The Charity

CEO of Gay said:
I believe the problem is that Dear Feeder himself is on the payment processor's blacklists. Therefore, anything connected to him is also verboten.
Click to expand...
If he opens a company he doesn't have to own it, does he? Can't he use a proxy or a third party?
I'm guessing here, I'm not sure how it works.
 
sperginity said:
there is some momentum in congress for this to be addressed legislatively, but that takes fucking forever. I'm really sorry this shit keeps happening.

two days ago the governor of idaho signed a state level bill to ban large banks from doing this which takes effect in July, and tenessee and florida apparently have similar bills. I don't know if they amount to anything or can be utilized to help your charity. It is a positive sign for the future that people are voting and signing bills to try to address this issue.

Chase claims to have changed their policies within the last month so that reputational risk is not a factor in gaining bank accounts. The lawfirm that pressured Chase is ADF (alliance defending freedom). They do a lot of work related to debanking, from what their website says.
Click to expand...
This is interesting and I have a dumb fag idea.

Don't be on the board. You're in control but not on paper. And incorporate the charity based in Idaho apparently at the moment.

Establish bank services.

Later, join the board officially. I imagine it'd be a lot fucking harder with that state law to cancel extant accounts than never kick them up to begin with.

We all know various charity, PAC and corp structures have "advisors" who aren't the on paper people but either get a consulting fee or a heavy say so for off books reasons. Afaik Visa doesn't get to fucking ask who you take advice from... Only who is in the actual structure.

Since you aren't using it as a get rich scam grift it's more above board than a lot of shit.

Shame the EFF and ACLU are both pozzed dumb and broken from their original purposes. Either in the og incarnation should have been waging this war with you (and if any EFF or ACLU fucks read this hiii this is why you don't get money from me anymore. Sellouts)

I can see lots of reasons you might not want to pursue such a path.. but idk. Seems worth considering.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Hraf, byuuWasTaken, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid and 2 others
MrJokerRager said:
Didnt the Senate GOP shut down that one agency that was looking to stop debanking?
Click to expand...
If you mean the CFPB, that's Elizabeth Warren's pet project.

She's a leftist Prog who's consistently supported mass censorship, regulating crypto out of existence, piling more "compliance" onto financial services that force smaller outfits out of business and concentrate economic activity in the megacorps, and things like "Operation Choke Point" (Obama's push to de-bank anyone involved in firearms, ammunition, gold bullion/coins, tobacco, etc).

Unless you can spin KF's de-banking as an obese single mother of colour being denied her eleventeenth EBT card, I wouldn't expect the CFPB to care.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • DRINK!
  • Agree
Reactions: El-ahrairah, byuuWasTaken, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid and 11 others
Null said:
I am not high risk. I am a Category 11 brand risk. That is above high risk.
Click to expand...
I added a bunch of psps to the previous post that specialize in high risk merchants. Category 11 is just one of the 11 things that determine risk under GARM, so you shouldn't be terribly worse off than any weird kink site.
To shed some light on the denials, I looked into that as well.

PayPal, Stripe, and Square generally do not accept high-risk merchants, and they focus on low-risk businesses, with high-risk businesses facing limitations and potential account termination. With Stripe being the most open to high risk of the three. PayPal and Square would never be open to it. It's just not their business model.

Braintree generally does not support high-risk merchants and has a cautious underwriting and risk management process due to its financial liability for merchant losses.

Valmar generally does, including porn, gambling, bail bonds, etc. Probably why you didn't get outright rejected.

Hope this helps. Try all those high risk psp's. Or don't. I'm not the boss of you.
 
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Pee Cola, byuuWasTaken, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid and 8 others
I don't think tricking the finance Jews with some switcheroo will work and I'm not a lawyer but that might be getting into the realm of fraud. In my retard opinion the best option is making as big of a stink and annoying as many people as possible.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: オプセック, byuuWasTaken and NOXIN
NVLLS BR0k3n D!€K said:
In my opinion, it’s a little early to start sharing conversations and burning bridges. Their refusal to elaborate on why they refused service is obviously strategic as it gives no avenue to question the decision (legally or otherwise). At the same time it’s somewhat vindicated as null immediately proceeded to share the email to the forum. It’s also not clear whether there is an arms length between the forum and the 501abc (maybe this has been discussed elsewhere?), but this post and the error message which UK users get suggests there isn’t. That can lead to an outsider questioning whether it’s a genuine charity or just a way to funnel money to this website (which has been described as orchestrating harassment or whatever). Bitching out payment processors probably not a great look to other processors.
Click to expand...
As much as I hate your avatar, this is actually a good point. It's hard to argue that something is an independent organization acting in good faith when all the negative actions against said organization immediately end up on the Farms.

Separation of business activity has to go beyond just the legal definitions. Unfortunately all these moves seem to be digging Null a deeper hole than getting him out of it. Some things, like Cloudflare, have been able to be replaced, but nothing has helped to make Null's business reputation better. Null believes that his ability to make more of the site's service requirements independent has made the site more mainstream; it hasn't. It's only made the site more self-sufficient, not a bad thing at all, but limited in utility.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • DRINK!
Reactions: possibleLurkerMaybePoster, Hraf, オプセック and 9 others
Null said:
View attachment 7148607

They won't even tell me what's wrong so I don't see the purpose in attempting again. I have no information, they won't tell me, and I can't compel them to tell me. Until someone somewhere does something I have absolutely no idea what these fucking vampire fucks want from me.
Click to expand...
I'd say you're being Alex Jonesed mate, just at a discount and so under the radar it doesn't make a blip. Instead of suing you for your money they are just sealing off all your sources of money. Really does feel cruel and very unusual but I don't think the viciousness of the left has any boundaries.

But boy oh boy, God Bless whoever gets in your way when the Berlin Wall finally crumbles a second time.
 
  • Like
  • DRINK!
  • Agree
Reactions: Pee Cola, El-ahrairah, byuuWasTaken and 1 other person
NVLLS BR0k3n D!€K said:
Their refusal to elaborate on why they refused service is obviously strategic as it gives no avenue to question the decision (legally or otherwise).
Click to expand...
This is why the ideal response to any of Null's communication is silence. Accepting or outright rejecting his requests means that you just eat shit as an organization.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: オプセック, byuuWasTaken, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid and 9 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back