🚨 BRITAIN: YOU NO LONGER CONTROL YOUR OWN MONEY 🚨
— Jim Ferguson (@JimFergusonUK) March 25, 2025
đź”´ A UK father tried to withdraw ÂŁ2,500 of his own money to buy a motorbike for his son.
🔴 The bank’s response?
❌ “You’ll need to prove how you’re going to spend it.”
❌ Access denied — with no legal wrongdoing.
❌ When… pic.twitter.com/sCF3qWmECY
I once was asked at my bank why I was withdrawing some money. I did answer but that was the only time I was asked. In the US, deposits are not your money: the bank can literally take it to pay off debt as a bail-in. While there are certain conditions, it is possible. As Grok pointed out to me, it is unlikely. At which point I reminded it of how Obama treated preferred bond holders of GM stock.
from Grok:
Summary
- Did Obama Supersede the Payment Hierarchy?
- Unsecured Bondholders: Yes, in effect, though not directly. The Obama administration’s restructuring plan, backed by $49.5 billion in TARP funds, gave unsecured bondholders a 10% equity stake in New GM, while the UAW (a lower-priority claimant) received a 39% stake. This deviated from the absolute priority rule, as bondholders should have been paid in full before the UAW received anything. However, the plan was legally approved by the bankruptcy court under a Section 363 sale, which allows for such deviations if deemed in the best interest of the estate. The government’s leverage and the court’s approval enabled this outcome, effectively bypassing the standard hierarchy.
- Preferred Shareholders: No. Preferred shareholders were wiped out, which aligns with the bankruptcy hierarchy. They are equity investors, below all creditors, and typically receive nothing in a Chapter 11 reorganization of an insolvent company like GM.
- Legal vs. Political: While the restructuring was legally permissible under the Bankruptcy Code (via Section 363 and court approval), the Obama administration’s influence effectively altered the payment hierarchy for unsecured bondholders, prioritizing political and economic goals (e.g., saving jobs, ensuring GM’s survival) over strict adherence to legal priority.
- Implications: The GM bankruptcy highlighted the tension between legal principles and government intervention in times of crisis. Bondholders felt their rights were bypassed, but the government argued that the restructuring was necessary to save GM and the broader economy.
In the U.S. when you deposit money in a bank it legally becomes the bank’s money.
From Investopedia:
“When someone opens a bank account and makes a cash deposit, they surrender the legal title to the cash, and it becomes an asset of the bank.”
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bank-deposits.asp
So long as a central bank like the Federal Reserve is allowed to exist, there can be ZERO security in banking and ZERO freedom of choice. There is NO safe haven so long as the FED exists.
I have stated before on other post on here I don’t trust the banks. I don’t leave no money in the banks since 9-11. Only put money into the bank to pay bill. When my Social Security hits the bank, I’m right there within hours and withdraw it all.
Wonder if he could withdraw $500 at a time over a month or so ? I have called the bank ahead of time when I wanted to withdraw a good bit of cash. They usually say OK but once I was asked if I could wait a couple of days for them to get the cash in. Nobody uses cash anymore so banks don’t feel the pressure to keep very much cash on hand.
Banks are increasingly operating as if they were organs of the State — and the State asserts a primary claim over whatever you have that it wants. “The needs of the State come first, Comrade!”
Remember the argument, not long ago, about whether money is property and therefore protected from seizure under the Fifth Amendment? I do!
This is why I joined a credit union. The dollars in your savings account ARE your shares in the credit union. Deposit your pay into savings and transfer what is needed to checking to pay bills.
On,y gold/silver is money. Everything else is currency, controlled by others.