bank mgr confirms $ withdrawal limits coming in before 60 days

[Large Sarge]

http://beforeitsnews.com/economy/2013/03/bank-manager-verifies-cash-withdrawal-limits-reduced-hours-coming-to-us-banks-within-60-days-2502422.html

[Shami-Amourae]

Cash is King. The general public doesn't know WTF Silver is and wont care. Hold it for when there is a new system or a rare occasional chance at barter. Stack cash now before it's too late.

[osoab]

Omg, Omg, Omg...


:rolleyes:

[Twisted Titan]

I call absolute bullshit.

If a major bank take your pick went from 6 days to 2 and had withdrawl limits there would be absolute pandemonium in less then 48 hours

They can talk about sonething like that but there is no plans to implement.

Nothing even close to cyprus is going to happen while we are still armed

Not even close

[Large Sarge]

I call absolute bullshit.

If a major bank take your pick went from 6 days to 2 and had withdrawl limits there would be absolute pandemonium in less then 48 hours

They can talk about sonething like that but there is no plans to implement.

Nothing even close to cyprus is going to happen while we are still armed

Not even close

I would not be so sure

see, the Cyprus thing will now likely detonate the derivatives bomb, which is many many many trillions of dollars, and the only way the banks deal with those derivatives is to print tons of money (we had a minor derivative event in 2008, we got zombie bank marriages, deflation, and then inflation)

this will be far far far larger in size than 2008

Bernanke is estimating it could cause the loss of confidence in the dollar, its that big

[Silver Rocket Bitches!]

Once again the people will learn to not trust the banks and start depositing their cash under the mattress. If they can get to it before it's plundered that is.

[chad]

this started years ago. i tried to get out 7,000 cash in 2007 or so, took 3 days for them to order the money from the mnpls fed office.

[Dogman]

It would be surprising as chad said, most banks do not hold a bunch of cash.

[Santa]

Yeah, back in 2005 it took me two days to withdraw $20,000. They acted like I was robbing the bank.

[palani]

They acted like I was robbing the bank.

The general rule is that possession of anything over $500 makes you a drug dealer. Oh, and if you routinely carried over $500 in cash (as, say, a tenement manager aka slum lord) then you were permitted a conceal carry permit. Join these two and you might come to a conclusion that only drug dealers were permitted to carry weapons concealed.

[Dogman]

Yeah, back in 2005 it took me two days to withdraw $20,000. They acted like I was robbing the bank.[/QUOTE

Most that we deal with when they are big banks are only drones that we see and deal with. It is the guy/guys at the top that we do not see that are the real ass hats.

[QUOTE=palani;620379]The general rule is that possession of anything over $500 makes you a drug dealer. Oh, and if you routinely carried over $500 in cash (as, say, a tenement manager aka slum lord) then you were permitted a conceal carry permit. Join these two and you might come to a conclusion that only drug dealers were permitted to carry weapons concealed.

I can under stand why 7th take you to task for some of the shit you try and pass as logic.

tho like me others see value in your entertainment value. Gaillo said at one time when the forum had a vote to keep me and not be perma banned, I had entertainment value. It does take all kinds.


And may I take this time to thank the ones that voted to keep me!

Thank you all!

[7th trump]

[QUOTE=Santa;620377]Yeah, back in 2005 it took me two days to withdraw $20,000. They acted like I was robbing the bank.[/QUOTE

Most that we deal with when they are big banks are only drones that we see and deal with. It is the guy/guys at the top that we do not see that are the real ass hats.



I can under stand why 7th take you to task for some of the shit you try and pass as logic.

tho like me others see value in your entertainment value. Gaillo said at one time when the forum had a vote to keep me and not be perma banned, I had entertainment value. It does take all kinds.


And may I take this time to thank the ones that voted to keep me!

Thank you all!
Yeah I wouldnt take palani seriously.
Reason being he never gives any evidence to back any of his claims.
One claim of possessing 500.00 is considered a drug dealer...????? ...huh!
Secondly I believe, in Iowa anyway, you need to carry over 5000.00 and prove the money was for payroll in order to conceal before laws were passed to get a license to carry just to carry.

