• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jay Sekulow Hits Back Over Subpoena of Trump Bank Records – ‘False’

tres borrachos said:
We have our own laws (alphabet soup of regulations!) here that govern any bank doing business in this country. The other countries all have different laws, but any bank based in another country that also does business here is beholden to our laws as well. Just the same goes for the other countries. If you do business in their country, you have to abide by their laws.

DB for the most part will follow German laws as their corporate risk and compliance policies.
Click to expand...


Thank you I assumed as much but I appreciate your clarification.
 
chuckiechan said:
The problem we have here is the media is piling onto the same unsourced report, and so are you. The media and the anti-Trumpers want so badly to take down Trump they are all repeating the same unidentified “anonymous source.

So until either Mueller or Deutchbank confirms or denies, it should be treated for what it is: media hysteria whipping up the lynch mob.

And if any lawyers care to answer, can the Trump lawyer Mr. Seculow out and out lie?
Click to expand...

If he is not under oath or committing slander he can lie at the pace of trump.
 
haymarket said:
So where is the OP getting this absurd idea that the bank backed him up?
Click to expand...

This is the Trump team's latest and likely last effort to confuse the masses. Trump has likely been told to shut up as it's better if his minions go out and do what he does (better than he can). He can have five people out there making crap up, making the media work over time to fact-check stories. Not that the partisans care about that anymore. His lawyers have been watching him for over a year. They know his game plan and playbook and so now it's time to maximize what little profit there is left to be made and hang him out to dry when the time comes to collect their paychecks from Deutsche Bank. By the time this mess gets cleaned up though, they might not even come out ahead earnings wise. Trump certainly won't be rich anymore.
 
tres borrachos said:
I just asked one of our (many) on staff compliance attorneys that question to see what he thinks. He said the RFPA strictly prohibits a bank from forwarding the subpoena itself to the account owner, and there is no requirement of notification to the account owner on a federal level. He said some states may have a compliance requirement to notify the account owner that the subpoena was received and notify of their intent to comply, but he wasn't aware of any particular state that does.

So I took it a step further and asked about this particular situation, and he said it was highly unlikely that they have to notify the account owners. They may choose to, but in the DB instance as they are not a state or federally chartered bank, they probably can make their own decision.

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

Thank you!
 
RAMOSS said:
Are they required to notify the account holder?? Can you show that's the law in Germany?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter.
If they do business here they have to abide by our laws.
 
holbritter said:
Thank you!
Click to expand...

You're quite welcome.

By the way, someone else told me that there are some requirements that the agency that subpoenas the financial information under the RFPA has to comply with as far as disclosure to the account owners. Because we're in the financial services consulting business and not the government consulting business we don't know too much detail about their requirements to notify (Mueller, Grand Jury, etc.) so everything i posted only pertains to the bank's obligations of notification to their account owners.

i think this entire thing is murky no matter what. i don't know that German new agency that reported that DB had the subpoena to guess if they're right or not.
 
bubbabgone said:
Doesn't matter.
If they do business here they have to abide by our laws.
Click to expand...

And our laws here don't require banks to notify account owners of a subpoena received from the federal government for account information.
 
tres borrachos said:
And our laws here don't require banks to notify account owners of a subpoena received from the federal government for account information.
Click to expand...

If the account holder was a ‘preferred customer’, wouldn’t the bank give them a heads up?
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
FAKES NUUUS!!!! At this point I trust a single person familiar with the matter over anybody in this administration. They are lying POS.
Oh this is from the guy's lawyer, who was probably paid to say this.
Click to expand...

If they are lying, where is your proof?
 
tres borrachos said:
I just asked one of our (many) on staff compliance attorneys that question to see what he thinks. He said the RFPA strictly prohibits a bank from forwarding the subpoena itself to the account owner, and there is no requirement of notification to the account owner on a federal level. He said some states may have a compliance requirement to notify the account owner that the subpoena was received and notify of their intent to comply, but he wasn't aware of any particular state that does.

So I took it a step further and asked about this particular situation, and he said it was highly unlikely that they have to notify the account owners. They may choose to, but in the DB instance as they are not a state or federally chartered bank, they probably can make their own decision.

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. Wish I had reference contacts like that. Would save a lot of typing and searching. Being subject to the Privacy Act or not seems would be the key. It also seemed that DB would be.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
You are assuming a lot. Usually sources are close to the scene of the story.

As to Sekulow, when your client uses the fake news excuse daily your word is not credible if you also start to use fake news excuses daily.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming nothing. I have no idea whether the source is credible.

Bring me a name. Something I can check out, Otherwise you got nothing. I've grown weary of these unnamed sources with damning evidence.
 
holbritter said:
Thank you!
Click to expand...

