Peter of England: A REal guru.

[NYGman]

Chong » Thu May 07, 2015 6:16 pm
Does anyone know how your credit score is affected by this?
I mean, if you pay your alleged debt off surely it will increase you CR?!

Amazing lack of intelligence from Chong. Does he really think that if he tries to evade his debts with fake cheques, it will improve his credit rating....?!

Wanted to sign up to GOOFY just to post a response to that question. He is correct, in that this will impact his credit score, and if you pay off a debt, your score would go up. However, this will have a negative impact on his score, and his debt will not be paid off but will now be further in arrears. But then again, why care about credit anymore, you have magic beans WeRe checks, that you can use to pay off anything, it seems. So who cares if interest rates on new credit cards or loans are high, magic beans WeRe Checks will cover that too... If I want a car, I can just give the seller a magic bean WeRe check, and I am done. Seller will not take my beans check, no problem, borrow from a bank, and pay them with my magic beans WeRe Checks. Either way, interest rates are meaningless, when I can just use my magic beans WeRe Checks to pay for anything.

[wanglepin]

Payment options are currently unavailable due to a change of provider from Paypal. Paypal are currently reviewing the account and will not be processing our services due to a dispute. We hope to have services running again soon. Thank you Peter. 07/05/15

Deary me. bertiebert is a bit slow relaying this to getintomoredebtfree

[mufc1959]

AS WE CAN NEITHER ACCEPT MONEY OR FOR THAT MATTER MAKE REFUNDS.

Why would he be making refunds?

My guess is that, because he was unable to transfer the money out of PayPal to a bank account (maybe his Nationwide account is now frozen or closed down) he was trying to work out another way he could have access to the £££s people have paid. So, he was thinking he could make a refund and then ask for a payment made by a method that involves a picture of HM The Queen, not by WeRe cheque, ooooh no, Peter only wants real money.

[rumpelstilzchen]

It must mean that PayPal is holding the customers' funds. How would that work? If, as an innocent party, you purchase something from a trader using PayPal and PayPal subsequently freeze the trader's account because they believe the trader is dodgy, wouldn't PayPal refund the innocent party's money especially if they have received no goods? I suppose they would have to claim against PayPal?

[vampireLOREN]

Chong » Thu May 07, 2015 6:16 pm
Does anyone know how your credit score is affected by this?
I mean, if you pay your alleged debt off surely it will increase you CR?!

Amazing lack of intelligence from Chong. Does he really think that if he tries to evade his debts with fake cheques, it will improve his credit rating....?!

Chong deserves all he gets .

[wanglepin]

AS WE CAN NEITHER ACCEPT MONEY OR FOR THAT MATTER MAKE REFUNDS.

Why would he be making refunds?

My guess is that, because he was unable to transfer the money out of PayPal to a bank account (maybe his Nationwide account is now frozen or closed down) he was trying to work out another way he could have access to the £££s people have paid. So, he was thinking he could make a refund and then ask for a payment made by a method that involves a picture of HM The Queen, not by WeRe cheque, ooooh no, Peter only wants real money.

If he has the funds to refund, what is stopping him sending off the cheque book that has been paid for?
EDIT rumpel has answered that now.

[mufc1959]

It must mean that PayPal is holding the customers' funds. How would that work? If, as an innocent party, you purchase something from a trader using PayPal and PayPal subsequently freeze the trader's account because they believe the trader is dodgy, wouldn't PayPal refund the innocent party's money especially if they have received no goods? I suppose they would have to claim against PayPal?

There is no innocent party. The PayPal user agreement for both buyers and sellers says:

Prohibited Activities

You may not use the PayPal service for activities that:

1. violate any law, statute, ordinance or regulation.

...

3. relate to transactions that (a) show the personal information of third parties in violation of applicable law, (b) support pyramid or ponzi schemes, matrix programs, other "get rich quick" schemes or certain multi-level marketing programs, (c) are associated with purchases of annuities or lottery contracts, lay-away systems, off-shore banking or transactions to finance or refinance debts funded by a credit card, (d) are for the sale of certain items before the seller has control or possession of the item, (e) are by payment processors to collect payments on behalf of merchants, (f), are associated with the sale of traveler's checks or money orders, (h) involve currency exchanges or check cashing businesses, or (i) involve certain credit repair, debt settlement services, credit transactions or insurance activities.

4. involve the sales of products or services identified by government agencies to have a high likelihood of being fraudulent.

So I think the 'innocent buyers' can kiss their money goodbye too.

[wanglepin]

Would all of Peter's customerssuckers have a PayPal account? I think not. He does have a drop box at a swanky office complex in Manchester doesn't he? Maybe most customers suckers have paid via other means.

[rumpelstilzchen]

It must mean that PayPal is holding the customers' funds. How would that work? If, as an innocent party, you purchase something from a trader using PayPal and PayPal subsequently freeze the trader's account because they believe the trader is dodgy, wouldn't PayPal refund the innocent party's money especially if they have received no goods? I suppose they would have to claim against PayPal?