[palani]

I can under stand why 7th take you to task for some of the shit you try and pass as logic.

Attempting to educate the braindead can be an exercise in frustration. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

http://i50.tinypic.com/11jao7t.jpg

[palani]

One claim of possessing 500.00 is considered a drug dealer...????? ...huh!

Were you not aware that polcymen have a habit of seizing large sums of cash? Why else would you believe they rationalize this action?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency

[Hatha Sunahara]

What is the logic of bringing charges against a sum of money? Is it that the money has no rights? And cannot defend itself? And deserves no due process?

Or is it that you have no rights, cannot defend yourself, and deserve no due process? It seems to be legalized theft. So, now the banks want to join this banquet?


Hatha

[osoab]

What is the logic of bringing charges against a sum of money? Is it that the money has no rights? And cannot defend itself? And deserves no due process?

Or is it that you have no rights, cannot defend yourself, and deserve no due process? It seems to be legalized theft. So, now the banks want to join this banquet?


Hatha

The federal judge that was offed in Gabby Giffords shooting had a pending case of 375K vs US.

[mick silver]

the other day a car going though the city close to me a car was pulled over an the cop got 80t out of the car and the guy went to jail and he did not have drugs on him , what i am hearing there asking why he need so much paper

[Large Sarge]

The federal judge that was offed in Gabby Giffords shooting had a pending case of 375K vs US.

that judge was the one who supported sheriff mack, when overthrew the brady law

[7th trump]

Were you not aware that polcymen have a habit of seizing large sums of cash? Why else would you believe they rationalize this action?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency
You have a lot of speculation the police are treating the money as drug money Palani.

You assume a lot dont you Palani?
No different than you saying I'm going to prison for not participating in Social Security when there's a regulation, an administrative regulation I might add, that says nobody with a ssn has to participate.
And participating in Social Security requires a W4 on file with the employer.

Get it now palani?
Not participating in Social Security means no W4.
No W4 means no withholding from paycheck!
No withholding equates to no "reporting"!
No "reporting" means the IRS database is showing "income" is "-0-", Nada, Zilch.....nothing.
Nothing in the IRS database means the IRS cannot ask the DoJ to prosecute.

[palani]

Nothing in the IRS database means the IRS cannot ask the DoJ to prosecute.

Do you believe that is the ONLY risk? Your ignorance will get you put away eventually. That is what karma is for.

Do yourself a favor and listen to some good programs here
http://library.georgegordon.com/audio

[7th trump]

Do you believe that is the ONLY risk? Your ignorance will get you put away eventually. That is what karma is for.

Do yourself a favor and listen to some good programs here
http://library.georgegordon.com/audio
I know all I need to know about George Gordon. I even know someone from the Quad Cities who been through George's course. Actually lived with George for 6 months to work off paying for the schooling.

What risk?
Do you care to elaborate what you mean by "risk" or are we all just suppose to take your self-proclaimed "guru" status that there's a risk involved?
The administrative law that surrounds the disclosure of ssn specifically states any individual who "wishes" not to participate doesn't have to disclose the ssn.
So what risk are you talking about Palani?

And the only ignorance is your ignorance about Social Security and its role in turning all earnings into reportable and taxable 3121(a) "wages".

You really don't know why the Social Security Act has no language in it that states SS is compulsive participation.
And what really doesn't make sense is that you recite all this legal crap and yet cant figure out why Social Security doesn't have any compulsory language nor why there is NO law in any of the 50 Law Titles stating so. This is why I know your full of bullshit!
You've been to 1215.org and its clearly laid out on that site why Social Security is not mandatory....but yet you chose to be lost in the law with all these wild theories you post here.
You'd rather believe in a lie when the truth fits!

You aren't honest with yourself Palani.
You're biased and ripe with conspiracy's because you cant put a finger on what's really going on.
And to boot you parade yourself as some sort of know all guru who's very good at answering a question with a question.