Holbritter! Bless your heart but since i made the call to see if I could get you a good answer now you have to suffer through the deluge of info my co-worker is sending to me about this (our attorneys love visuals when we ask them questions).:mrgreen:

He said that under the RFPA the bank is given safe harbor (protection from lawsuits by the account owner) if they receive a certificate of compliance from the federal agency which apparently by law does NOT need to notify the account owner in advance.

First link is to the bank's protection information. Second link is details on the certificate of compliance.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title12/pdf/USCODE-2010-title12-chap35-sec3417.pdf

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2004-title32-vol2/pdf/CFR-2004-title32-vol2-part275-app4.pdf

According to him, there is nothing that can be analyzed at this point to confirm or deny that the Grand Jury would have notified the account owners that they subpoenaed DB for information (I mean, assuming they did, which we don't know) because they are not legally obligated to notify the account owner. And DB isn't legally obligated to notify them either.

So we simply don't know the whole story.

Sorry to inundate you, but you seemed interested (as am I) so hopefully this helps.
 
bubbabgone said:
That's interesting. Wish I had reference contacts like that. Would save a lot of typing and searching. Being subject to the Privacy Act or not seems would be the key. It also seemed that DB would be.
Click to expand...

Yes, they're subjected to Reg P, but Reg P doesn't cover federal subpoenas.

I'm in this business so hey, I have contacts galore. I have many thousands of co-workers.
 
tres borrachos said:
Holbritter! Bless your heart but since i made the call to see if I could get you a good answer now you have to suffer through the deluge of info my co-worker is sending to me about this (our attorneys love visuals when we ask them questions).:mrgreen:

He said that under the RFPA the bank is given safe harbor (protection from lawsuits by the account owner) if they receive a certificate of compliance from the federal agency which apparently by law does NOT need to notify the account owner in advance.

First link is to the bank's protection information. Second link is details on the certificate of compliance.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title12/pdf/USCODE-2010-title12-chap35-sec3417.pdf

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2004-title32-vol2/pdf/CFR-2004-title32-vol2-part275-app4.pdf

According to him, there is nothing that can be analyzed at this point to confirm or deny that the Grand Jury would have notified the account owners that they subpoenaed DB for information (I mean, assuming they did, which we don't know) because they are not legally obligated to notify the account owner. And DB isn't legally obligated to notify them either.

So we simply don't know the whole story.

Sorry to inundate you, but you seemed interested (as am I) so hopefully this helps.
Click to expand...

Haha! I hope you don't have to work late now! Thank you though, I am interested. Love learning something new :)
 
jimbo said:
I'm assuming nothing. I have no idea whether the source is credible.

Bring me a name. Something I can check out, Otherwise you got nothing. I've grown weary of these unnamed sources with damning evidence.
Click to expand...

You are assuming their source is not telling the truth, when it's already been proven here that Sekulow is a liar.
 
tres borrachos said:
Holbritter! Bless your heart but since i made the call to see if I could get you a good answer now you have to suffer through the deluge of info my co-worker is sending to me about this (our attorneys love visuals when we ask them questions).:mrgreen:

He said that under the RFPA the bank is given safe harbor (protection from lawsuits by the account owner) if they receive a certificate of compliance from the federal agency which apparently by law does NOT need to notify the account owner in advance.

First link is to the bank's protection information. Second link is details on the certificate of compliance.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title12/pdf/USCODE-2010-title12-chap35-sec3417.pdf

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2004-title32-vol2/pdf/CFR-2004-title32-vol2-part275-app4.pdf

According to him, there is nothing that can be analyzed at this point to confirm or deny that the Grand Jury would have notified the account owners that they subpoenaed DB for information (I mean, assuming they did, which we don't know) because they are not legally obligated to notify the account owner. And DB isn't legally obligated to notify them either.

So we simply don't know the whole story.

Sorry to inundate you, but you seemed interested (as am I) so hopefully this helps.
Click to expand...

Reading the 2nd one, I do remember something similar (not as detailed or long) that I had to sign when I received a mortgage.
 
GDViking said:
Not currently but I was an elected delegate for my county that sat on committees where drafted state laws.
Click to expand...

I’m not trying to be aguementative, but it’s my experience that lawyers are very careful in what they say regarding their clients. People here are calling Trumps lawyer a liar yet offer no proof that this subpoena occurred.

Jay Sekulow is ACLJ Chief Counsel, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) focuses on constitutional and human rights law worldwide. He is not your typical “1-800-Dog-Bite” attorney!
 
holbritter said:
Haha! I hope you don't have to work late now! Thank you though, I am interested. Love learning something new :)
Click to expand...

I always work late! I have customers all over the world and some of them want to talk to me in the middle of the night. Drives me crazy!

I also love to learn new things. You and are our very much alike in that regard.
 
holbritter said:
Reading the 2nd one, I do remember something similar (not as detailed or long) that I had to sign when I received a mortgage.
Click to expand...

UGH! Mortgage disclosures are the worst. That's the idiotic Dodd-Frank and that heinous CFPB behind a lot of that ****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom