@myaq8410 just say you're a pedophile and move on.
1
@lizparker3472 I will call you a pedophile because you deserve that title.
1
@Random_Identity that’s not for you to decide, that’s up to the courts. Why don't you tell that to all these race-baiting morons here in the Comments section who have already decided on their own that this entire incident was racially motivated (despite absolutely no proof, no witnesses and despite the fact that the bank has not yet even offered its side of the story). I don't need to be told to wait for the courts to decide, it's what I've been saying all ALONG. The $225 million fine that Bank of America received last year was due to its mishandling of the payment of unemployment benefits during the pandemic. Many states use debit cards to pay unemployment insurance benefits, and some states have an exclusive contract with BoA. BoA basically botched up by placing fraud prevention holds on millions of cards that were sent out to unemployment claimants, resulting in delays in getting their benefits. That's incompetence and negligence, sure, but that has NOTHING to do with racism. Why you would even bring that up or suggest that it was racially motivated is something that is TOTALLY beyond me.
1
@Random_Identity how do you know the bank didn’t indicate anything to the woman about her account closure and she simply didn’t tell the media? I know this may come as a shock to you buddy, but, people do lie. What many of these commenters should realize is that race-baiting is exhausting work. It becomes so much easier to get to the truth when we stick to the facts without looking at every single news story through the lens of racism. From the website of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency: For check deposits over $5,525, banking laws and regulations allow for exceptions to the rules on availability of funds. These exception holds may be applied to any checks (including official or government-issued checks) to any account where the aggregate amount of the checks deposited on a banking day exceeds $5,525. When the bank applies the large-check-deposit exception, it may extend the hold times established under its normal availability schedule by a reasonable period of time. According to banking regulations, reasonable periods of time include an extension of up to five business days for most checks. …the bank was well within its right to hold those funds. Good luck to that lady and her idiot lawyer in their ridiculous lawsuit.
1
@ij2750 First of all, stop upvoting your own comments, okay? That looks pathetic. Second, I’m insulted you would think I’d be stupid enough to believe 1) that you routinely deposit $20,000 checks and 2) that you have no problems doing so. Because even Jeff Bezos would run into issues if he tried to deposit checks in those amounts. Stop declaring what banks are supposed to do and not supposed not to do. You obviously have never worked in a bank, and based on the nonsense you’ve written here, I doubt you even graduated college. From the website of the Federal Reserve: ”There is no federal law that requires a bank to cash a check, even a government check. Some banks only cash checks if you have an account at the bank. Other banks will cash checks for non-customers, but they may charge a fee. You should shop around for the bank that best meets your needs.” ”No federal consumer protection law requires your bank to return your original check. Many banks destroy original paper checks after putting them into electronic form, often to save the expenses of storing or mailing paper checks. Increasingly, check processors make electronic images of your checks and destroy the paper checks that you wrote. A law called Check 21 gives you legal protections when your bank sends you images of your check instead of the paper check. More information on Check 21 is on the Board of Governors' website.” Oh let me guess…now you’re gonna tell me you used to be president of a bank. 😂
1
I went to the court's website and read the full complaint of the woman's lawsuit against BofA. You can read it yourself if you google Warren v. Bank of America, NA , Case No. 1:23-cv-03254). BofA had been notified by the government (Social Security Administration?) that the woman may have owed back taxes, so the account was frozen. How interesting that the woman never mentioned this to the news reporter. Oh, and did I mention that the woman's lawyer (Gail Eisenberg) has just filed a Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice on June 16, 2023. That means the woman has dropped her lawsuit. There's no discrimination, case closed. Aren't you gonna call me a rathist now?
1
@alisonf6478 I wish you would burn in hell 🔥😂
1
@BlackRane82 if this lady were white you wouldn't give a s... Noooooo Sean that's not true! And you're a rathist for thaying that! And Trump is a rathist! And if she were white the bank wouldn't have done it to her because all banks are rathist! Yeah yeah yeah, we know we know. White people never, ever get arrested , they never get pulled over or denied service at a business, they never get passed over for jobs or promotions etc etc etc
1
@BlackRane82 what comments from the manager?! I didn’t hear a damn thing from the bank - great job by the media (as usual) only giving us one side of the story. They (the media) know the bank won’t (and can’t) comment because of privacy laws, but they run the story anyways. And how nice of YT to plug this (nearly year-old) video just in time for Black History Month ✊🏿✊🏾✊🏾
1
Not only is the woman leaving something out, so are the media.
1
@queline213 That's why it's good to get the actual facts and then draw an conclusion. Have you read the other comments? Have you addressed that point to hundreds of other race-baiting people here who are automatically assuming that this whole thing is due to racism, without even wanting to hear the bank's side? Did you address that statement ( _"That's why it's good to get the actual facts and then draw an conclusion._" ) to those other folks Mr. Jay in Chattanooga? NO, you didn't. You're just virtue signaling. It sounds good on the surface but I doubt you even really believe it.
1
@lenaprice6239 could’ve been a false alarm, or maybe they garnished a portion of her check and released a pro-rated amount of the funds (disability benefits are taxable). Who knows. But there was a reason her account was frozen and we don’t know until and unless we get the bank’s side of the story.
1
@m.g.3021 where did you go to law school? Was it Harvard or Yale? Because a lawyer like you should know the difference between it's and its
1
Oh honey don’t be so rathist. The bank is guilty of rathism and they need to pay this woman $900 million in reparations otherwise they’re rathist.
1