by Judicial Watch
The lawsuit was filed after the FBI failed to respond to a February 10, 2021, FOIA request seeking:
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the United States Department of Justice for records of communication between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and several financial institutions about the reported transfer of financial transactions made by people in DC, Maryland and Virginia on January 5 and January 6, 2021 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:21-cv-01216)). Last week, the FBI refused to confirm or deny any such records exist.
All records of communication between the FBI and any financial institution, including but not limited to Bank of America, Citibank, Chase Manhattan Bank, Discover, and/or American Express, in which the FBI sought transaction data for those financial institutions’ debit and credit card account holders who made purchases in Washington, DC, Maryland and/or Virginia on January 5, 2021 and/or January 6, 2021.
Bank of America reportedly “actively but secretly engaged in the hunt for extremists in cooperation with the government” and, following the events of January 6, gave the FBI financial records of their customers who fit the following profile:1. Customers confirmed as transacting, either through bank account debit card or credit card purchases in Washington, D.C. between 1/5 and 1/6.
2. Purchases made for Hotel/Airbnb RSVPs in DC, VA, and MD after 1/6.
3. Any purchase of weapons or at a weapons-related merchant between 1/7 and their upcoming suspected stay in D.C. area around Inauguration Day.
4. Airline related purchases since 1/6.
On June 8, 2021, the court overseeing the lawsuit ordered the FBI/DOJ to respond substantively to Judicial Watch’s request within 30 days.
On June 17, 2021, the FBI responded to Judicial Watch’s request, stating that the request was “too broad” and asked for “further clarification and/or narrowing” of the request.
On June 24, 2021, Judicial Watch responded to this request by sending a news article detailing Bank of America’s handing over transaction records to the FBI of people in the Washington, DC area around the date of January 6.
by Jack Davis
is being attacked for its recent actions to limit sales of legal
firearms by critics who note that the massive bank was willing to do
business with Iran a few years ago until it was fined by the Treasury
“Citibank…they preemptively buckled under the pressure by refusing to cooperate with businesses that legally sell certain #firearms…Meanwhile, the Treasury Department found that same company, @Citibank, violated sanctions and did business with, wait for it…Iran!” NRATV tweeted, quoting spokesperson Dana Loesch.
"Citibank…they preemptively buckled under the pressure by refusing to cooperate with businesses that legally sell certain #firearms…Meanwhile, the Treasury Department found that same company, @Citibank, violated sanctions and did business with, wait for it…Iran!” –@DLoesch pic.twitter.com/4twtL2YPnj
— NRATV (@NRATV) March 26, 2018
week, Citibank said that it would no longer do business with legal
firearms stores unless they agree to the bank’s most recent demands.
“Under this new policy, we will require new retail sector clients or partners to adhere to these best practices: (1) they don’t sell firearms to someone who hasn’t passed a background check, (2) they restrict the sale of firearms for individuals under 21 years of age, and (3) they don’t sell bump stocks or high-capacity magazines,” wrote Ed Skylar, executive vice president of global public affairs, on the bank’s blog.
But some noted that Citibank has, in the past, been willing to do business with groups that were banned by the U.S. government.
IRAN: THE ROLE OF CITIBANK – The New York Times – https://t.co/sLLNjjYWqB
Citibank refuses to do business with Companies who sell guns to Americans but they deal with Iran? Once again "To be a Democrat, you must first be a lying hypocrite." — Larry Nelson (@southernarcher) March 27, 2018
The U.S. Treasury Department found that @Citi violated U.S. sanctions against Iran, specifically laws against doing business with WMD proliferators. Nuclear proliferators are okay, but not lawful American gun retailers. https://t.co/ytxi76ClAx pic.twitter.com/z8M5HaVevY
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) March 24, 2018
In 2014, Citibank was required to pay $217,841, Reuters reported.The Treasury Department said at the time that the bank was under investigation for violating multiple sanctions programs of the Office of Foreign Assets Control. It alleged that Citibank processed more than $750,000 worth of transactions to banned individuals or groups in Iran.
Loesch was not alone in criticizing the actions of the bank.
South Dakota state Rep. Kristi Noem, a Republican, said that the bank is trampling on the Americans’ rights. “This is a constitutionally protected right. The Second Amendment is incredibly important to the people of South Dakota and what Citibank did was to come out and infringe on that right,” she told KSFY.