[palani]

What risk?

Did you consider the risk that you could find yourself living a lie in a fools paradise?

[7th trump]

Did you consider the risk that you could find yourself living a lie in a fools paradise?
So what you are saying is that a government administrative regulation saying a person doesn't have to participate in Social Security is a lie huh?

I bring forth evidence in the form of regulatory law (301.6109-1(d)) relating to the disclosure of ssn's to which you say is a lie.
And you say a lot of conspiracy mumbo jumbo without procuring the necessary evidence .......and its law?

Am I understanding you correctly because I've been accused of a lot of things before only to find out the accuser 85% of the time is the guilty party?
Fools paradise huh?
So far palani you've only proven to me the emperior (you) has no clothes (evidence).

[palani]

So what you are saying is that a government administrative regulation saying a person doesn't have to participate in Social Security is a lie huh?

http://i46.tinypic.com/s5l6kg.jpg

[7th trump]

http://i46.tinypic.com/s5l6kg.jpg

Well we aren't talking about a brothel or those who frequent the brothel now are we?

And on the same token the Social Security Administration (the strumpet) would have to say the pertinent regulation is also a sufficient "fact".
You really cant comprehend the "why's", "what's" and how's of "reporting" can you Palani?

Ignorance really is bliss in your world palani!

[palani]

Well we aren't talking about a brothel or those who frequent the brothel now are we?

Ah, you recognize a parable after all. You are the 'strumpet' and are reporting facts as you observe them in Social Security System's brothel.

[7th trump]

Ah, you recognize a parable after all. You are the 'strumpet' and are reporting facts as you observe them in Social Security System's brothel.
Your view is mentally distorted palani.

I think you palani enjoy being in the brothel. You never bring a damn thing to the table to help anyone.

All hat and no horse......................not even a gun!

[AndreaGail]

everytime I withdraw over $1,000 the teller has to go over to the bank supervisor ::)

[palani]

All hat and no horse......................not even a gun!
Sometimes a hat is all you need.

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee165/mornin-dew/2aa012e382.jpg

[palani]

... that and a turnip.

[palani]

When is it a fact and when is it a law?

Bouviers Law Dictionary gives a clue to this question under the topic of IGNORANCE.
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_i.htm


Ignorance of law, consists in the want of knowledge of those laws which it is our duty to understand, and which every man is presumed to know.

Ignorance of fact, is the want of knowledge as to the fact in question.

Ignorance of the laws of a foreign government, or of another state; is ignorance of a fact.

To 7th trump administrative laws are indeed laws because he adheres religiously to them and relies upon them for his actions (no withholding ... no income tax). To him these are domestic laws rather than foreign laws by his own admission. As he has accepted them fully then he cannot claim they are facts (foreign laws) of which he claim ignorance. He is subject to all of them.

I claim to be ignorant of foreign laws. These are facts by the above definition and (at least according to Bouvier)
It would be an error resulting from ignorance of a fact, if a man believed a certain woman to be unmarried and free, when in fact, she was a married woman; and were he to marry her under that belief, he would not be criminally responsible.
One is not held criminally responsible for not being in possession of certain facts. Foreign law is a fact. One cannot be criminally responsible for not knowing foreign law.

The lesson: Be careful of what you accept as domestic law. Do not cite any statutes unless you care to be held accountable for ALL statutes.

[messianicdruid]

One is not held criminally responsible for not being in possession of certain facts. Foreign law is a fact. One cannot be criminally responsible for not knowing foreign law. The lesson: Be careful of what you accept as domestic law. Do not cite any statutes unless you care to be held accountable for ALL statutes.

If I were to interpret "foreign law" to mean man's rules {policies, statutes, orders} and "domestic law" to mean Higher Law *****'s Law or even Constitutional Law}, could I really expect a corrupt judicial system to respect my ignorance of THEIR stuff? Do you think this is where "stand under" comes into play?

