All Banks Notified by DHS of Unannounced Warrentless Looting of Anyone's Personal Bank Accounts or

I have been trying to find proof of the claims made in the following article, and although it seems at least some of it is true, I am not sure all of it is. I haven't found any source providing the notice from the DHS, all i found was "a family member working for Bank Of America told me" type of evidence, but I did find from the main article other links which seem to corroborate that the DHS is indeed doing this.

Anyway, every one of you should make your own decision. i will just post what I have found so far, and if anyone finds more corroborating evidence please post it.

According to in-house memos now circulating, the DHS has issued orders to banks across America which announce to them that "under the Patriot Act" the DHS has the absolute right to seize, without any warrant whatsoever, any and all customer bank accounts, to make "periodic and unannounced" visits to any bank to open and inspect the contents of "selected safe deposit boxes."

Further, the DHS "shall, at the discretion of the agent supervising the search, remove, photograph or seize as evidence" any of the following items "bar gold, gold coins, firearms of any kind unless manufactured prior to 1878, documents such as passports or foreign bank account records, pornography or any material that, in the opinion of the agent, shall be deemed of to be of a contraband nature."

DHS memos also state that banks are informed that any bank employee, on any level, that releases "improper" "classified DHS Security information" to any member of the public, to include the customers whose boxes have been clandestinely opened and inspected and "any other party, to include members of the media" and further "that the posting of any such information on the internet will be grounds for the immediate termination of the said employee or employees and their prosecution under the Patriot Act."
...

www.knowthelies.com.../6020


However, if you read the other links provided in the main article it does seem that they are hinting to something like what is claimed.

The following is a long read, but it also seems to corroborate the claim made about the "in-house DHS memos."

Here is the conclusion.

...
Conclusion: Convergence of Private and Public
Practices for Financial Recovery and Continuity
Many practices in the Interagency Paper came from financial firms’ experiences
and may thus be considered both public and private-sector ideas. Should the threat
level increase, government expects critical private financial institutions to have security forces, identity checks, and restricted access, and to work with state and local authorities.44 The Fed, a body with both public and private elements,45 remains ready to be the lender of last resort to the financial system and its customers as well. Recovery in the blackout of 2003, for example, was facilitated by the Fed,
institutions activating internal contingency plans, as well as a paging and alert
system set up after Sept. 11 by the Financial Services Roundtable (a group of major
financial providers) and its technology arm, called BITS.46

www.law.umaryland.edu...

However, if we only had the above to go on it doesn't sound too bad, except when you read other documents such as.

ABSTRACT
The 2001 Patriot Act chipped away financial privacy protections by
allowing law enforcement authorities easier access to bank customer
records. Under the Patriot Act, federal authorities may access customer
records by issuing formal subpoena-like requests under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) or informal national security
letters (“NSLs”) to banks while prohibiting notice to any affected
customers. However, the 2006 revisions to the Patriot Act permit banks
to challenge FISA requests and NSLs in federal court before releasing
customer records. While the Act does not require banks to make these
challenges on behalf of their customers, this Article will argue that the
contracts banks sign with their customers—interpreted in light of the
banking tradition of confidentiality and the current regime of federal
and state privacy protections—obligate banks to review government
requests for customer records and file challenges when appropriate.
Furthermore, I will argue that banks and customers should be able to
enter into contracts explicitly obligating banks to challenge FISA
requests and NSLs and that such contracts would be enforceable and
financially feasible.*

www.luc.edu...


But the above is also stating that a new provision of the Reauthorized Patriot Act allows banks and other institutions, at their discretion, to challenge these requests, but institutions are not obliged to do so.

However I would still like to see the DHS memo to either completely corroborate this story, or discard it as only half truth and half exagerations.

All the more reason for people to tell the banks to stick it, and start digging holes in our backyards.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I don't know what the new reauthorized Patriot Act holds, but I know they don't do anything without a mountain of paperwork! It might not be a "warrant" like we are used to, but they definitely do not seize funds or open safe-deposit boxes without a mountain of paperwork to back it up.

Also, I have been pleasantly surprised through my work, at the reluctance of banks to cooperate with lawful intentions of the government. They don't work as cooperatively as you might imagine, and in every instance they work to CYA for themselves first. Eventually they always comply with lawful requests, but they don't take it lightly!

