Good for Her!!!

[Astrostar]

A Black retiree won money at a casino and is suing bank after she says she was turned away while trying to deposit a check | CNN

A Michigan retiree is suing a Detroit bank after she says employees refused to cash a check she received from a casino after winning a jackpot.

www.cnn.com

Thankfully, this lady is fighting back! Any act of overt racial discrimination should be answered with a vigorous lawsuit.

 

[1srelluc]

Soaring Eagle?.....Seems legit.

 

[lg325]

I hit an 80/1 long shot with other smaller winnings at the horse track the bank that I did business with called the law on me. A detective interviewed me before they would deposit it. So I understand the lady's plight.

 

[toobfreak]

Thankfully, this lady is fighting back! Any act of overt racial discrimination should be answered with a vigorous lawsuit.

How is it that every Tard here has the brains of a turnip? There is no "racial" discrimination here, you MORON! The bank refused the check because they thought it fraudulent, not because of the color of the depositor's skin! All money is GREEN to a bank no matter where it comes from.

What the bank SHOULD have done but apparently didn't, was to call the issuing bank covering the check and to merely verify the account and that it had sufficient funds. Then deposit the check but hold the funds until it cleared. If it had bounced, then the depositor would simply owe them a fee.

 

[Muhammed]

A Black retiree won money at a casino and is suing bank after she says she was turned away while trying to deposit a check | CNN

A Michigan retiree is suing a Detroit bank after she says employees refused to cash a check she received from a casino after winning a jackpot.

www.cnn.com

Thankfully, this lady is fighting back! Any act of overt racial discrimination should be answered with a vigorous lawsuit.

Could you explain to the USMB forum, the reasoning that you used to come to the conclusion that there was actual racial discrimination involved?

I've had banks turn down checks too. Millions of people have. Typically, it's bank employees just covering their own ass.

 

[Esdraelon]

Soaring Eagle?.....Seems legit.

Any instrument like that should be easily verified electronically. If those employees didn't even try to confirm their "suspicions" then the bank deserves the grief.

 

[B. Kidd]

Link is sparse on details.

She didn't have an account at her own bank?
Did she have proper ID?
Did she qualify to buy whipped cream in NYC??

 

[pknopp]

I wonder if her church will get 10%?

I had my bank tell me that a Canadian money order was fake. I questioned them on it and even had the person in charge that day double check it. She insisted it was fake. I did get it back.

I took it to the post office (It wasn't a large amount) and the lady there rolled her eyes and said they do this all the time because they didn't want to deal with Canadian money orders.

 

[1srelluc]

Any instrument like that should be easily verified electronically. If those employees didn't even try to confirm their "suspicions" then the bank deserves the grief.

I know but "Soaring Eagle"?

I'd give it the same scrutiny as a check from the Bank of Nigeria.

 

[bodecea]

Soaring Eagle?.....Seems legit.

Reservation casino...
If you lived in the states, you'd know they're almost everywhere.

 

[1srelluc]

Reservation casino...
If you lived in the states, you'd know they're almost everywhere.

I don't think we have any in Virginia. Our Injins' just bring our governor a turkey every year.

 

[mamooth]

The US banking system is broken, in that it has so much trouble telling if a check is valid.

That's the thing behind the various fake check scams. The fraudster sends the victim a big check (fake) for some reason, and then makes up another story why the victim should send some money back.

The victim deposits the fake check. Money appears in their account. The victim thinks the check has cleared, and so they send money back to the fraudster (who has specified a non-refundable electronic method, not a check.)

A month later, the bank finally figures out that the check was bad, and takes the money back. The victim is out what they sent to the scammer, plus a whole lot of bank fees.

No other civilized country has that inept of a banking system.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A Black retiree won money at a casino and is suing bank after she says she was turned away while trying to deposit a check | CNN

A Michigan retiree is suing a Detroit bank after she says employees refused to cash a check she received from a casino after winning a jackpot.

www.cnn.com

Thankfully, this lady is fighting back! Any act of overt racial discrimination should be answered with a vigorous lawsuit.

How was it racial discrimination? Was a white person with a similar check from the same check provider able to open an account?

There is a lot missing from this story which is typical of the MSM to excite people. I don't know of any bank in the US that could look at a check and claim it was fraudulent. I call bullshit on that claim. A bank can make contacts to make sure the check is genuine, but not simply by looking at it.

Next is the question did she want an immediate withdrawal from the check? Some checks take time to clear. Did they tell her she could open an account but must wait until clearance of the check, or just that she couldn't open an account with it?

If there was anything that came close to discrimination, the institution would cower in the corner like many do. Fifth Third stands by their employees handling the situation which tells me they went by company standards to open a new account, and I seriously doubt one of those standards are to refuse black people.

This is why I've been saying for a long time that we need to change our lawsuit laws in this country to a loser pays all law. Sue anybody you like, but if you lose your case, you are by law required to reimburse the defendant for all costs associated with the lawsuit. That would stop most of this BS.

 

[braalian]

I know but "Soaring Eagle"?

I'd give it the same scrutiny as a check from the Bank of Nigeria.

