Peter of England: A REal guru.

[littleFred]

Well, that's one theory: Peter was so stupid that he thought it was bound to work so didn't need testing.

I'm not convinced. I think Peter was smarter than that: he knew it wouldn't work. He wasn't sucker enough to fall for his own scam.

Put it another way: I see no mention that Peter has ever tried to pay anything with his own cheques. If he believed in them, why wouldn't he? I conclude that he knows, and always knew, they won't work.

[arayder]

It will be interesting to see if Ceylon deletes those threats. People get banned on GOOFs for asking awkward questions, I hope that threats that come from party members are not tolerated.

Screen shots already taken

Bones, I would suggest you get in touch with the GOOFs internet provider and the company who sold them the software for the forum. I am sure their use policies prohibit using their materials to threaten others.

I suppose they might get off the hook since they removed the posts. But it might be fun to see them squirm.

[PeanutGallery]

Much better to go to the Police make a complaint about the messages under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Then if the boys in blue take up the cudgel they should be able to make Goof squirm by requiring them to reveal Mavrik's details.

[mufc1959]

Shall we print a few of these off, send them out and see what happens? I could do without that pesky mortgage.

http://i.imgur.com/u56eefe.jpg

Wouldn't that be forging a fraudulent cheque? Two wrongs don't make a right y'know.

It'd be right when PoE pays off my mortgage. All I need to do is find out JimmyW's date of birth and it'll come right out of his account.

[Hyrion]

this question was asked

, now the worrying bit for me is the prom notes you send to him, for £150k, in theory these are as good as cash,(I keep being told) so if he sells them on say for £100k, the person who buys them can come to you and say please pay us our £150k, as you have signed this prom note and says promise to pay the bearer on demand, so can we have our money please, and take you court for the money

this was the answer

Baron David Ward Well if someone does try to collect on the promisary note, we then make an offer of payment under the bills of exchange Act 1882 of 1p. Just an offer of payment mind. If they refuse the OFFER of payment then the debt is discharged. Now lets look at the words. "Offer of Payment" It is not posible to pay for anything as there is no money and a Bank Of England Bank Note is also a promisary note. Which is not payment. As well as all this. The signature on a Bank of England Promisary Note is a faxcimily of a signature which is fraud by misrepresentation. So a Bank of England Bank Note is material evidence of fraud.

mmmmm

Hey Frank, Baron David apparently wasn't paying attention to the terms on the Promissory Note that was filled out. There's a much simpler safety net. The PN terms include a statement that if the PN is ever exchanged - for example sold to someone else - then all liabilities associated with the PN are null and void.

So if PoE sold them on, they'd become worthless to the buyer. The only entity that can collect on them is the original entity they were offered to: WeRe "Bank".

[PeanutGallery]

If it helps, I believe JimmyW is 41 years old.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Put it another way: I see no mention that Peter has ever tried to pay anything with his own cheques. If he believed in them, why wouldn't he? I conclude that he knows, and always knew, they won't work.

Peter definitely knew that the printer would not accept a WeRe cheque. If he knew that a small order for a batch of cheque books could not be paid for with a WeRe cheque why did he promise potential customers they could write cheques for many thousands of pounds and the recipients must accept them without choice? Why didn't he insist the printer must accept a WeRe cheque? Because he knew it would not work.
Talking of the printer......whoever he is he must have known that what he was producing were fraudulent cheques. If he had done a run for Barclays he would have accepted payment by a Barclays cheque. Same for any other bank. He would have accepted their cheques. So why wouldn't he accept a WeRe cheque as payment? Because he knew they were no good.

[Hyrion]

Sheriff Alistair Brown : "Those who embark on a fraudulent scheme of this scale must expect to be treated very seriously by the court.
And those who cheat hard-working members of the public can expect no sympathy."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-t ... l-32707051

Too bad they didn't identify the length of the prison sentence. Based on the amount of Fraud they were charged with Emily could have some idea how much prison time she's facing by attempting to pay $100k+ for her entire outstanding Mortgage.

And PoE could have some idea what he'd be facing for enabling such Fraud to occur.... especially since Emily is only 1 fish in the barrel he's been filling.

[littleFred]

Near the top, it says:

Saunders, 57, was jailed for 20 months, and Stewart, 54, for 34 months.

[Bones]

It will be interesting to see if Ceylon deletes those threats. People get banned on GOOFs for asking awkward questions, I hope that threats that come from party members are not tolerated.

Screen shots already taken

Bones, I would suggest you get in touch with the GOOFs internet provider and the company who sold them the software for the forum. I am sure their use policies prohibit using their materials to threaten others.