“I do not think it’s a business’s place to mandate to people, that they do business with, especially a bank, that they have to comply with their own set of rules and regulations,” Noem said.
by Allen Williams
Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) is a huge conglomerate featuring global asset management which “is the asset management division of Royal Bank of Canada” located
in Canada, the United States, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and
Africa, Latin American and the Caribbean. Your investments work hard
to build the globalist vision of a new order.
”RBC is the 12th largest bank in the world based on market capitalization and the fifth largest in North America.” Barron’s notes that RBC Wealth Management is looking to Grow having actively recruited a significant number of high profile investment managers over the last 8 years.
But all is not well in the RBC golden world of investment as RBC is charged with Negligence and Elder Abuse If you have a few bucks to invest and you’re of retirement age then beware because the wealth management brokerages are going to milk you. What do you mean by that remark you might ask? Well, older people are prime targets for abuse by investment firms because the money is there and ripe for the taking and seniors tend to be overly trusting.
RBC User Agreement, Section 7C:
"IN ADDITION TO AND WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, RBC CM SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY HARM CAUSED BY THE TRANSMISSION, THROUGH THE PROGRAM, OF A COMPUTER VIRUS OR OTHER COMPUTER CODE OR PROGRAMMING DEVICE THAT MIGHT BE USED TO ACCESS, MODIFY, DELETE, DAMAGE, CORRUPT, DEACTIVATE, DISABLE, DISRUPT OR OTHERWISE IMPEDE IN ANY MANNER THE AVAILABILITY OF THE INFORMATION OR ANY OF YOUR SOFTWARE, HARDWARE, DATA OR PROPERTY."
This statement also removes liability from the transfer of erroneous information from ‘typos’ and other such glitches which may cost you money.
RBC Capital Markets, LLC
60 South 6th Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Attention: Client Support Services, Mail Stop P12
Phone: 1-800-933-9946 (Weekdays 8:00am-10:00pm ET and Saturdays 10:00am-6:00pm ET)
The White law Group reports: “According to The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, an all-public FINRA arbitration panel has awarded $212,000 to the estate of a former RBC Wealth Management client who had charged the firm with negligence and elder abuse.
"The attorneys of the client, the late Hazel Kitzman, charged that RBC Wealth Management engaged in the unauthorized sale of shares in the client’s account and
in the unauthorized transfer of funds from an account at another firm.
The attorneys requested compensatory damages of at least $1.5 million,
treble punitive damages and reimbursement of all legal costs, all of which the FINRA panel denied.”
that ‘unauthorized RBC broker activity’ because we’ll see that again
shortly. Think this is just sour grapes or a few disgruntled clients?
Well, take a look at a host of other complaints as RBC Wealth Management Reviews compiles complaints summed up nicely by ‘RK’ back in January of this year with ”..Money sucking leeches. No fiduciary responsibility. Will suck you dry with fees.”
RBC Wealth Management meets that assessment.
Then there’s just the run of the mill abuse like a $140 yearly ‘account’ fee for not buying anything. Remember interest rates are barely 3% and inflation is currently at 2.1%. As a big or small investor you pay for not buying the financial investments a brokerage offers, even if you lose return on that investment. The forced purchase of unwanted goods or services from corporations has become a global hallmark. This policy causes older investors with smaller portfolios to purchase less desirable investments to keep their accounts from being pillaged by excessive and ruthless fees.
If you’re an elderly or a new retiree investor expect to be milked if you don’t know the ropes. And, even if you do, the financial industry is structured such that there are no real penalties for fund mismanagement or cheating a client because the account holder must agree upfront to binding arbitration as a condition of getting an account
Outside a court of law the odds swing dramatically in favor of the brokerage, so do not count on FINRA for
any real relief. The centralized global banking system is designed to
extract wealth from the general populace virtually at will simply by
changing the prime rate. Fees for any alleged services are just icing
on the cake.
The recent HSBC LIBOR rate fixing scandal
illustrates just how easily the banks can cheat people and the Federal
Reserve System has demonstrated how well its QE releases can rob the
nations’ citizens of their purchasing power.
These financial conglomerates own the various individual governments around the world and 20 trillion in debt buys a lot of favors. Then there’s the annual revisions to Brokerage fee policies which can occur after you’ve committed significant resources to the firm. Remember, whomever controls the money limits your options and ultimately controls you
Be sure and read the fine print in the RBC periodic account updates so you’re not surprised by the latest excursion into your back pocket.