[ HEY! what's with the ***** - I'm talking about YHWH ]

[palani]

could I really expect a corrupt judicial system to respect my ignorance of THEIR stuff? The judicial system is not corrupt except insofar as you yourself are corrupt. Not that I believe they are infallible. Take for instance this idea of a single judicial actor passing sentence as the SOLE judge of fact and law. This is impossible at common law where it takes at least two judges with at least one of them being 'of the quorum'. A single judge only has the authority to set bail or not to hold you until trial. Of course that is my domestic law and just maybe that is foreign law to the judge seated on the bench.

He isn't going to know that until I tell him, is he?



Do you think this is where "stand under" comes into play?
Any statement made by you is going to be used against you; ergo, I would be very careful about making statements of any sort.

[messianicdruid]

"He isn't going to know that until I tell him, is he?"

Maybe he does and maybe he doesn't. Just because he is told the truth doesn't mean he will limit himself by it.

[palani]

Just because he is told the truth doesn't mean he will limit himself by it.

Who is he deceiving? Himself or you or the gawkers, onlookers, bailiffs or recorder?

I once watched a judicial actor 'quash' a UCC lien. He had no authority to do so. His order was a nullity. Yet the corn could now be moved from farm storage to market based upon this imaginary order because commercial people actually believed that this was all it took to cancel the lien.

People are stupid as a rule and tend to believe in the authority of other people who sit four feet off the ground and wear black dresses.

The Wizard of Oz required Dorothy to obtain the conveyance of the Wicked Witch of the West. She dissolved all of the Witches assets (with a bucket of water) and returned with her conveyance (the broom). Oz had no power to do anything himself except to send out the plaintiff to come to an agreement with the defendant on her own.

[Large Sarge]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-22/cyprus-officially-passes-capital-controls-law

[messianicdruid]

Who is he deceiving? Himself or you or the gawkers, onlookers, bailiffs or recorder?

"The judicial system is not corrupt except insofar as you yourself are corrupt."

Well, seems to me, if he is deceiving anyone, he, as part of the system is corrupted.

"One is not held criminally responsible for not being in possession of certain facts."

Not being aware of certain facts does not make you corrupt, but it will get you kidnapped, and your wealth confiscated.

[palani]

"The judicial system is not corrupt except insofar as you yourself are corrupt."

Well, seems to me, if he is deceiving anyone, he, as part of the system is corrupted.

The judicial actors JOB is to get parties to AGREE. If you are not complaining then you are agreeing.


"One is not held criminally responsible for not being in possession of certain facts."

Not being aware of certain facts does not make you corrupt, but it will get you kidnapped, and your wealth confiscated.

Why are you tempting others with your 'wealth'? All I have to tempt anyone is a $5 gold piece and $21 in silver. Even the thieves seem to turn up their noses at my 'offerings'. I have yet to find one willing to donate from their hoard in order to build mine.

[7th trump]

The judicial actors JOB is to get parties to AGREE. If you are not complaining then you are agreeing.



Why are you tempting others with your 'wealth'? All I have to tempt anyone is a $5 gold piece and $21 in silver. Even the thieves seem to turn up their noses at my 'offerings'. I have yet to find one willing to donate from their hoard in order to build mine.

Cant say as I blame them.
You haven't said anything worth while yet.

[palani]

Cant say as I blame them.
You haven't said anything worth while yet.

Yet you continue to AGREE!!!

[messianicdruid]

The judicial actors JOB is to get parties to AGREE. If you are not complaining then you are agreeing.

Is it a fact that one must keep complaining to keep from agreeing?


Why are you tempting others with your 'wealth'?

Why are others tempted by my wealth?

[palani]

Is it a fact that one must keep complaining to keep from agreeing? Perhaps complaining is too misleading. Counter-offering could be a more agreeable action.


Why are others tempted by my wealth?

