Article

2008-01-10 -Signs, Portents, and the Weather-

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by USN,Ret. 2008-01-10 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 All I'm going to say is ONLY ON GUAM.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-01-10 00:29|| 2008-01-10 00:29|| Front Page Top

#2 Sounds too weird to be true, but it probably is. Citicorp also owns & runs the entire Sears charge card operation. Click here for details.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2008-01-10 01:35|| 2008-01-10 01:35|| Front Page Top

#3 I've only had trouble with these folks. I closed down my card with them 15 years ago and never looked back.

Posted by gorb 2008-01-10 03:48|| 2008-01-10 03:48|| Front Page Top

#4 For a bank that's probably currently insolvent that's a stupid move.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2008-01-10 05:00|| 2008-01-10 05:00|| Front Page Top

#5 People experiences always seem so different. I have been with them for years and I never had a problem with them. Always been very good with me.

Posted by bernardz 2008-01-10 05:43|| 2008-01-10 05:43|| Front Page Top

#6 Why would anyone bank with citicorp? Crappy rates, crappy service and now they are on a religious crusade. Too many better choices come in the mailbox every day to deal with such inferiority.

Posted by Whomong Guelph4611 2008-01-10 05:49|| 2008-01-10 05:49|| Front Page Top

#7 This is likely the result of agreements they have with foreign banks. Many Euro banks have rules about this sort of thing and it may be that they won't do business with American banks that do credit deals with individual purchasers of firearms (although I doubt they would balk at profitable loans to large manufacturers of the same). This of course is not to excuse Citigroup - they could have negotiated harder with these foreign banks to exclude the exclusion, as it were. Or they could simply have walked away from the deal.

At any rate, it's a good object lesson as far as what we can expect in terms of dominoes falling on 2nd Amendment issues if a President sold on the idea of U.N. sovereignty gets into the White House.

Posted by no mo uro 2008-01-10 05:59|| 2008-01-10 05:59|| Front Page Top

#8 Many Euro banks have rules about this sort

that's cool. I have no problem dealing in-house. America is a HUGE market. If they don't want our business, I'll just bank with those who do. Like I said, every day.

Posted by Whomong Guelph4611 2008-01-10 06:05|| 2008-01-10 06:05|| Front Page Top

#9 It's a self imposed sentence, if they don't want the business, rest assured someone who does will step up and scarf up on it. Citi isn't some kind of commie, govt. run bank, they don't have to do any kind of business they dont want. They're retards, that is a given, but they don't have to take your business.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-01-10 06:57|| 2008-01-10 06:57|| Front Page Top

#10 On a somewhat related sidenote, I learned a lesson recently about "cancelling" credit cards. In September, 2004 I requested that one of my credit card accounts be "cancelled" and was told that it would be. Last month I received a statement from said account showing a $25 charge. The charge was from AOL (I haven't had an AOL account in 15 years). After several long and fruitless discussions with service agents about how this could happen to a supposedly cancelled account and how to prevent it happening again, I spoke with a supervisor. He cleared things up in about 2 minutes by simply "invalidating" the account (as if the card were stolen).

Posted by Erk 2008-01-10 07:06|| 2008-01-10 07:06|| Front Page Top

#11 The question remains: can Citi impound the funds they are holding from CDNN?

That seems very dicey in legal terms, and I hope the gun dealer in question sues them.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-01-10 07:10|| 2008-01-10 07:10|| Front Page Top

#12 I would be surprised if there is any truth in this story what so ever. Any sources? There is no way that citi can legally seize funds. IF they did, then there is obviously MUCH more to this story than the supposed 'victim' is letting on. Tinfoil hats in place.

Posted by ... 2008-01-10 09:06|| 2008-01-10 09:06|| Front Page Top

#13 Here's the source.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2008-01-10 09:42|| 2008-01-10 09:42|| Front Page Top

#14 Nannystateism at any cost, apparently.

Citibank needs sued.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-01-10 09:51|| 2008-01-10 09:51|| Front Page Top

#15 Not saying it's so, but there is an explanation that squares with what's disclosed and is legal: All card associations and processors have different processing fees and rules for 'card present' versus 'card not present' transactions. There's more fraud in the latter, so rates are higher, and the rules differ, e.g, in card-not-present a customer dispute amount is charged back on the merchant right off - not so in card present.

So, if the merchant in present had been putting through card-not-present transactions as if they were card-present, they would be in violation of their contract and could legitimately have funds withheld to cover the difference in rates. If they were the target of disputes by their card using customers - presumably gun shops - they could also have funds held back as a result.

Citi could well be doing something stupid and bogus here, and I'll be paying attention since I've held one of their cards for 24 years (egads!) and will cancel if they are doing so. But I'd give this one the 48 hour rule, at least, since there's another possible explanation.

Posted by Nero 2008-01-10 13:48|| 2008-01-10 13:48|| Front Page Top

#16 'merchant in present' s/b 'merchant in question'. Feh. PIMF.

Posted by Nero 2008-01-10 13:49|| 2008-01-10 13:49|| Front Page Top

#17 Here is the actual letter sent to CDNN Sports. It specifically states that, due to CDNN selling fire arms, the contract was canceled.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2008-01-10 14:24|| 2008-01-10 14:24|| Front Page Top

#18 In 2003,Citicorp picked up my home mortgage with two payments left....I paid both,and 20 days later they say my payment was not received...(I paid in person,had receipt)Seems Citicorp had problems transfering data from previous mortgage co. to their computers and several thousand home owners received same letter from Citicorp..even though payments were made...took them weeks to sort it all out..

Posted by Crazyhorse 2008-01-10 14:57|| 2008-01-10 14:57|| Front Page Top

#19 Thanks, Deacon, I missed that link on the first read. Yes, looks like Citi has some explaining to do. I await that with interest, meanwhile I'll actually open a few of the credit card solicitations that seem to rain from the sky. BTW, the 'reserve' discussed in the letter is consistent with my post about card-not-present charge backs. Whether the amount is appropriate isn't possible to tell without knowing the volume of transactions the merchant has been doing. I notice the processing agreement had only been in place for two months, so it's very unlikely that Citi/FDC had enough experience with merchant to have determined a fraud or other risk profile specific to them.

Posted by Nero 2008-01-10 17:23|| 2008-01-10 17:23|| Front Page Top

#20 Actually the people you should complain to isn't Citicorp, it's Visa and Mastercard. Citicorp can ONLY process cards with Visa and MC's okay. I'm not sure, but their actions might even be against the rules of Visa and Mastercard. So in addition to canceling the accounts with Citicorp, give Visa and MC a call about Citicorp.

Posted by Silentbrick">Silentbrick 2008-01-10 19:24|| 2008-01-10 19:24|| Front Page Top

23:47 twobyfour
23:46 twobyfour
23:21 Mike N.
23:20 Redneck Jim
23:04 JosephMendiola
23:03 JosephMendiola
23:01 trailing wife
23:01 JosephMendiola
22:44 twobyfour
22:16 www
22:16 Abu do you love
22:14 Rex Mundi
22:14 JosephMendiola
22:11 JosephMendiola
22:08 JosephMendiola
22:05 RD
22:05 JosephMendiola
22:01 3dc
21:57 Old Patriot
21:43 mom (mrs. James)
21:16 Eric Jablow
20:56 JosephMendiola
20:52 Eric Jablow
20:46 mhw