Controlling the investor market is the key to successful brokerages because interest rates are rock bottom low in the public sector. And, it’s risky for individuals to play the stock market or derivatives in today’s environment. So offering investments priced slightly above what’s available at the trough guarantees a pool of people with above average financial strength.
Managing RBC Investments
Managing a brokerage account at RBC will tax your time as much as if you were actually a broker yourself, from watching for mistakes in tabulated interest to your accounts to buying financial instruments that you didn’t want just to satisfy an order. Here’s an example of what can happen, even if you watch, from last December as I purchased a financial instrument from BOFI federal through the brokerage: “I did not authorize a purchase beyond the BOFI investment. If an additional $2000 worth of BOFI was not available, you should have called me to ask if I wanted to buy something else offering the same terms. Obviously, you didn't think it was worth asking me what I wanted to do with my own money.”
The RBC Broker’s reason for the snafu? Why a ‘typo’, what else? Note that elderly investors don’t have the time to make up losses from bad deals that their brokerage might recommend like zero coupon J.P. Morgan chase securities which can pay zero interest for months until the consumer price index increases.
If you have more than one brokerage account, then you must be prepared to buy something within the specified time frame for each account. If you don’t buy regularly in a calendar year then you pay an ‘inactivity fee’ under the following conditions.
First, investment maturity doesn’t count. If you have an existing security and it matures then you get no credit for reinvesting that principal with that brokerage.
Interest from other investments that pay into your brokerage account isn’t activity either, ‘activity’ is only new purchases that lead to the broker making a profit from your account. So, why keep it there? Because it will cost you another fee to close the account anywhere from $90.00 upwards.
Pursuant to the RBC ‘user agreement’, I bought another financial instrument in January 2018 with an end of the month settlement date to avoid the penalty ‘for not investing’. Sounds like the Obamacare penalty, doesn’t it?
I received the RBC purchase confirmation in the mail. But at the end of January the capital was still in my investment account so the purchase was in doubt as my agreement with the broker stipulated the money was to be transferred after the 26th of the month. I had to call the broker to discover that they had bought the instrument with their own money. Why? This is highly irregular. I’ve never had securities bought on credit before without my knowledge and so this experience was of some concern given the wording of their user agreement: “..until payment is made by you, securities purchases by you or held by us for your account will be or may be hypothecated comingled with securities for other clients. If payment or delivery is not made by the settlement date, we reserve the right without further notice to charge interest on the amount due shown on the face hereof..”
And despite what the brokerage may tell you, there is a good chance that an interest charge will appear on the next statement. Also, guess who will be keeping the interest on the investment until the funds are transferred? So, if you can buy something on credit without client approval, why not double my order as well and hold me liable?
Even RBC’s instrument purchase confirmations are full of additional clauses that work against the account holder. And there’s no recourse provision in these clauses for RBC negligence when a buy order isn’t executed
because the user agreement requires client agreement to binding
arbitration instead of a court of law or you don’t get the account. So to find out what additional fees may have been dumped on you in a given transaction, you must request an explanation in writing or you get nothing: “.this
transaction may have incurred other fees..a complete breakdown of fees
associated with the transaction will be provided on your written
In December,of this year I transferred my account to another broker using the RBC system. RBC like many large banks earns its money by gouging clients with outrageous fees as the loan industry is no where near as lucrative. And fees aren't subject to the same scrutiny as loan interest.
I was charged a $125 fee for transferring my holdings to another financial adviser even though the funds remain at RBC. Then I was charged an additional $45.79 for electronic transfer of my records to the other adviser within the same bank. As RK aptly noted, they are 'money sucking leaches..'
I immediately sent off a letter of protest to Warren Bischoff, the RBC Complex Director taking issue with the transfer charge on my investments moving within the same bank to another broker. After several weeks of non response from RBC, I wrote a letter of complaint in January of 2019 to both the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Comptroller of the Currency (as the latter regulates all foreign banks) to protest this outrageous fee. Shortly after getting my letter off to the regulating agencies, RBC reversed the fee.
After I had contacted FINRA, in early March of 2019 $325 dollars was refunded to my new brokerage account. To date I have not heard from Comptroller of the Currency as apparently this case did not fall under their jurisdiction.
If you’re looking for a place to invest, look well beyond RBC‘s client satisfaction hokum.