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

I don't know what the new reauthorized Patriot Act holds, but I know they don't do anything without a mountain of paperwork! It might not be a "warrant" like we are used to, but they definitely do not seize funds or open safe-deposit boxes without a mountain of paperwork to back it up.

Also, I have been pleasantly surprised through my work, at the reluctance of banks to cooperate with lawful intentions of the government. They don't work as cooperatively as you might imagine, and in every instance they work to CYA for themselves first. Eventually they always comply with lawful requests, but they don't take it lightly!

They do not cooperate because they cannot make a buck, it isn't because they are "protecting" their customers.

First of all, your title is VERY misleading!

They are talking about getting access to bank records, and NOT your personal belongings. The only source saying they can take whatever they want is that ridiculous blog

But yeah, they can of course freeze your accounts if you break the law, but that's nothing new. However, I hope you see the difference between asking for records and actually taking what's in the account.

Love how certain bloggers twist the information to fit their fantasy narrative

Having said that, there's tons wrong with the patriot act and it needs to go...but your analysis of this aspect is flawed...or more like the blog's analysis is flawed...

I will call my local Homeland Security office in the morning, and ask them if this rumor is true. I will report back what I find out.

reply to post by Skewed


I don't think the poster meant that. I think they meant that banks make sure they cross their t's and dot their i's before they comply to cover their own hides, which has the direct consequence of protecting their customers. I don't think the person was implying that banks do it to protect customers, though.

reply to post by Skewed


I think it is more because they are protecting their bucks. They don't want to do anything that could set them up for liability later. They are very particular. It is an odd conundrum, because on the one hand some government authority is demanding something, and on the other hand, some government authority is warning them to protect privacy and integrity of accounts. Once a request is made, they are stuck between two aggressive government entities. On the other hand they have consumers and aggressive attorneys looking to hang them and get a fat settlement. Banks are plenty evil, but I almost feel sorry for them in these cases....ok maybe not, but it is a tough spot.

If this info turns out to be valid it will cause a run on the banks surely - then what? Sh.. this is BIG stuff happening - good find!
flag and a star - wish I could give you a nice gold bar lol.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
First of all, your title is VERY misleading!
...

First of all, I gave the exact title that the original link gave to this article. i did not change the title simply because I am trying to find out whether this is true or not and the thread is about what they are claiming in that blog.

Second of all, i clearly stated that I wasn't sure the claims made by that blog were true or not, and CLEARLY also stated that I would like to see the memo instead of relying just on "hearsay."

However, at least PARTIALLY it seems some of the story is true, which I CLEARLY stated in the OP.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


In that case I can calm you down...it's a blatant lie

If you bother reading other articles on that blog site, you realize it's mostly lies mixed in with a few half truths. Like the UN weapons ban, which also is a blatant lie.

I'd try to get info from reputable sources rather than biased blogs that blatantly lie or refuse to do proper research

reply to post by Skewed


I am G146541 and I endorse this message!
Seriously i killed all of my bank acounts a lomg time ago, i buy non reloadeable visa's if i need to do online buying and best of all is the annonimity.
Best way to hurt the bankers is not let them do their jobs.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Good luck with that approach. I wrote and asked FEMA about the FEMA concentration camps and they simply never answered. I am sure it got me on a list somewhere though. Lol.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

Good luck with that approach. I wrote and asked FEMA about the FEMA concentration camps and they simply never answered. I am sure it got me on a list somewhere though. Lol.

Dude, if you seriously asked for "concentration camps" they probably thought you are pranking them

I would

reply to post by MrXYZ


The UN weapons ban is a blatant lie?... since when?...

Now I think it is you who is twisting things around... in fact we do know that the UN does want to ban citizens from owning firearms... We have had several threads about it with direct links which say exactly what they want.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

The UN weapons ban is a blatant lie?... since when?...

Now I think it is you who is twisting things around... in fact we do know that the UN does want to ban citizens from owning firearms... We have had several threads about it with direct links which say exactly what they want.

It's a lie because they're not coming for your weapons as the article claims. Only very few weapons will be outlawed, some of them seriously flawed and causing injuries

Read up on the actual UN resolution and what weapon types it concerns.