There is no innocent party. The PayPal user agreement for both buyers and sellers says:

Prohibited Activities

You may not use the PayPal service for activities that:

1. violate any law, statute, ordinance or regulation.

...

3. relate to transactions that (a) show the personal information of third parties in violation of applicable law, (b) support pyramid or ponzi schemes, matrix programs, other "get rich quick" schemes or certain multi-level marketing programs, (c) are associated with purchases of annuities or lottery contracts, lay-away systems, off-shore banking or transactions to finance or refinance debts funded by a credit card, (d) are for the sale of certain items before the seller has control or possession of the item, (e) are by payment processors to collect payments on behalf of merchants, (f), are associated with the sale of traveler's checks or money orders, (h) involve currency exchanges or check cashing businesses, or (i) involve certain credit repair, debt settlement services, credit transactions or insurance activities.

4. involve the sales of products or services identified by government agencies to have a high likelihood of being fraudulent.

So I think the 'innocent buyers' can kiss their money goodbye too.

But the money does not belong to PayPal. Where does it go?

[ArthurWankspittle]

Cash only? Why does he not accept cheques?

Because his bank account is frozen? I suspect he can't open a UK bank account at the moment and the only other accounts he has, one bank and one PayPal, are both frozen. So, it's cash or nothing. Although I don't see why he couldn't take a WeRe cheque to one of those cheque cashing firms.......

[ArthurWankspittle]

But the money does not belong to PayPal. Where does it go?

Confiscated as proceeds of crime maybe?

[littleFred]

In HOW CHEQUES CLEAR!, Peter gives wrong advice in a stupid, arrogant manner.

2.Never make ONE OF OUR CHEQUES payable to yourself or “in your name” or to CASH, or to an JOINT account with your name on it or to your company. There is a ruse being played by the banks to get you to make the cheque payable to YOURSELF as they say the/your “mortgage account” is in that name, your name etc. Pay no attention or heed to this. You didn’t loan yourself the “money” now did you? Do you owe yourself “money” or owe the CREDITOR ?(so called). Exactly

This bad advice is repeated on GOODF. It ignores how the real world works.

In the real world, when writing a cheque in person, the payer would often ask, "Who do I make the cheque out to?" Peter is old enough that he should remember this. (If he ever had a bank account, of course.)

My endowment policy looked a bit flakey in the 1990s, so when I had some spare money in my bank account I would pop into my building society and pay off some of the mortgage. They wanted me to make out cheques to my own name. I was both payer and payee. This always felt weird but it always worked, and reduced the loan balance.

If Peter really knew anything about banking, he would know that making out a cheque to yourself is often the correct way of doing things, to get the result you want. It isn't a "ruse being played by the banks". It achieves what the payer wants.

Why does Peter give this wrong advice? Because he has stupid notions about how banks work. He doesn't bother to check his "facts".

This is, of course, a side-issue. Anyone trying to pay their mortgage with a WeRe cheques will fail, whoever is named as the payee.

[rumpelstilzchen]

But the money does not belong to PayPal. Where does it go?

Confiscated as proceeds of crime maybe?

But atm,as far as we know, this is a decision that was taken by PayPal. It is possible that the old bill are not involved yet. If PayPal choose to freeze an account without authorisation how can they hold on to the money?

[notorial dissent]

PG, I wouldn't bet on the dupes and followers to wise up, they haven't yet despite more than ample proof of the fallacy. They will simply attribute it to outside forces out to cheat them and continue on in their happy ignorance. They've done it before and will do it again.

Truly amazing the hypocrisy that greed and stupidity will engender.

The story about the handmade check does happen if you take it to the actual bank it was written on, and they can be cleared otherwise, but it doesn't go through quite the regular channels.

Here in the US they've added a couple of new wrinkles to the process, they can either take the proferred check and convert it to a direct debit ACH item, debit card transaction, against your account and collect the money in 24 hours, or they can scan the item and submit it as an electronically scanned and coded item that goes through the fully electronic portions of our clearing system, and again again cleared or rejected in 24 hours. Really screws up the bad check and check kiting scams. Lots of banks use the scanned and sent system here now.

We do know that NONE of the WeRe checks have or will EVER clear. They have no sort code, and Petey has NO money with which to clear them even if they hand delivered them.

[arayder]

Peter is in the "muddy the water" stage of the failed freeman scam.

In this stage, when it's becoming apparent that the scheme isn't going to work, the guru du jour talks a lot of gibberish and attempts to make the enterprise sound really complicated. That way he can pretend he'll master the ruse on his next try.

But, in this case, it's really simple. . .all you need to start a bank is a lot of money. . .duh?

The other oft used excuse is that the powers that be have conspired against the guru by wrapping the system up in laws, regulations and red tape.

But in this case the rules have served to save companies and municipalities from being ripped off.

As the "this failure isn't my fault" ruse unfolds the guru rails against society and often threatens to take legal action. This propaganda slight of hand aims to distract suckers from the reality that the scheme never had a chance to succeed.

So make some popcorn, folks, and enjoy the show!

[NYGman]

Peter is in the "muddy the water" stage of the failed freeman scam.

In this stage, when it's becoming apparent that the scheme isn't going to work, the guru du jour talks a lot of gibberish and attempts to make the enterprise sound really complicated. That way he can pretend he'll master the ruse on his next try.

But, in this case, it's really simple. . .all you need to start a bank is a lot of money. . .duh?

The other oft used excuse is that the powers that be have conspired against the guru by wrapping the system up in laws, regulations and red tape.

But in this case the rules have served to save companies and municipalities from being ripped off.

As the "this failure isn't my fault" ruse unfolds the guru rails against society and often threatens to take legal action. This propaganda slight of hand aims to distract suckers from the reality that the scheme never had a chance to succeed.

So make some popcorn, folks, and enjoy the show!

And you try and tell the young Freeman of the land that ..... they won't believe you. (In my best Yorkshire accent)

[wanglepin]

This shows lovely Peter knew about the PayPal problem on the 3rd but kept it to himself for 5 days.

Re: WeRe Bank CHEQUE CO-OP BANK for £120,000
by Freeman16 » Fri May 08, 2015 10:31 pm
boooo wrote:Made payments with paypal last week paypal been shut down will have to wait and see what happens .

Probably have to do it sime other way

Anyone know if u can pick the check books up from somewhere


Thanks booo


Similar boat myself but a few complications.

Emailed Peter about it on the 3rd so should get a response soon hopefully. I expect he is dealing with the PayPal prob. (Is that an attempt to shut WeRe bank down?)


Hi Peter,
I know its hectic with the launch etc but would you please advise on following.
I joined Re-Movement by logging into my PayPal account, clicking on send funds to email under 'Friends and Families' as instructed and sent £10 subscription

PayPal: You sent an automatic payment
1 May 2015
Transaction ID:
Amount:£10.00 GBPTo:WeReFor: Re Movement Membership

I then tried to send £25 for chequebook, clicked on the pay link but then realised it was to pay for Re-Movement on a monthly subscription. So I paid £10 again to make sure it went through correct channel and subscription was enabled.

PayPal: You set up an automatic payment profile
To: WeRe
For: Re Movement Membership
Profile ID:


Please advise how I should send the remaining £15, or would you prefer to refund the £10 via PayPal and then I can click on the link to pay the £25
If there is something I can do to help in the WeRe Bank or Re-Movement venture, please let me know and if I can assist, I would be happy to
Best wishes

[littleFred]

But atm,as far as we know, this is a decision that was taken by PayPal. It is possible that the old bill are not involved yet. If PayPal choose to freeze an account without authorisation how can they hold on to the money?

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that PayPal haven't made a purely internal decision. My guess is that the banks, CCCC, major utilities, FCA etc communicate with each other, are fully aware of Peter's PayPal and Nationwide accounts, and flags have been raised. One or more of these bigwigs may have cautioned PayPal that their facilities are being used in what may be a criminal enterprise.

[Hercule Parrot]

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that PayPal haven't made a purely internal decision. My guess is that the banks, CCCC, major utilities, FCA etc communicate with each other, are fully aware of Peter's PayPal and Nationwide accounts, and flags have been raised. One or more of these bigwigs may have cautioned PayPal that their facilities are being used in what may be a criminal enterprise.

I agree. He's been fraud-flagged, and that will ripple through the whole system. His personal accounts will likely be frozen, and anyone who has had a pattern of transactions with him will be investigated too. It's possible that weremembers who have attempted major or multiple frauds will have their own banking facilities withdrawn or suspended until it's all sorted out.

PoE will say that the evil Jewish bankers combined to unlawfully destroy the werebank because they were afraid of it's liberating power. The GOOFys will lap that up, but I don't see it working at his fraud trial.

[PeanutGallery]

Based on an experience a website forum I also am involved had with PayPal back in 2005, they can be absolute b******* when they think something fishy has gone on. This involved a fundraiser for victims of the Hurricane that did some major damage to New Orleans. The fund raised about $30,000 in nine hours. Somewhere inside PayPal HQ this set off the red flag fraud warning. The fund was shut down unless the person organising the fund raiser could provide tracking numbers for all the donations. He couldn't, because what with them being donations their was no tracking to send out. Eventually after much toing and froing PayPal refunded all the donors their donations.

PayPal got away with acting like this because they aren't actually a bank. They are a payment facilitator and they like not being regulated, because it lets them exercise much more control and operate in a lot more countries than they would be able to manage if they were forced to comply with the myriad different banking regulations in each nation. In order to not be regulated PayPal needs to self police and stop scams and scammers or people using their service for anything illegal as soon as they get wind of them.

PayPal will most likely arrange for an automatic refund from Peter's PayPal account to Peter's customers. They won't lose out, unless they go and give the money as cash to Peter for a chequebook.