Peter of England: He’s still F RE?

[longdog]

Freetard: *Okay, concentrate. You can do this. Just give them the onion and insist it should be cleared.*
Freetard: "Hello, I'd like to pay this into my account please."
Cashier: "Madam, this is a red onion."
Freetard: "No it's not, it's a cheq... I mean, LLT... I mean... goddamn it!"
*sadly takes back onion and mopes off.*

Sometimes this site needs a 'LIKE' button

[notorial dissent]

Do the German Freetards not have a concept of what legal tender is? Maybe it is not a German concept. I'm not really familiar with German monetary terminology. I would think that they would twig to the concept that legal tender is a special legal status that some random idiot like PoE cannot just out of hand grant to an otherwise worthless piece of paper, maybe I'm wrong.

[Seelenblut]

The German “Freetard” has no concept of anything and follows the confused templates the Were “gurus” provide. The definition of LTT according to a notice that has to be given to the bank together with the LTT:

The LTT, a promise to pay in the form of a bank note by the new, private and absolutely reliable WeRe Bank, represents a legal tender according to the Yalta 1 and 2 resolution from February 15th, 1945. It is valid worldwide.

What does the Yalta agreement have to do with financial matters? Who knows, but doesn’t it sound important? Some German freemen insist that Germany never became a sovereign nation again after WW2, so maybe it has something to do with that. And it only gets more confusing after that.

Their unique clearing method of “Swallow” is legal according to the Treaty of Rome 101 and the Deregulation Order 1996 Section 74 of the 1882 Bills of exchange Act.

The Treaty of Rome, Article 101 (1957, adapted in 1992 and 2007) prohibits limitations in trade and services between members of the european union, which sounds like it could be relevant to the subject of allowing WeRe to operate within the EU - of course it does not prohibit the EU and its members to regulate the financial sector and set standards as long as those provide equal rights and obligations to all businesses involved - which it did multiple times, currently under the EBA - European Banking Authority - created in 2010 by the European Parliament in regulation EU 1093/2010 - and which is making clear that WeRe is not a bank or any other legal financial institution in the UK, the European Union or Germany.

Then there is the UK Bills of Exchange Act, often quoted - of course, it is unclear to me, what relevance it is supposed to have in Germany or Austria - and more importantly, why we don't use the Mauritius Bills of Exchange Act 1914.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the clearing of financial instruments. Swift is a cooperative society that provides a network that allows over 9.000 financial institutions in over 200 countries to exchange 15 million secure messages each day - it was founded 1973 in Belgium and is owned by the institutions it services. Swallow is a random number generator on the WeRe “bank” website.

The LTT is then (still in the same document) called a commercial paper or bond according to Art. 32 §11 International Accounting Standards (which just says that any financial instrument is a contract naming an asset for one business and a liability for the other business, explicitly speaking of “delivering or exchanging financial assets” and therefore contradicting the WeRe claim that it only needs some accounting entries to settle a debt) and then quotes parts of the Guideline 98/26/EG of the European Parliament from Mai 19th, 1998 (which regulates certain aspects of multi-national clearing systems, so it seems important for Swift, but there needs to be a legal agreement between several licensed financial institutions for this to become relevant) and the aforementioned International Accounting Standards included in EG 1126/2008 (it’s a 500 page paper and so safe from any Freetards penetrating its meaning).

Could all this be done only to confuse the WeRe customers? Does all of this make absolutely no sense? Do most freetards pretend to understand this so they don’t look stupid in front of the other freetards? You decide!

(I haven't even gone into the OPPT foreclosure nonsense, the 1 billion in gold supposedly securing WeRe notes and the common law insanity in countries like Austria that have a legal system based on civil law instead of the common - case - law principles.)

It could be so easy, since 2002 only Euro bills (unlimited) and coins (limited) are legal tender in Germany and Austria, both countries having very simple laws to that effect. But most of the Freetards don't really speak English, despite using all those terms, so they probably don't draw a connection to "gesetzliches Zahlungsmittel".

[longdog]

The LTT, a promise to pay in the form of a bank note by the new, private and absolutely reliable WeRe Bank, represents a legal tender according to the Yalta 1 and 2 resolution from February 15th, 1945. It is valid worldwide.