So before you get all itchy, don't worry, you can keep 99% of your guns unless you're one of the nutcases who has full blown car mounted machine guns

reply to post by MrXYZ


Now i know you are out of touch with reality... The UN, just like politicians from the U.S., U.K. Europe and everywhere in between claim one thing and do another.

These people want to register all firearms as well as bullets, which means you have to pay EXTRA and have licences to be able to have a "legal' firearm", which makes it a PRIVILEDGE and not a right to own firearms. Knowing how the economy is, and that we know it will get worse you think people are going to be able to afford firearm, and bullet licences?...

More and more regulations, licences, and other run arounds are being introduced worldwide which are banning firearms...

Do you think the UK banning handguns was not with the consent of the elites, and the UN?

Want to buy a firearm in illinois and tell us how free you are to own one?...

Of course they don't go straight for all firearms at once, but more and more regulations, and restrictions are being introduced, with the blessings of the UN and the world elites, which in essence are not allowing citizens their right to own and bear arms...

You think the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment is seen throughout the United States as the law of the land?... If that is so why have so many states either completely banned civilians from owning firearms, or there are so many restrictions, or the licences are so expensive that it is impossible for people to own and bear firearms?...

BTW, before you go claiming i must have illegal firearms, every one i have is legal, but i also know that despite the claims of some like yourself the people in power do want to get our right to own and bear arms and have been working on this goal for a long time.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

More and more regulations, licences, and other run arounds are being introduced worldwide which are banning firearms...

I think the Virginia Tech shooting as well as the latest Tucson shooting made it abundantly clear that there's not enough regulations...because as it stands, every psychopath and his dog can get a gun. Hell, most guns used in the Mexican drug wars are bought in the US because it's so easy, and it cost more people's lives than the war in Afghanistan

Having a right is all god an well, but not at the expense of innocent lives!

Originally posted by MrXYZ
I think the Virginia Tech shooting as well as the latest Tucson shooting made it abundantly clear that there's not enough regulations...because as it stands, every psychopath and his dog can get a gun. Hell, most guns used in the Mexican drug wars are bought in the US because it's so easy, and it cost more people's lives than the war in Afghanistan

Having a right is all god an well, but not at the expense of innocent lives!

Ah, i see now why you claim they have no intention of going after legal firearms...

The Virginia Tech shooting is a prime example why civilians should be allowed firearms even in schools. If one teacher, or any other student have had a firearm so many people wouldn't have died...

The same happened with the Ft Hood shooting... thanks to another gun-grabbing idtiot, Bill Clinton, military personnel are not allowed to have firearms inside bases, which is why the Muslim extremist was able to kill so many military personnel..

BTW, you are obviously ignorant of the fact that in the U.S. the military weapons which are available to law abiding citizens are SEMI AUTOMATICS, and not fully automatic, and in case you didn't know the Mexican drug cartel has FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, which means it is nothing more than a LIE that the Mexican drug cartel is getting their firearms from legal sources in the U.S...

BTW, obviously you haven't heard that in the UK even after the handgun ban all crimes INCLUDING crimes with handguns have INCREASED, and you know why?... Because criminals don't give a rats behind about laws, and they obtain their firearms illegally...

In case you didn't know gangs in the U.S., and most criminals get their firearms through the black market...

Puting more regulations, and more restrictions on legal firearms will only disarm good citizens more and more, and the more disarmed that good citizens are, the more advantage criminals have.

Anyway, now we are getting off topic, but we can clearly see why you are making these claims that the elites, including the UN are not going after legal firearms....obviously you want even MORE regulations and probably even bans on firearms...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

The Virginia Tech shooting is a prime example why civilians should be allowed firearms even in schools. If one teacher, or any other student have had a firearm so many people wouldn't have died...

And if that psychopath couldn't have gotten a gun in the first place, the rest wouldn't need guns at all

Also, the guy who had a gun at the Tucson shooting almost shot innocent people by accident...

But either way, the none of the UN regulations would take away your gun unless you had some ridiculous giant machine gun mounted to a truck or similar nonsense that can't be defended with "need to protect myeself". No one needs guns like that, there are no zombie invasions last I checked