Peter of England: A REal guru.

[vampireLOREN]

I've also found quite a nice picture of the HQ of WeRe Bank, in Ducie St, Manchester.

Those trash bags are full of obsolete, discredited Sterling banknotes.

I hope all the Promissory notes are safe within its secure vault?

[PeanutGallery]

Remember that Bank of Dave series on Channel 4 the other year? A self-made millionaire called Dave Fishwick wanted to set up his own bank in Lancashire for ordinary people. He wasn't allowed to call it a bank, its a Savings & Loan. But he had to front up about 5 million quid of his own money (which he actually had, being a millionaire) to hold in reserve before the FSA would let him have a licence.

Peter is using the "Bank of Dave" as part of the marketing strategy for his own Bank, at least he mentions it in the talks and suggests that his operation is an equal to Dave Fishwick's. While Dave Fishwick was very up front and invested a considerable amount of his own money into his scheme and seems to be operating it with both the best of intentions and ethics, one of the knock on affects of the program was to create an impression that 'anyone' could start their own bank (even though the program, as I recall, showed how hard it was to set up even when you had a substantial amount of capital to invest).

However this doesn't stop the more gullible from thinking that Peter could somehow be genuine. I note that over on GOODF forum user Bertiebert has posted up about how they've filled in the Prom note and sent it off to Peter for safe storage.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... SiIS_nF9S0

We'll have to wait to see how well Bertie is able to use the 'funds' in his Werebank account. I suspect that as soon as a 'money transfer' comes in from a bank that doesn't actually officially exist, a few collars will be felt.

[wanglepin]

10:25

Help us with our housekeeping. We have a housekeeping agenda whereby we are working with White Knights and other interested parties within the United States and other countries of Europe where we do something called housekeeping. This entails the mass arrests of the criminal elements within Parliament, within Government, within the Media, within the Judiciary, within the Banking Cartels so we stop the looting and start the prosecuting and we also take that into the corporatocracy and we illuminate the threat because the system is broken and we need to not fix the system but tinkle with the system we need a new frame work completely ....

Dangerous Freeman shite at it`s very best worst. “White Knights”? ! Isn't that the Ku Klux Klan?

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... SjPtTTF98F

[notorial dissent]

10:25
Dangerous Freeman shite at it`s very best worst. “White Knights”? ! Isn't that the Ku Klux Klan?

Depending on the context usually yes, but in this one it is the mythical new age prosperity aliens are coming to save us baffeltygab. In other word, more of Peter the Prat's imaginary friends.

[wanglepin]

more of Peter the Prat's imaginary friends.

It was just a subconscious query seeing that he mentioned the U.S.A. in the same breath as the "white Knights".

[notorial dissent]

Nope, perfectly logical and reasonable. Context is everything.

[mufc1959]

Here's an example of how it's going to work from the WeRe website. What could possibly go wrong?

An example may now suffice.

A elderly woman or man joins WeRe Bank.

They have only been with us 2 days or so and they ask for their roof to be repaired as it is leaking and is unsound – they have no money!

WeRe Bank has a roofer prepared to do the work as he wishes to earn money – units of exchange. He estimates that the roofing job is £8,000 sterling equivalent in labour. The goods, the tiles and lathes he can take care of in other ways. (How? Does he steal them? Rob them off other people's roofs or sneak round building sites at night? I don't think Travis Perkins or Screwfix accept WeRe Monopoly money.)

He does the work providing both material and labour over time and WeRe Bank credits his account with the £8,000 equivalent. He is very happy – he gained useful employ and gained a healthy payment.

The old man/woman are happy as they received a new roof.

WeRe Bank is happy in that it was able to PAY IN REAL MONEY a worker for work done. it facilitated the exchange.

Now you may ask, well where did the money come from to pay this roofer?

Do you really care?

What if it was paid as a credit on a conventional credit card? Would you care or know the difference as long as the payment was received by the roofer? What if they (the customer) had taken out a LOAN to pay the roofer and now had a –ve £8,000 on their account – would it bother you? Would you care? Of course not.

The elderly couple (or singles) WeRe paid £8,000 by WeRe Bank because THEY PROVIDED A VALUABLE SERVICE – THEY PERFORMED WORK – THEY PROVIDED THE ROOFER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY – AN OPPORTUNITY PROVISION HAS A FEE SCHEDULE ATTACHED, IT HAS A REAL TANGIBLE COST TO IT AND THEY DID NOT CREATE THE SCHEDULE THE ROOFER DID BY VALUING THE JOB AT £8,000

So hopefully you see the beauty and simplicity of the system.

Do not worry about those that wish to try and trick or exploit the system – The Bank has INFINITE depth of pocket and once anyone is caught abusing the system then they are out! To get back in is NOT so easy.

In addition we have energetic, inter-dimensional “checks, balances and counter-measures” in place. If we have abundance then there is NO requirement to cheat and steal – but there will always be some during the Re Structuring!

This is nonsense, sheer and utter dangerous nonsense. The type of people who'll fall for this are the ones who've made bad decisions, run up debt they can't pay and lack any insight as to why their finances are in such a mess. Or the chancers who want something for nothing.

[littleFred]

This fiction of Peter's exposes the scam.

... and WeRe Bank credits his account with the £8,000 equivalent.

Yes, I can see the WeRe bank could "pay" the roofer by merely crediting his account. But could the roofer ever draw his £8000 in cold, hard (sterling) cash?

WeRe Bank is happy in that it was able to PAY IN REAL MONEY a worker for work done.

Not if it merely credited his account; it is merely a book-keeping entry. But if it were to pay the roofer in cold, hard (sterling) cash then ...

Now you may ask, well where did the money come from to pay this roofer?

Good question. Where does this £8000 in real Bank of England notes come from? The roofer will have to pay some of this out in taxes. He needs real money for that.

Do you really care?

Yes, we care. Because, frankly, I don't believe Peter will ever pay the roofer the £8000. Because he hasn't got it. He won't have it until 800 suckers pay their first monthly £10. Then, sure, he can spend the entire assets of his bank paying the roofer. If anyone else wants cash from his bank that month, tough luck.

So the fiction only works if the roofer (and all other recipients of money) accept WeRe units, and won't want them converting to cold, hard (sterling) cash. But mortgage companies, HMRC and all the rest won't.

Ceylon says he is putting loads of questions to Peter today. Perhaps Peter will explain things properly. Or perhaps he will once again display his deep ignorance of the Bills of Exchange Act.

[Jeffrey]

That is so far detached from anything that resembles a functioning economic model that I'm just astonished.

I mean I'm impressed by how stupid the idea is.

[littleFred]

I should mention the questions that GOOFers want Ceylon to ask Peter. Most (but not all) are variations on: "Can I use the cheques to pay credit card bills / rent / mortgage / utility bills / to buy some land?"

My answer would be, "Yes, but they will bounce."

I look forward to Peter's answer.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Peter of England wrote
Now you may ask, well where did the money come from to pay this roofer?

Let me take a stab at it, Peter..........you created it out of thin air!
How did I do, Peter? How did I do?

[rumpelstilzchen]

My answer would be, "Yes, but they will bounce."

Sky high.
Not only is there no funds in the bank account, there is no bank account. In fact, there is no bank. I am tempted to shout one of the GOOFer's favourite words: FRAUD!

[tm169]

By any measure this bank must be one of the most audacious and preposterous scams in UK opca history.

It's like someone turned a misguided idea they had one night in a pub into an actual project and then found an easy way to monetise it.

I'd be interested to know from someone with a financial services background how these cheques will be processed / dealt with. In my experience in larger organisations anything which looks like a cheque is scanned on receipt and immediately banked.

It would be very interesting to see if any fraud actions or at least tort of deceit claims come out of this. Not to mention the impact of the Bills of Exchange Act in terms of being able to obtain summary judgment on cheques.

The problem is when this scheme inevitably fails, like other failures it will be swept under the carpet only to be replaced by another one a few months later. The hallmarks of followers of these gurus is both credulousness and a short memory.

[Hercule Parrot]

I should mention the questions that GOOFers want Ceylon to ask Peter. Most (but not all) are variations on: "Can I use the cheques to pay credit card bills / rent / mortgage / utility bills / to buy some land?"

It's inevitable that the day after "Peter" sends out the chequebooks (if that ever happens), there will be a wild outbreak of cheque-writing. Bogus cheques will flood into the banks, councils, utilities and govt depts.

Some may be initially accepted at face value, and credited to the sender's desired transaction. Then it will all unravel a few days later when the werecheque is revealed to be worthless.

Other transactions may fail more swiftly, especially if some Goofy Goober swaggers into the bank and makes a spectacle of himself. I foresee the Police being called, arrests being made for attempted fraud by false representation.

