It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Arbitrary Legal Advice, Interpretation, Law and Reality. I smell a Skunk

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:14 PM
I post in Skunk Works because after a series of "Firsts" within the past few months, I find it astonishing that my inquiries pose more questions than answers.

Here, I will begin with current time-line, thus ascending the information I have accumulated from what could only be described as eclectic exchanges.

The other day, I ordered some stuff online.
When I attempted to "check out" my "Cart", Virtually electronically, I chose a standard payment method; i.e. Visa, M/C, Discover, American Express...

However, after reviewing and confirming the information input to the secure https: automated wizard/script/applet ot whatever name given, I proceded to click the final hyperlink, sending the payment.

Interestingly, the address I used associated with the payment method was unsuccessful.
In the instruction regarding input of this information, I was intructed to input the address whrere I receive my statement, so that is what I did input.

Now, when I received an invalid response to the information association - (credit card and address didn't match, according to the automated serrogate proxy vender -
I was returned to the URL of the information in question.
I then input the correct associated address for the card and upon resubmittal of the information, the transaction was accepted and confirmed.

This morning, when ritualistically viewing my online banking data, I found that the payment had indeed gone through, as was noted prior from the day the payment status of "pending" had now been posted and deducted from the balance.

Interestingly, there now appeared a duplicate pending transaction and upon further investigation, I found that, indeed, the vendor had sent confirmation for two transactions, both having unique order confirmation numbers.

I went to the vendors website and found that the posted hours of operation were such that they were open. I called the landline phone number and the automated answering system did, after the usual *spew of non-applicable babble - (see foot note at end of post) -, allow me to leave a voice mail message.

I voiced my reasons the call was placed and multiple contact numbers, feeding the recording as much as it's allotted time/memory would allow, and when it finally cut off the recording mode, I hung up the phone and hit redial.
I anticipated that a human or automated holding pattern would allow me to speak with a representative, in order of call received, due to the first call being placed at their precise openning time and knowing that there could potentially be a small timeframe that the humans at the other end of the phone call could be late or some other glitch, and that I would eventually get through to a human who could then verify and correct the billing/order duplicate.
It again sent me by automation to a voice mail recorder and again I spoke to the machine until it cut off record.

I waited until the top of the next hour for a return call, which did not occur, so I called my bank.

Funny thing, my bank call took me to a voice mail where I left a message regarding the duplicate account charge and concluded with,

"By the way, it IS 8:00 and you should be open."

I received a return call from my bank withing two minutes.

The representative said that the pending hold was just to confirm the funds were good to the vendor and would be returned to my account.

I asked, "On reviewing the transaction(s), I have received automated email confirmations of two transactions, five minutes apart, with two unique order confirmation numbers", and that in fact this was a duplicate order and I went on to suggest that the initial failed payment attempt because of the address association with the card being incorrect, - (which I knew, but the instruction was to input the address where I received my statement, rather than the alternate address, which would have been correct)...

Hmmm....I am compelled to include at this point that as I write this, my phone rings. CID shows only "incoming call" and no numeric number of origin.
I answer on the third ring, and there is no response on calling party's end.
I hang up, check CID and there is no reference to the call.

Back on subject,
and to get to my point of this.

I had a similar, yet unique problem a few months back and after conflicting information when I attempted a remedy of the previous problem was told, after the fact, that my bank rep "could do nothing about it".

Today, I was told that the finds were held but would be returned. I found this statement to be wrong, unacceptable and misleading, even though I could be wrong or could have misinterpreted the information given.
So, in quest of clarity, I repeated my reservations of the information I saw, the data I witnessed in real time when purchasing the stuff, the fact that two transactions with unique confirmation numbers were auto-emailed to me and that the first payment had cleared and the pending charge, which I would associate with the duplicate order five minutes after the only intended order, and without need to reflect further any other possibilities, could clearly see that the two transactions were seperate transactions no matter the cause, which I could reasonably calculate that the address issue that forced me to reenter data, could easily be deduced from the evidence that the release of the pending charge was not certain.

I was assured that the information given was correct and that I could not see the data that the representative was viewing and that is why I could not concur with what I was told.

I again explained briefly the prior problem and how the end result had cost me, and only me financially, at which point I prodded, "How could a failed transaction later be shown as not only valid, but charged, which caused funds to be held for three days, (which in the first incident was physically six days due to day one being a friday and the weekend - which was also followed by a holliday the monday next, - and as we all know, or at least hopefully all know, that the weekends and holidays favor the banks, with the exception of extending a time sensitive due date to the following business day beyond the date if it falls on a holiday or weekend day.

I then asked, how is it possible for a transaction which is confirmed as "failed" to later tap an account of funds?

I was told, "Any company can access funds and I would have to submit a request to reverse the charge in writing, and the data would be reviewed and then a decision made at that point.

I asked, "can you site the code that allows a company to do this?"
The reply was, "no."

I asked, "what is your source of information that you used to tell me that it is legal for a company to do this"?

The reply? - "The bank can only review written requests"

So, I am told by a representative of my bank, over the phone, that it is legal for a company to tap my account when the transaction has been confirmed as failed, yet the source of this legal standing can not be produced.

I did not ask if it was legal, I did not ask for legal advice. I asked how a company could access my account if the transaction had never been confirmed, thus, had never taken place to begin with, in other words.

So for someone representing a bank tell me that this is legal, but cannot provide the point of law used to establish this claim, seems to be outrageous and above the capacity of the representative.

Is this rep a lawyer? Did this person pass the bar?
Did this information come from God speaking to them?
Will this representative rise and claim to be the christ returning in the near future?

Time will tell...

In the meantime, I am amazed that a claim such as this is allowed by protocol and policy with my bank.
I will inquire with my branch manager about this, in person, next time I go in.

Here is what I can personally confirm...

I have seen judgements in courts that are not following code, and it just seems that arbitrary judgements are rampid and interpretation skewed without regard to code of law and I believe it is only getting worse.

We now have people without legal standing or credentials telling us what is legal without source of claim, and as a bank representative, I thought this kind of conduct was reserved only for the FED and it's complicit banker minions.

I am now off to work via my bank to inquire further in person.

Funny thing, my bank rep is giving legal advise without siting code or case with court opinion ...? WOW...Just Wow...

* I believe the extended automated information prior to accessing a voice mail is intended to extend the phone time above the one minute mark so that those service providers that round to the next minute can increase the charges to the phone service customer. prove me wrong on this hypothesis...

[edit on 13-4-2010 by imd12c4funn]

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 01:21 PM
You make very good assertions, two practical observations from my viewpoint: unless you had a management contact, whoever was on the phone was a drone and they gave you whatever line the script provided, which was they need a claim in writing (bank policy, nothing legal)

The second observation is that yeah this happens all the time no it's not legal or morally justifiable - you were vigilant and noticed it - and it's up to you to rectify the situation. Send them a rational email explainging the situation and what relief you seek. Get a name and follow up with a phone call in terms they'll understand like "fiduciary responsibility" "standards of accounting" and "regulatory intervention".



log in