Citibank

D

Desertscout

New member
I don't think this has been posted yet. Get on the phones, it's time to go back to work.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty/20000219_xnjdo_citibank_f.shtml

Citibank forces gun withdrawal
Financial giant no longer serves 'businesses that deal in weapons'

By Jon E. Dougherty
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

A new corporate policy at Citibank, one of the largest corporate banks in
the world, prohibits "maintaining accounts for businesses that deal in
weapons," according to a letter sent from the Las Vegas branch of Citibank
to a local pistol club owner.

The letter, dated Feb. 7, said the Nevada Pistol Academy would be forbidden
from doing business at the Citibank branch as of Thursday, Feb. 17. The "Notice
of Account Closure" said the bank was closing the academy's checking account
and instructed account holders to refrain from making further deposits or
writing checks on the account.

After the closing date, "any additional funds remaining in your account on
the date of closure will be sent to you in the form of an official bank check,"
the letter said. Bank officials provided a customer service number for the
account holders "if you have any questions regarding our decision to close
your account."

Chris Lorenzo, director of the academy, said he received the bank's letter
"within 3 or 4 days of opening my account." He told WorldNetDaily that no
one at the bank informed him of Citibank's policy when he opened his account.

When he called to ask about the cancellation, "they gave me the runaround,"
he said. WorldNetDaily placed several calls to Citibank officials with no
response.

Lorenzo said that while he felt the "bank was entitled to its own opinion,"
he just felt "other shooters might want to know this information." As a
result, Lorenzo said he contacted the National Rifle Association who, he
said, is looking into the legalities of the case. His NRA contact, Chris
Oswald, was out of the office for the weekend when WorldNetDaily contacted
the NRA late Friday afternoon.

Chris Stark, director of the Texas Gun Owners Alliance, called the action
an "outrage," and said it fell "under the category of unlawful restraint
of trade." http://www.goa-texas.org/citibank-1.htm

"For Citibank to operate in this manner is a violation of common and ethical
business practices and is discriminatory," he added.

The full text of Citibank's letter follows:


Citibank (Nevada) N.A.
4065 South Jones Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89103

Tel 702/364-2061


February 7, 2000

Nevada Pistol Academy
4610 Blue Diamond Road
Las Vegas, NV 89139

CUSTOMER NOTICE: ACCOUNT CLOSURE

Account Number: (removed for privacy)

Your Citibank checking account will be closed ten calendar days from
the date of this notice. This action is necessary due to Citibank not
maintaining accounts for businesses that deal in weapons.

Deposits to this account will not be accepted as of three business days
from the date of this notice. Please refrain from writing additional
checks on this account.

Checks presented for payment will be honored until your account is
closed if sufficient funds are available. Any additional funds
remaining in your account on the date of closure will be sent to
you in the form of an official bank check.

If you have any questions regarding our decision to close your account,
please contact our 24 hour customer service telephone number, 800-756-7047
or Text Tel/TTD 800-756-0382.
 
I wonder if Citibank will discontinue contracts with armored transport companies that insist on arming their drivers/guards. Maybe they'll hire pizza delivery types to transport their money since most pizza companies forbid their employees from carrying arms.
 
I don't know about you, but I'm going to dial that 800 number on Monday morning. Let them pay to hear my opinions since they so generously offer the option.
To borrow a phrase:

Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
What Gwinny said!
Thanks,
Mcshot

------------------
"Keep shootin till they quit floppin"
The Wife 2/2000
 
Oh, man... What a crock!

It just so happens that I do have a Citibank account that I can cancel, they're getting too much money from me anyway.

I wonder if they'll eventually resort to closing personal accounts as well, if they see a check come in that was written to a "weapons dealer" or if someone charges a weapons purchase on their credit card.

What an outrage. Monday mornin'...Citibank's CSR's better be ready, cuz they're gonna get an earful.

------------------
"Liberty or death, What we so proudly hail... Once you provoke Her, rattling of Her tail- Never begins it, NEVER- But once engaged never surrenders, showing the fangs of rage. DON'T TREAD ON ME!!
 
Better make it Tuesday gang; Monday is a federal holiday. :D
Hope my bank doesn't decide to follow suit.

------------------
Panzerführer

Die Wahrheit ist eine Perle. Werfen sie nicht vor die Säue.
 
I'll be cancelling mine asap and letting them know why. I wish now I had taken up the offer sent by the NRA a couple of months ago! I'll be posting the url for the article on a couple of other boards and bringing it up at the next meeting of my gun club just to spread the word around
 
They sure never had any problem with me using my Citi Bank Visa to buy ammo, accessories and parts over the net.

Well, I guess the next unsolicted Visa that comes in the mail gets Citi Banks former business.

Anyone know of a KBA bank?

Jeff
 
If you want a little more fun, call them and their related companies and request info every now and then. They'll probably include a postage paid return envelope. Return it every time, with a copy of your letter about this discriminatory policy of theirs.

Monkey-wrench 'em ... legally.
 
More confirmation.

Well, a number of us hoped, and some of us expected, the recent news about Citibank to be proven false. No cigar. It is apparently true.

I just got off the phone with a woman from Citigroup in New York. You can reach her as well at 800/285-3000, select 'directory assistance', and ask for whoever is handling the Citibank weapons controversy.

I spoke with a very pleasant and courteous woman, Ms. Barb Hamill (spelling?). She took a great deal of time with me to discuss the issue.

She said she would be unable to fax anything to me on letterhead, but she has apparently been provided with a FAQ sheet for use in answering consumer questions. I didn't take notes on many of the responses - to be frank, they were 'corporate-speak', indicating they had a right and obligation to do business essentially as they see fit, etc.

