On 5/1/10 17:24 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
You know, I've been reading posts in this thread, and it truly amazes me
that some of the very same people who _strongly resent_ the idea of the
policeman on every street corner (or is it every tenth of a street
corner these days?) being able to "demand your papers" (your ID) --
something I don't like either -- have _no_ problem _at all_ with the
police state being able to demand not only your ID but intimate details
about your family and home life, and every tiny detail of every
financial transaction you have ever engaged in, on pain of severe
punishment (ultimately enforced by uniformed goons with guns) when the
Census man or the Internal Revenue man comes to call.

Isn't the latter much worse than the former?




I was with my girlfriend, this weekend, when she bought a car.
Simple transaction...pick one out, write a check. Drive it home.

I was amazed to hear the business office tell her that she was
required to fill out a credit application for the transaction. Name,
address, all credit card and all bank account numbers were required.
Rent payments, utility payments, any other oblications. Employment
history for the last 10 years, with names and phone numbers.
Residential history for the last 10 years with names and phone
numbers of landlords, mortgage companies.

And all sources of supplementary income.

When asked why the hell such detailed invasion of personal
information was necessary to write a check...why not just call the
bank verify the check and the amount, or hold it until it can be
verified.

I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with
the Patriot Act.

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 5/1/10 17:24 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:


When asked why the hell such detailed invasion of personal information
was necessary to write a check...why not just call the bank verify the
check and the amount, or hold it until it can be verified.

I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with the
Patriot Act.




large cash transactions have been suspicious as long as I can remember.

On May 2, 5:43*pm, dave wrote:

large cash transactions have been suspicious as long as I can remember.

A large transaction for you is pan-handling for 0baMa0's Change.
Besides, you can't remember past this morning.

On May 2, 3:40*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote:
On May 2, 5:43*pm, dave wrote:



large cash transactions have been suspicious as long as I can remember.

A large transaction for you is pan-handling for 0baMa0's Change.
Besides, you can't remember past this morning.

Another useful contribution! Thanks so much!

On May 2, 2:05*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/1/10 17:24 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

You know, I've been reading posts in this thread, and it truly amazes me
that some of the very same people who _strongly resent_ the idea of the
policeman on every street corner (or is it every tenth of a street
corner these days?) being able to "demand your papers" (your ID) --
something I don't like either -- have _no_ problem _at all_ with the
police state being able to demand not only your ID but intimate details
about your family and home life, and every tiny detail of every
financial transaction you have ever engaged in, on pain of severe
punishment (ultimately enforced by uniformed goons with guns) when the
Census man or the Internal Revenue man comes to call.

Isn't the latter much worse than the former?

* *I was with my girlfriend, this weekend, when she bought a car.
Simple transaction...pick one out, write a check. Drive it home.

* *I was amazed to hear the business office tell her that she was
required to fill out a credit application for the transaction. Name,
address, all credit card and all bank account numbers were required.
Rent payments, utility payments, any other oblications. Employment
history for the last 10 years, with names and phone numbers.
Residential history for the last 10 years with names and phone
numbers of landlords, mortgage companies.

* *And all sources of supplementary income.

* *When asked why the hell such detailed invasion of personal
information was necessary to write a check...why not just call the
bank verify the check and the amount, or hold it until it can be
verified.

* *I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with
the Patriot Act.





Well, that's pretty loopy - I can sort of understand if it was just to
guarantee that she'd be able to pay if the check rubberized, but -
Patriot Act? I've never liked the Patriot Act anyway, and I didn't
even know this was in there.

Yecchh.

On 5/2/10 17:17 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 2, 2:05 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/1/10 17:24 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

You know, I've been reading posts in this thread, and it truly amazes me
that some of the very same people who _strongly resent_ the idea of the
policeman on every street corner (or is it every tenth of a street
corner these days?) being able to "demand your papers" (your ID) --
something I don't like either -- have _no_ problem _at all_ with the
police state being able to demand not only your ID but intimate details
about your family and home life, and every tiny detail of every
financial transaction you have ever engaged in, on pain of severe
punishment (ultimately enforced by uniformed goons with guns) when the
Census man or the Internal Revenue man comes to call.

Isn't the latter much worse than the former?

I was with my girlfriend, this weekend, when she bought a car.
Simple transaction...pick one out, write a check. Drive it home.

I was amazed to hear the business office tell her that she was
required to fill out a credit application for the transaction. Name,
address, all credit card and all bank account numbers were required.
Rent payments, utility payments, any other oblications. Employment
history for the last 10 years, with names and phone numbers.
Residential history for the last 10 years with names and phone
numbers of landlords, mortgage companies.

And all sources of supplementary income.

When asked why the hell such detailed invasion of personal
information was necessary to write a check...why not just call the
bank verify the check and the amount, or hold it until it can be
verified.

I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with
the Patriot Act.





Well, that's pretty loopy - I can sort of understand if it was just to
guarantee that she'd be able to pay if the check rubberized, but -
Patriot Act? I've never liked the Patriot Act anyway, and I didn't
even know this was in there.

There are a lot of ways for the dealership to protect itself from
a rubber check. Including simply holding the vehicle until cleared.
This was wholly unnecessary.



Yecchh.

