Wells Fargo are crooks

[Tom Ace]

I said theft was an incorrect word BECAUSE it doesn't fit the legal definition. Byteware then try to reason it DID fit the legal definition because the judge made them repay the money...


ME:



"You do nothing for your case," BECAUSE, this situation doesn't fit the legal definition of theft.

Yeah, and nowhere in that post you quoted does it say "because it doesn't fit the legal definition", nor is it implied. And even if that was your contention, it was an irrelevant point, since no one ever said it fit the legal definition of "theft". That's my whole point. We're not concerned with whether it fits the legal definition.

Can we end this now?

Only if you're ready to admit that the original use of "theft" wasn't incorrect, because it wasn't meant to fit the legal definition.

Yes, there is a reason it can't apply, a reason you even acknowledged a few posts back.

And yet there was no reason for your original comment saying "theft" shouldn't be used in this case. You keep going back to your discussion with Byteware. That's irrelevant. Your original comment was not in response to him. If you can admit your original comment not in response to anyone asserting that this was theft according to the legal definition was in error, we can be done with this.

Yes, it was "illegal," I admit that... no it was not theft according to the law.

Thank you. Now, I'm not debating whether or not it's theft according to the law. I'm saying that's not what your original comment said. Your original comment was in response to someone who was not claiming it was theft according to the legal definition.

Wrong again, it was communicated to the customer, but according to the judge, not in an adequate way.

Do you always go around looking for arguments like this? Not communicating it and not communicating it properly are the same thing here. The point is that many customers didn't know about the policy, meaning it was not communicated to them.

 

[cipher6]

since no one ever said it fit the legal definition of "theft". That's my whole point. We're not concerned with whether it fits the legal definition.

Obviously a judge agreed that it was theft

If your saying the judge agreed it was theft, your talking about the legal definition, because thats what judges do, give legal opinions.

 

[Dark Jedi]

No, it's not. The point is that the 5 6-dollar transactions occurred first, and therefore were submitted to the bank first. Obviously, if the 120-dollar one was submitted to the bank first, it would make sense to process it first. In this case, they even admit that they don't do it in the order in which they receive them.



Yes, it does. It uses the same logic you're using. You're saying that when a person overdraws their account, they can't complain when they get 5 overdraft fees instead of the one it should be. You're saying they're not a victim. The gang-rape victim, by that logic, is not a victim either if she gave her consent to the first rapist, but not the other 4.

No I didnt say they couldnt complain. I said they have a hand in the events at hand just like WF has. I said what they did wasnt fair. At the same time if they would of managed their account. Like the one college student was for 3 years and watched it like a hawk. The moment she stopped watching her account and was like well I should have enough money in and she went over. Sorry ignorance isnt an excuse to overdraft ones account.

So like I said the account holders are at much at fault as the bank is. Like the old saying goes it takes two to tango and they should take their fair share of the blame and not put it all on WF. In the end they still over drafted their account.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Yes, and that victim should be subject to the penalty as has been communicated to them. The problem was these victims were penalized according to a standard not communicated to them. No one is saying they shouldn't be charged an overdraft fee. What we're saying is they should only be charged one overdraft fee, not 5.

Clarify please.

Are you saying that if you write five bad checks, I mean you have five checks in overdraft, you should be charged one overdraft fee for the lot rather than separate fees for each check?

If so, I am not sure if that is fair to the bank. I think it is called "Check Kiting" which is against the law.

Bob

 

[Dark Jedi]

Clarify please.

Are you saying that if you write five bad checks, I mean you have five checks in overdraft, you should be charged one overdraft fee for the lot rather than separate fees for each check?

If so, I am not sure if that is fair to the bank. I think it is called "Check Kiting" which is against the law.

Bob

What he is saying is WF goes from largest to smallest amount. No matter if the larger amount was written days after the small amounts was. They dont post it when they receive it.

 

[Tempusfugit]

Wow... Reading this thread has answered a lot of questions for me about why this country is so screwed.

Mods please close. Someone open a new thread if they want to argue the non-facts of this case.

 

[Trident]

Thread closed per request of Tempusfugit.