[S]uch things, and so much of them as he can use, are, indeed, well for him, or Wealth; and more of them, or any other things, are ill for him, or Illth. [Ruskin, "Munera Pulveris"]

[7th trump]

Yet you continue to AGREE!!!
Thats the problem with you Palani.......you think I agree to many things because we dont agree to your interpretations.
You think everyone needs to go to court to settle when in fact nobody has to.
For instance I dont partake in Social Security which the result of that is not having taxes being deducted.
You believe I'm headed for the grey bar hotel which is pure speculation on your part from not understanding the laws surrounding taxes, social security and "reporting".

The courts have many times told the People that the income tax is an "excise" tax.
Well Palani if you took any time out of you schedule of feeding your ego 26usc 3111 specificaly states that any employee earning social security 3121(a) "wages" that are in respect to social security's 3121(b) "employment" the employer is taxed an excise tax.
Theres only one (1) way the employer is hit an excise tax and thats if the employee voluntarily participates in Social Security and earns 3121(b) "wages".

And theres only one (1) way an employee can earn 3121(a) "wages" and thats if the employee is participating in Social Security.
Other than Social Security the government has no interest in your money.
".

[messianicdruid]

"When you put criminals in charge [ of the justice system ] don't expect an outcome that works for anyone except THEM."

[palani]

Other than Social Security the government has no interest in your money.

Can you show me a law that states that slaves are permitted to own anything? Should you trade your labor for gold or silver rather than federal IOUs you might claim to own money but pretending to own a dishonored IOU is almost as bad as having a claim against a bankrupt. Then to compound matters you take advantage of other nitwits willing to accept your IOU in exchange for goods or services. This hardly places you in any position where you can lay claim to any sort of morals.

[messianicdruid]

Perhaps complaining is too misleading. Counter-offering could be a more agreeable action.

One is not held criminally responsible for not being in possession of certain facts.

Okay, is it a fact that you must keep counter-offering, and if you are ignorant of this you will not be held criminally responsible?

[palani]

Okay, is it a fact that you must keep counter-offering, and if you are ignorant of this you will not be held criminally responsible?
Facts and Laws are different subjects and they are in opposition.
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_f.htm

FACT. An action; a thing done. Fact. is also put in opposition to law; in every case which has to be tried there are facts to be established, and the law which bears on those facts.
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_l.htm

Law denotes the rule, not of actions in general, but of human action or conduct.

So to answer your question, it helps to have a rule to begin with and that rule must deal with human conduct. All human interactions are controlled by contract. This general observation includes courtroom actions. So learn to deal with contracts. Refusing to contract is dishonorable. Accepting a contract and not performing is dishonorable. Going silent is dishonorable. Agreeing conditionally is the ONLY action honorable other than agreeing unconditionally and then performing.

Doesn't make any difference if the court recognizes this or not. This is the way it works.

[messianicdruid]

Doesn't make any difference if the court recognizes this or not. This is the way it works.

My problem with your assessment is attributing all responsibility to people who have been lied to and taken advantage of [ oppressed ] all their lives, and letting the perps off with a "they're just doing their job because you are all idiots" defense. Their JOB is to uphold justice.


All human interactions are controlled by contract.

BTW: Who made up that rule?

[palani]

My problem with your assessment is attributing all responsibility to people who have been lied to and taken advantage of [ oppressed ] all their lives, and letting the perps off with a "they're just doing their job because you are all idiots" defense. Their JOB is to uphold justice.
Your job on earth is to overcome. You might think this means to overcome others but instead it is interpreted that you should overcome yourself. You have no responsibility for the actions of others.




BTW: Who made up that rule?
I think it is biblical.

[messianicdruid]

Your job on earth is to overcome.

I have no problem with this.


You have no responsibility for the actions of others.

If their actions are based on lies I have told them, I assume responsibility, especially if my JOB is to uphold justice. Same goes for preachers, teachers and civil servants.

[palani]

my JOB is to uphold justice.
Stay out of court. They are for the administration of Law and not justice.



Same goes for preachers, teachers and civil servants.
These people earn a living by exchanging their labor for FRNs. They have no philosophy and are morally bankrupt from the git-go.