I suppose they might get off the hook since they removed the posts. But it might be fun to see them squirm.

I will certainly be considering my options, especially given the guidelines that were introduced, relating to online threats

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... cutors-say

[Bones]

If it helps, I believe JimmyW is 41 years old.

I think you may be confusing his age with his I.Q

[PeanutGallery]

That's a very generous estimation of Jimmy's capacity Bones.

In regard to Emily, I think she may have some other trouble coming her way, I recently received this email:

Dear PeanutGallery

Hertfordshire Trading Standards Reference - 310027

I have been passed your details by the Citizens Advice Consumer Service in relation to a complaint you have made regarding Well Co, which appear to be advertising via Facebook. I have followed the link you provided and it does appear that there are potential breaches of the Cancer Act 1939. We will investigate these matters further and will update you further when we have an update on the case.

Kind regards,


Joe Tyler
Trading Standards Officer
Community Protection

When I looked at Emily's page I found at least ten posts for alternative therapies that could cure cancer, I stopped counting after that, I consider this exceptionally irresponsible.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Bones, if young mavrick does decide to pay you a visit I have a sure fire method of stopping him in his tracks. Nail a NOROIRA to your gatepost. Simples. According to the GOOFs it stops anyone from entering your property. Once he sees that he will know that you are all lawyered up and know your stuff. He won't dare cross that line because he understands the power of that notice. He would fear the wrath of common law and stuff like that. As his lordship said in D'Eynecourt v Ponsonby (1801) if someone crosses a NOROIRA the property owner under common law may eject the scoundrel by utilising a swift kick to the knackers.

[tm169]

Made a short and hastily written blog post about Peter and to record some of his Facebook posts in case his Facebook disappears.

Let me know if you have any feedback:
https://opcablog.wordpress.com

[Hyrion]

Near the top, it says:

Saunders, 57, was jailed for 20 months, and Stewart, 54, for 34 months.

DOH!

No idea how I read passed that.

[wanglepin]

I'm not convinced. I think Peter was smarter than that: he knew it wouldn't work. He wasn't sucker enough to fall for his own scam.
Put it another way: I see no mention that Peter has ever tried to pay anything with his own cheques. If he believed in them, why wouldn't he? I conclude that he knows, and always knew, they won't work.

He knew from the time he thought it up that his cheques would not work. This is why he confused the issue for the goofers with shite such as

"4.Staple “L’Allonge” to the cheque"

and

"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".

He perfectly understands the goofer mentality and when it comes to the point that WeRe cheques were starting to be refused he had this at the ready:

7. And you have made Notarial Protest....
THEN YOU CONTACT THEM BY LETTER, RECORDED DELIVERY, AND STATE THAT YOU NEED THEM TO CONFIRM IN WRITING THE TIME AND DATE AT WHICH THEY CONTACTED US [WeRe Bank] under full commercial liability and penalty of perjury] AND TO STATE IN A FEW LINES WHO MADE THE CALL OR WHO WILL CONFIRM IT IN COURT & WHY THEY CLAIM THERE ARE NO FUNDS AVAILABLE AS YOU ARE CONSIDERING BRING LEGAL ACTION......not against THEM but against:......
WeRe Bank...and you are calling them as a witness for the PROSECUTION....Ok?
So, now off with the wingeing and on with the battle - what did you expect?

His bank is a fraud, his cheques are a fraud and Peter of England is a fraud. And Peter of England knows it is a fraud.

[mufc1959]

Made a short and hastily written blog post about Peter and to record some of his Facebook posts in case his Facebook disappears.

Let me know if you have any feedback:
https://opcablog.wordpress.com

Good to see you here. Just one little thing - the chequebook is £25, not £35. With the £10 monthly membership fee that's an initial £35 payment. Although I suppose after the first month, once you've got your chequebook, you could always pay the monthly £10 fee with a WeRe cheque.

[PeanutGallery]

I believe on Peter's former bank website, now consigned to the ether of the Internet, he was rather adamant that WeRe cheques would not be accepted while the 'Re' was in it's infancy, so no you couldn't pay £10 with a WeRe cheque to Peter. He didn't want that worthless junk.

[rogfulton]

If it helps, I believe JimmyW is 41 years old.

I think you may be confusing his age with his I.Q

Today's winner of the Internet!

[Bones]

Ok just started to watch the new horror / car crash film uploaded to youtube

Rob B - Dignity Alliance, guessing by the love in his eyes for Peter, he is the infamous bertiebert (maybe Robert Bertram)