What does the Yalta agreement have to do with financial matters? Who knows, but doesn’t it sound important? Some German freemen insist that Germany never became a sovereign nation again after WW2, so maybe it has something to do with that. And it only gets more confusing after that.

I believe Poe is telling people 'Yalta' stands for 'You Are Lawful Tender Absolute' which is or course total gibberish.

[SteveUK]

Finally, after all his struggle, a We-Re cheque gets accepted!!!

"Denise Brown - Been to Court today for paying with WereBank Cheque I was all ready for a battle But the other side did not turn up LOL Great result The judge stated They should accept cheque"

I strongly suggest she's being a tad over optimistic.....

[littleFred]

Linky please?

[Angolvagyok]

Linky please?

On his FB page: https://www.facebook.com/Peter-Of-Engla ... 8/?fref=ts

But she did come up with this a while ago:

[mufc1959]

I'm sure she didn't give the judge the full story on WeRe Bank and probably just said "I paid them by cheque and they won't accept it". Many businesses these days won't accept a cheque, even if it's drawn on an account with Coutts.

[Hercule Parrot]

"Denise Brown - Been to Court today for paying with WereBank Cheque I was all ready for a battle But the other side did not turn up LOL Great result The judge stated They should accept cheque"

I strongly suggest she's being a tad over optimistic.....

Maybe. Some companies won't follow through on recovery threats, and this might be one such case. If so, we must hope that Denise identifies them so that hundreds of weremugs can abuse their complacency. They'll review their policy pretty sharpish when they realise they're being had over a barrel.

[PeanutGallery]

It sounds like it was a small claims track case. The company involved may have considered that having representation, or even sending a member of staff to the court, would be too much trouble. If I recall their was a poster on GOODF called Marshall who managed a success with a fee schedule claim against a company, where they didn't turn up, then tried to repeat it for a much larger amount and I believe wound up in an even larger amount of debt (as he'd managed to push the amount into a track where costs against a losing party can be awarded).

Of course they will likely follow on in the spirit of Marshall's mistake by concluding that the cheques do work and not considering that they were fortunate to get a default judgement due to the other party not turning up.

[littleFred]

From Peter's FB:

Been to Court today I was ready to go to battle but the other side did not turn up LOL The Judge asked why did my cheque bounced I stated It did not They did not present it for payment he stated they should have accepted your cheque! smile emoticon

Did you win a default judgment since otherside never appeared?

Driving offence speeding 73 in a 70

I don't believe her. People in the UK are not prosecuted for speeding at 73 in a 70.

[longdog]

This stinks...

Lets say for the sake of argument I get a NOIP for doing 73 in a 70 and I decide to pay the fixed penalty and take the three points. Lets further say I decide to pay with a WeRe NotCheque and they refuse to present it for payment on the very sound basis that it's not actually a cheque and there's no way to present it for payment other than via a mobile phone and a mail drop.

Fast forward to the court case which will inevitably follow from the fact that I haven't actually paid the fixed penalty because the cheque wasn't a cheque. So I stand up and tell the magistrate that I paid by cheque and 'they' didn't present it and 'they' haven't sent anybody to give evidence because reasons. At best the magistrate is going to adjourn the case to a later date, they're not going to find me not guilty because I have already admitted my guilt by sending the NotCheque.

I'm inclined to think this is all just a fantasy and there never was a court case. It wouldn't be the first time a ReMember has been caught telling porkies.

[rumpelstilzchen]

This stinks...

Definitely stinks. Having failed to comply with the conditions regarding the offer of a fixed penalty the case would have automatically escalated to prosecution of the original speeding charge. The claim is the prosecutor failed to turn up to prosecute a speeding offence? Highly unlikely.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Not only would you never be prosecuted for doing 73 in a 70, a "default judgement" makes no sense in these circumstances.

[AndyPandy]

Not only would you never be prosecuted for doing 73 in a 70, a "default judgement" makes no sense in these circumstances.

She also said 'the other side didn't turn up' that might happen in a civil County Court case, but a criminal prosecution the prosecutor doesn't turn up, wouldn't happen they would adjourn not dismiss !!