The most important point - their statement about the nature of this policy. This I transcribed word-for-word:

"Citibank Consumer Business has a long-standing policy of not engaging in financial relationships with businesses that manufacture or sell military weapons, military munitions or firearms."

I discussed with Barb what this meant - for example, does it apply to gun stores, as is the case in Las Vegas? Does it mean 'military firearms', or all 'firearms'? Does this mean they won't do business with members of the Fortune 500 that manufacture and sell military weapons? She really doesn't know. She indicated that I could also call back tomorrow and speak with Ms. Maria Mendler, who works with global branding and media / consumer relations. Barb said this policy was written up in yesterday's Washington Post - I've not seen the article.

Barb indicated that Citigroup does not take a position on personal ownership of firearms, but I explained to her that this is a rather hollow statement considering the implications of their policy. I explained to Barb that Citigroup's policy would be evaluated in the context of other events over the last year - Hallmark's and Sprint's opposition to CCW in Missouri, AOL's refusal to host web sites for gun-related businesses, Levi's support of the PAX Petition, FedEx / UPS and other shipping companies price increases and / or refusal of firearms business and so on. Barb seemed honestly interested in hearing these perspectives.

It would be a pleasant experience to watch some creative legal beagles attack this policy, if a proper suit could be formed, no?
 
I called and closed my account today. The customer service rep was very surprised to hear what I had to say. He said that, being a hunter himself, he had a hard time believing it. I gave him the URL for boortz.com, and told him that had I heard it from only one source, I might consider relenting, but under the circumstances, I wanted my account closed, and the only thing that could bring me back was a written confirmation that the whole story was concocted by a giant left-wing conspiracy against Citibank.
I mentioned in another thread that I'd like to take my card to the range first, then send it in. Am I bad?
 
While I don't have any CitiBank accounts, I did do my part yesterday to show my displeasure.
In the mail, I received an offer for an AT&T Universal Card. Reading the fine print, I noticed that it was underwritten by Universal Bank, N.A., an affiliate of...you guessed it, Citibank. So I wrote 3 very nice letters to all three companies discussing Citibank's discriminatory practices towards a legitimate business. In the Citibank letter, I also informed them that I had written to both AT&T and Universal Bank, informing them of the lost business due to Citibank's discriminating policy (not that I would have applied anyway, even if CitiBank wasn't on the "doggie deposit" list).
Usually, I don't even open credit card offers, I just rip'em up and throw'em away. I guess I'll start reading them now. One more method of communicating with the mindless masses who never learned the true meaning of common sense.

------------------
Times have changed, but the nature of man hasn't. That's why I always go to AA, "Alert and Armed". :)
 
Times have changed. I was forwarded to Barb who forwarded me to Maria. Unfortunately, all I got was Maria's voicemail. We'll see if they call back.

At minimum, they've gotten enough of a response that they are having to process the load through voicemail!

Bobbalouie
 
City Banks reaction was some what different than my branch of Bank One. Aa few months ago I was delayed leaving the house for 2 minutes and arrived at the bank 2 minutes after it was robbed. As I walked through the door the lady Branch President took me by the arm and preceded to tell me how she always felt safer when I was in the bank. Until that very minute I was totally unaware that anyone knew I carried. The police arrived in a few minutes and caught the 17 year old from the barrio. I said a prayer for the delay as it worked out for the best and I didn't have to wrestle with a conscience of whether I did the right thing. From all accounts it would have been easy work to have taken him out and I would have been faced with months of legal expenses. As for City Bank I wish I had money in it so I could have the pleasure of withdrawing it!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MissileCop:
... In the mail, I received an offer for an AT&T Universal Card. Reading the fine print, I noticed that it was underwritten by Universal Bank, N.A., an affiliate of...you guessed it, Citibank. So I wrote 3 very nice letters to all three companies discussing Citibank's discriminatory practices towards a legitimate business. In the Citibank letter, I also informed them that I had written to both AT&T and Universal Bank, informing them of the lost business due to Citibank's discriminating policy (not that I would have applied anyway, even if CitiBank wasn't on the "doggie deposit" list)... [/quote]Just as an FYI, AT&T sold their Universal Bank to Citibank over a year ago and they have nothing to do with the cards any more. Part of the deal was that Citibank would be allowed to use the AT&T name for a specific number of years -- that is the extent to which AT&T is associated with the card. It's similar to how a couple of decades ago the Sig220 was sold as the Browning BDA or how telephones & answering machines today which have the Lucent symbol are not really made by Lucent but by Philips instead.

Writing letters to Universal Bank is a waste of time because Citibank owns them and not the other way around. Consequently, it's not going to accomplish anything to write to AT&T either because they no longer have any ownership in Univeral either. The only one that has a say in this matter is CitiBank.

------------------
Share what you know, learn what you don't -- FUD.

[This message has been edited by FUD (edited February 24, 2000).]
 
Thanks, FUD, for the info. on AT&T. By reading the fine print, you would never know that AT&T was no longer involved. Maybe it'll make 'em think twice about who they allow to use their name in the future. Guilt by association can be an unprofitable position.
Maybe a waste of time, maybe not. At some point, the ruckus that we make over such injustices will eventually be heard by those towards the top. And when it starts to affect the bottom line, those who would like to keep their jobs will change policy. Most probably aren't smart enough to understand that. But I can dream.

------------------
Times have changed, but the nature of man hasn't. That's why I always go to AA, "Alert and Armed". :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top