🚀 go-pugleaf

: Maria Rost Rublee wrote:
: > I am hardly knowledgable about this kind of situation, and do not have the
: > credentials to argue the constitution.  But, it seems to me that this
: > would be unconstitutional.  Don't we have the right to be presumed
: > innocent until proven guilty?  By only working with us if we provide a
: > thumbprint, aren't they saying that they believe we are attempting fraud,
: > and that they'll only work with us if we agree to being treated as if we
: > were.  I would never commit fraud for any reason, but if I want to cash a
: > check there, then aren't they basically saying that they think I would?
: > And will only allow me to if I agree to be thumbprinted like any other
: > convicted criminal.
: > 
: > I don't know if that's correct, but it seems to me to be.  Is it?  Is it
: > unconstitutional?

Sorry.  As sad as this practice is, the Constitution has nothing to do
with it.  The Constitution applies to the government only, private
entities are not affected.  Statutary law may apply here, or may be passed
to cover this situation, but the Constitution won't help you.

What they are doing is applying a condition to doing business with them,
like asking for id.  You certainly don't have to provide the id or the
print, all you have to do is walk away (and try to get your money some
other way).  Unless enough people can pressure state or federal officials
to pass new regulations or apply current ones, the best we can do is take
our businesss elsewhere.  Judging from the reponses I've seen to people
asking about good banks, people are running away from Crestar already.

==========================================================================
Andy Quintana 			O-			cynical@clark.net
		[url removed until I dust off the cobwebs]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
		Ignorance is the root of all evil.
==========================================================================