Yeah but obviously people from Michigan will have heard of it. I used to live on the other side of the state from Detroit, and everyone over there instantly knows what Soaring Eagle is.

Maybe they didn’t cash it because they were skeptical it was really issued by the casino. But I can guarantee you every one of the tellers in that bank had heard of Soaring Eagle.

 

[fncceo]

Banks are under increasing scrutiny to prevent money laundering. Attempting to open a new-account with a third-party check, particularly one not written on the bank of the check issuer is going to raise red flags.

 

[fncceo]

Sue anybody you like, but if you lose your case, you are by law required to reimburse the defendant for all costs associated with the lawsuit.

Civil suits, as this one would be, are decided by a judge on the "balance of probabilities". Each side will tell their story and present what evidence they have to back it up. The judge will decide which story is less fishy and they will win the suit.

After that, either side, win or lose, has the opportunity to file a separate suit for costs. Automatically granting costs to the plaintiff or the defendant after the judgement would prejudice the case.

It would prevent a less than well-funded plaintiff from from bringing suit in the first place for fear of being charged costs against a much better resourced defendant.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Civil suits, as this one would be, are decided by a judge on the "balance of probabilities". Each side will tell their story and present what evidence they have to back it up. The judge will decide which story is less fishy and they will win the suit.

After that, either side, win or lose, has the opportunity to file a separate suit for costs. Automatically granting costs to the plaintiff or the defendant after the judgement would prejudice the case.

It would prevent a less than well-funded plaintiff from from bringing suit in the first place for fear of being charged costs against a much better resourced defendant.

Yea, but that's kind of the idea.

Only suits that have legitimate claims should be brought to court. Ambulance chasers talk people into filing bogus suits with a one in a hundred chance of winning. As long as the attorney is working under a contingency, what would a plaintiff have to lose?

My Uncle was sued for racial discrimination years ago. He rented an apartment to a black lady who stopped paying her rent. He lived in Washington state at the time.

In retaliation, she filed a discrimination suit. She knew he'd have to fly back to Cleveland to fight it, and of course the legal costs which he had to eat. The court ruled in his favor, but the thousands it cost him with flights back and forth from Washington to Cleveland and attorney costs, she got her revenge and it didn't cost her a nickle.

I'm sure you are familiar with the case here of Tamir Rice. He was the 12 year old that pulled a realistic gun on a police officer and was shot dead because of it. The grand jury didn't indict the officer because he acted in self-defense and had no idea the gun was a toy. But the city of Cleveland gave his fat pig mother 5 million dollars because (like most cities) they feared a higher cost fighting the civil case.

The list goes on and on. If you are wealthy and famous, you have a target on your back for women making false claims if sexual attacks that happened many years ago. In most cases the defendant just pays them off to make them go away, but that only encourages the next set of bimbos to do the same thing.

Back to the OP: There are too many things wrong with this story for it to be believable. But I'm sure she got a hold of some ambulance chaser to take the case (or they contacted her) and win or lose, it won't cost her a thing. In the meantime, it will cost Fifth Third tens of thousands of dollars to fight the claim if it is (as I suspect) pure BS.

 

[Independentthinker]

A Black retiree won money at a casino and is suing bank after she says she was turned away while trying to deposit a check | CNN

A Michigan retiree is suing a Detroit bank after she says employees refused to cash a check she received from a casino after winning a jackpot.

www.cnn.com

Thankfully, this lady is fighting back! Any act of overt racial discrimination should be answered with a vigorous lawsuit.

I don't think we're getting the whole story here. Who wins that much money and then goes to the bank to just cash the check and walk out with the money? And, not even a white person can do that. Banks would put a hold on the check for for few days to make sure it did clear first. Like I said, I don't think we're getting the whole story here. Are people really that stupid to think you can just walk into a bank, cash a very large check on the spot, and just walk out with the money? And, why would they do that? It's just stupid. I don't even like to ever carry more than a hundred dollars on me. Most of the time I have less than fifty in cash on me. Something's just not adding up here.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

What the bank SHOULD have done but apparently didn't, was to call the issuing bank covering the check and to merely verify the account and that it had sufficient funds. Then deposit the check but hold the funds until it cleared. If it had bounced, then the depositor would simply owe them a fee.

I agree. My only question is, have they ever done that with a check before because if they have, why couldn't they do it this time? All that they did was dig their hole even deeper by not doing things the right way when being approached by a person of color.

God bless you and the lady always and may she kick butt!!!

Holly

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't think we're getting the whole story here. Who wins that much money and then goes to the bank to just cash the check and walk out with the money? And, not even a white person can do that. Banks would put a hold on the check for for few days to make sure it did clear first. Like I said, I don't think we're getting the whole story here. Are people really that stupid to think you can just walk into a bank, cash a very large check on the spot, and just walk out with the money? And, why would they do that? It's just stupid. I don't even like to ever carry more than a hundred dollars on me. Most of the time I have less than fifty in cash on me. Something's just not adding up here.

According to the OP she said she wanted to open an account with the check and they told her the check was fraudulent. That doesn't make any sense on several levels.