I feel that I must keep you a lesson in fictitious entities in the sense that empowering change exists as a financial entity because your organization BMO represented that you would open a bank account in that name and I provided the documents that were required at that time when a contract was implied that I personally, Rowan Quni, would provide funding for that account. When I personally open the account at your San Francisco branch I was led to believe by the representations of your employee that I could fund said account which is why the check was made out to empowering change there is nowhere else on earth that a financial account exists for said organization. Therefore when another one of your employees apparently conducting what was termed due diligence later informed me that BMO was not willing to open an account then there was no cause for the check to be deposited in an account that did not exist and yet you took my money anyway. You cannot have it both ways: either an account was opened from which I could make withdraws under the terms of the debit checking account that I was led to believe by the representations of your agent; or not. The evidence suggests the latter because I was unable to withdraw funds using the debit card I was provided which required me to go into a branch and to close the account. I find it astonishing that I had to ask for an account closure fee to be waived when this is entirely by the doing of your company and your employees. I would advise you not to make representations that you later decide you are entitled to breach and therefore I have a worthless check that was invalid from the beginning. As I previously stated considering that you did not open the account for which you represented you would the funds must be returned to me that is basic contract law as well as general accounting principles and so if you are now telling me that a piece of paper that incorrectly lists a financial account that does not exist is the only way that I can receive back my $8,000 then I would caution you to proceed very carefully because I find that your legal justification is shaky and proof of that is that you did in fact provide me personally with $2,000 of that original $10,000 attempted deposit. Therefore I must conclude that the mistake was entirely due to the ignorance and convenience of your branch employees who stated that was the only way to receive the funds back and yet confusingly did in fact refund part of my money. I will have to consult the appropriate laws and regulations but I do find that I have standing for not only illegal claim but a regulatory claim with the US regulators on this on the basis of this misrepresentation.