[Bones]

Peter Of England
2 hrs ·

AN OPEN LETTER TO STAFFORDSHIRE and GLOUCESTERSHIRE POLICE CONSTABULARIES AS WELL AS THE CPS AND SFO - FILE NUMBER WERE/1289pfg/648
(Upon advice)

THIRD AND FINAL FORMAL WARNING TO THE PARROT GANG

The Parrot Gang of St Mary's Street, Painswick Gloucestershire, GL6 6QB are accused of the following additional criminal offences:

1. Personage
2. Barratry
3. Inland piracy
4. Press ganging
5. Trespass and Conversion
6. Repeated copyright violations
7. Theft of personal data
8. Common law offences of inciting mob rule

Mr Parrott - Norwegian Blue
You have been repeatedly told NOT to infringe the copyright work of Peter of England acknowledged BY ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE as author and creator of the name WeRe Bank, Re, ReMovement, WereBank and any of its derivatives and also as the exclusive creator of the nature and philosophy behind said bank and movement - for Weal of Woe!

QUESTION
If you so revile the nature and intention of the work of Peter of England: -
"Why do you continue to use stolen property to entice well meaning people to your funeral pyre of a shambles?" You continue to pass off your shadow and "sham" entity bycontinuing to use the www.werebank.com domain name.
You sabotaged and caused criminal damage to the site and the property of Peter of England, and as a employee if you were NOT content you should have simply just "walked away in honour." However, this is not what you did at all is it?

You still attempt to copy from the SOURCE as you pea size brain spins around in that empty drum of a head! Shame on you Parrot.

NOTE! WeRe Bank and Were Bank copyright - 2012

"Copyright protects your work and stops others from using it without your permission.
You get copyright protection automatically - you don’t have to apply or pay a fee. There isn’t a register of copyright works in the UK.

You automatically get copyright protection.You can mark your work with the copyright symbol (©), your name and the year of creation. Whether you mark the work or not doesn’t affect the level of protection you have."

What is intellectual property:-
the names of your products or brands
your inventions
the design or look of your products
things you write, make or produce

Parrot Note:

You usually won’t own the intellectual property for something you created as part of your work while you were employed by someone else.

TAKE ACTION - WARNING
Remove all references and connectivity with your vile Babylonian Credit facility within the next 48 hours or face the consequences.

The ReMovement membership and the many members of WeRe Bank have asked me to place this official notice on line as communication in other ways with you seems impossible.
A sociopath is not to be reasoned with - Britains

Peter of England on behalf of 12,000 ReMovement members

http://www.werebank.co.uk/

[Chaos]

lmao. what consequences? another sternly written post making believe he knows what he's talking about?

[mufc1959]

I had to look up 'barratry' - even though I'm a lawyer I'd never heard of it. Not surprising, because it's "fraud or gross negligence of a ship's master or crew at the expense of its owners or users."

I love it when the FOOTLers think that if they make important-sounding proclamations something will actually happen (other than the likes of us laughing our arses off).

If I was Djon Parrotte I'd reply with "Go on then. What are you going to do about it? Sue me? Call the police? Bring it on!"

[exiledscouser]

What a load of old bollocks Petey has posted. His link to the .co.uk version of "his" website is a static page. You don't issue three warnings before tripping along to plod.

ReMember that The old Fraudster promised a fully manned WeRe office and phone centre up an running in Stoke by the 8th March. That ain't gonna happen.

Most of the "offences" quoted are unknown to law and simply make Pete look foolish. Make that even more foolish.

I'll bet the plod in Gloucester are collectively quaking in their kebabs (they don't to donuts in the UK) waiting for PoE to tip up at the front counter. That's not gonna happen either.

Peters copyright has been recognised by ABSO-LOOT-LEE everyone. Not by me matey.

[Philistine]

I had to look up 'barratry' - even though I'm a lawyer I'd never heard of it. Not surprising, because it's "fraud or gross negligence of a ship's master or crew at the expense of its owners or users."

I love it when the FOOTLers think that if they make important-sounding proclamations something will actually happen (other than the likes of us laughing our arses off).

If I was Djon Parrotte I'd reply with "Go on then. What are you going to do about it? Sue me? Call the police? Bring it on!"

I feel better for having to have looked that up then since I don't even play a lawyer on the internet.
Methinks that charge may have fallen into slight disuse, and I cheer Peter for maintaining the nautical theme.