If you want someone to teach your kids principles make sure you pay them in gold or silver. Maybe then they will have a foundation from which to start the process.

[7th trump]

Your job on earth is to overcome. You might think this means to overcome others but instead it is interpreted that you should overcome yourself. You have no responsibility for the actions of others.




I think it is biblical.

Ever notice how Palani puts all the drama behind his bullshit and then turns around and tells you he's not for sure where he heard it from?
Palani never ever confirmed anything he speaks....heck he doesn't even study law or research the statutes to verify he's certain about what hes talking about.
"I think its biblical" huh?

So palani you aren't really sure if it Biblical, or for that matter, if its Walt Disney, but never the less take head to your word?

Hahahahaha.....

[7th trump]

Stay out of court. They are for the administration of Law and not justice.



These people earn a living by exchanging their labor for FRNs. They have no philosophy and are morally bankrupt from the git-go.

If you want someone to teach your kids principles make sure you pay them in gold or silver. Maybe then they will have a foundation from which to start the process.

palani will admit the courts are administrations of law but yet will not acknowledge the court rule by administrative regulations and statutes.
I found an administrative regulation that states nobody has to participate in Social Security which the courts (being administrative) are bound to follow administrative rules and regulations.
Be careful of what you read from palani as palani says one thing out one side of his mouth and says the opposite out the other.

[palani]

Hahahahaha.....With that avatar shouldn't this be 'quackquackquackquack'?

Humor the insane. If you argue with them bystanders will not be able to tell the difference.

[7th trump]

With that avatar shouldn't this be 'quackquackquackquack'?

Humor the insane. If you argue with them bystanders will not be able to tell the difference.
Sober up old man!

[palani]

Humor the insane.

There could be one other possibility. Deliberate attempts are made frequently to muddy the water. Quite possibly 7th trump is such an agent provocateur. His approach is too complicated to actually work.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Palani, would you agree that the laws are corrupt? And that the administration (enforcement) of those laws is also corrupt?

You pointed this out in your original observation that


The general rule is that possession of anything over $500 makes you a drug dealer. Oh, and if you routinely carried over $500 in cash (as, say, a tenement manager aka slum lord) then you were permitted a conceal carry permit. Join these two and you might come to a conclusion that only drug dealers were permitted to carry weapons concealed.

You could argue that slum lords are also drug dealers--in the eyes of the police because of their habit of carrying so much cash.

Also, any judicial actor who accepts the view that a sum of cash is a 'person' that has standing in a court of law is participating in a corrupt practice of stealing property from its rightful owner by fraudulently perverting the concept of ownership.

I take exception to your claim that the legal system is not corrupt. It is staffed by human beings, and it has as much integrity as those who participate in it. Just because a judge agrees that a corrupt practice is legal doesn't make it any less corrupt.


Hatha

[palani]

Palani, would you agree that the laws are corrupt? And that the administration (enforcement) of those laws is also corrupt? Depends upon what laws you are talking about. Statute law that is not based upon reason is corrupt. Statute law that has reason as its base is not corrupt. So no blanket statement can be made without examining reason.


You pointed this out in your original observation that

You could argue that slum lords are also drug dealers--in the eyes of the police because of their habit of carrying so much cash.

Also, any judicial actor who accepts the view that a sum of cash is a 'person' that has standing in a court of law is participating in a corrupt practice of stealing property from its rightful owner by fraudulently perverting the concept of ownership.
Who is the owner of money? The case can be made that the issuer is the owner of paper money. There is no one who can identify coinage although I have seen a court case that claims that the bag or wallet that contains it might sufficiently identify coinage to assign an owner to it.


I take exception to your claim that the legal system is not corrupt. It is staffed by human beings, and it has as much integrity as those who participate in it. Just because a judge agrees that a corrupt practice is legal doesn't make it any less corrupt....Hatha
And this matters to you for what reason? All a judge does is seek to obtain consent. The whole matter of court is about contract. If you don't want to agree then don't go there. That is one reason Bork could claim that nobody was in prison who did not agree to be there.