On May 2, 3:22*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/2/10 17:17 , bpnjensen wrote:





On May 2, 2:05 pm, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 5/1/10 17:24 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

You know, I've been reading posts in this thread, and it truly amazes me
that some of the very same people who _strongly resent_ the idea of the
policeman on every street corner (or is it every tenth of a street
corner these days?) being able to "demand your papers" (your ID) --
something I don't like either -- have _no_ problem _at all_ with the
police state being able to demand not only your ID but intimate details
about your family and home life, and every tiny detail of every
financial transaction you have ever engaged in, on pain of severe
punishment (ultimately enforced by uniformed goons with guns) when the
Census man or the Internal Revenue man comes to call.

Isn't the latter much worse than the former?

* * I was with my girlfriend, this weekend, when she bought a car.
Simple transaction...pick one out, write a check. Drive it home.

* * I was amazed to hear the business office tell her that she was
required to fill out a credit application for the transaction. Name,
address, all credit card and all bank account numbers were required.
Rent payments, utility payments, any other oblications. Employment
history for the last 10 years, with names and phone numbers.
Residential history for the last 10 years with names and phone
numbers of landlords, mortgage companies.

* * And all sources of supplementary income.

* * When asked why the hell such detailed invasion of personal
information was necessary to write a check...why not just call the
bank verify the check and the amount, or hold it until it can be
verified.

* * I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with
the Patriot Act.

Well, that's pretty loopy - I can sort of understand if it was just to
guarantee that she'd be able to pay if the check rubberized, but -
Patriot Act? *I've never liked the Patriot Act anyway, and I didn't
even know this was in there.

* *There are a lot of ways for the dealership to protect itself from
a rubber check. Including simply holding the vehicle until cleared.
This was wholly unnecessary.

Absolutely, fully agree.

On 5/2/10 18:24 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 2, 3:22 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/2/10 17:17 , bpnjensen wrote:





On May 2, 2:05 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/1/10 17:24 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

You know, I've been reading posts in this thread, and it truly amazes me
that some of the very same people who _strongly resent_ the idea of the
policeman on every street corner (or is it every tenth of a street
corner these days?) being able to "demand your papers" (your ID) --
something I don't like either -- have _no_ problem _at all_ with the
police state being able to demand not only your ID but intimate details
about your family and home life, and every tiny detail of every
financial transaction you have ever engaged in, on pain of severe
punishment (ultimately enforced by uniformed goons with guns) when the
Census man or the Internal Revenue man comes to call.

Isn't the latter much worse than the former?

I was with my girlfriend, this weekend, when she bought a car.
Simple transaction...pick one out, write a check. Drive it home.

I was amazed to hear the business office tell her that she was
required to fill out a credit application for the transaction. Name,
address, all credit card and all bank account numbers were required.
Rent payments, utility payments, any other oblications. Employment
history for the last 10 years, with names and phone numbers.
Residential history for the last 10 years with names and phone
numbers of landlords, mortgage companies.

And all sources of supplementary income.

When asked why the hell such detailed invasion of personal
information was necessary to write a check...why not just call the
bank verify the check and the amount, or hold it until it can be
verified.

I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with
the Patriot Act.

Well, that's pretty loopy - I can sort of understand if it was just to
guarantee that she'd be able to pay if the check rubberized, but -
Patriot Act? I've never liked the Patriot Act anyway, and I didn't
even know this was in there.

There are a lot of ways for the dealership to protect itself from
a rubber check. Including simply holding the vehicle until cleared.
This was wholly unnecessary.

Absolutely, fully agree.


Hold on, that's twice in three days. Let me that weather forecast.

On May 2, 3:27*pm, retrogrouch wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2010 15:17:38 -0700 (PDT), bpnjensen

wrote:

* *I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with
the Patriot Act.

Well, that's pretty loopy - I can sort of understand if it was just to
guarantee that she'd be able to pay if the check rubberized, but -
Patriot Act? *I've never liked the Patriot Act anyway, and I didn't
even know this was in there.

Yecchh.

Yep. Any transactions totaling *over $10,000 needs a Patriot Act
report. My DENTIST is having to file these.

Better than filing teeth, I guess.

retrogrouch wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2010 15:17:38 -0700 (PDT), bpnjensen
wrote:

I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with
the Patriot Act.




Well, that's pretty loopy - I can sort of understand if it was just to
guarantee that she'd be able to pay if the check rubberized, but -
Patriot Act? I've never liked the Patriot Act anyway, and I didn't
even know this was in there.

Yecchh.


Yep. Any transactions totaling over $10,000 needs a Patriot Act
report. My DENTIST is having to file these.



The dictates of the Washington regime have, with the wildly misnamed
"Patriot Act," finally taken away _all_ of our financial privacy,
which is a fundamental part of our personal privacy.

We have now reached the _end_ of the slippery slope which was begun
when the Income Tax amendment was fraudulently imposed on the
American people. (Fraudulently? Yes. It was sold to the people under
the pretense that the proposed tax would never be imposed on wages,
and would never need to exceed three per cent. even on the incomes
of millionaires. We were told that wages, being an equal exchange of
time and labor for an equivalent amount of money, did not result in
profit and therefore were _not_ income and would therefore never be
taxed. All these assurances were lies.)

That was the beginning of the pernicious concepts 1) that the
criminals in Washington had the right to _know_ what your "income"
was, and 2) that the criminals in Washington had the right to take
whatever percentage of that "income" they so chose. Both concepts
are utterly alien to any reasonable conception of freedom and to the
ideals of the founders.


With every good wish,


Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/