And then the authorities will follow the trail back to Peter, and he will hopefully be charged with making or supplying articles for use in fraud (s7 Fraud Act 2006).

[vampireLOREN]

Here's an example of how it's going to work from the WeRe website. What could possibly go wrong?

An example may now suffice.

A elderly woman or man joins WeRe Bank.

They have only been with us 2 days or so and they ask for their roof to be repaired as it is leaking and is unsound – they have no money!

WeRe Bank has a roofer prepared to do the work as he wishes to earn money – units of exchange. He estimates that the roofing job is £8,000 sterling equivalent in labour. The goods, the tiles and lathes he can take care of in other ways. (How? Does he steal them? Rob them off other people's roofs or sneak round building sites at night? I don't think Travis Perkins or Screwfix accept WeRe Monopoly money.)

He does the work providing both material and labour over time and WeRe Bank credits his account with the £8,000 equivalent. He is very happy – he gained useful employ and gained a healthy payment.

The old man/woman are happy as they received a new roof.

WeRe Bank is happy in that it was able to PAY IN REAL MONEY a worker for work done. it facilitated the exchange.

Now you may ask, well where did the money come from to pay this roofer?

Do you really care?

What if it was paid as a credit on a conventional credit card? Would you care or know the difference as long as the payment was received by the roofer? What if they (the customer) had taken out a LOAN to pay the roofer and now had a –ve £8,000 on their account – would it bother you? Would you care? Of course not.

The elderly couple (or singles) WeRe paid £8,000 by WeRe Bank because THEY PROVIDED A VALUABLE SERVICE – THEY PERFORMED WORK – THEY PROVIDED THE ROOFER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY – AN OPPORTUNITY PROVISION HAS A FEE SCHEDULE ATTACHED, IT HAS A REAL TANGIBLE COST TO IT AND THEY DID NOT CREATE THE SCHEDULE THE ROOFER DID BY VALUING THE JOB AT £8,000

So hopefully you see the beauty and simplicity of the system.

Do not worry about those that wish to try and trick or exploit the system – The Bank has INFINITE depth of pocket and once anyone is caught abusing the system then they are out! To get back in is NOT so easy.

In addition we have energetic, inter-dimensional “checks, balances and counter-measures” in place. If we have abundance then there is NO requirement to cheat and steal – but there will always be some during the Re Structuring!

This is nonsense, sheer and utter dangerous nonsense. The type of people who'll fall for this are the ones who've made bad decisions, run up debt they can't pay and lack any insight as to why their finances are in such a mess. Or the chancers who want something for nothing.

Its going to be those who believe that opening an account with a utility company does not mean they have any right expect payment, its going to be those who can never open their front door without a camera. I hope Tom,Ceylon et all join up.

[littleFred]

Wiki says that China has (or had) a simple punishment for fraudulent bankers: death.

[wanglepin]

So the fiction only works if the roofer (and all other recipients of money) accept WeRe units, and won't want them converting to cold, hard (sterling) cash. But mortgage companies, HMRC and all the rest won't.

This is Hayes' bank all over again.What will peter of england do with the "real money", retire it I suppose?

Ceylon says he is putting loads of questions to Peter today. Perhaps Peter will explain things properly. Or perhaps he will once again display his deep ignorance of the Bills of Exchange Act.

The chances are no real questions will be posed to this looney.Just like Hayes, he will have pre-written questions from non existent posters.
Hayes did this a lot at his lawfulbank live talks, not once did anyone ask where they "real money was going", instead the questions were about himself and his personal safety for "taking on the banks" rather than the subject matter of the talk. All staged.
Ceylon will not submit any awkward questions from any genuine posters.
It will be interesting to see the video.

[wanglepin]

Over on goofers lobster asks

Yes, the big question is, what do we do when HMRC & all the other bandits reject......which is exactly what they're gonna do.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... SltdjTF98F

Where he is referred to this Re Page and Peter of England's `researcher'

Researcher’s Note: My interpretation and synthesis of the section above, specifically in relation to the tender of promissory notes in payment of a bill which has been accepted for value received, is that when the payment is delivered to the acceptor, he has an immediate right of recourse against the maker and indorser of the note. However, when the acceptor dishonours the note by non-acceptance and returns it to the maker, the opposite is true; the maker and indorser have an immediate right of recourse against the acceptor and “no presentment for payment is necessary”; ie, the liability is discharged by the refusal to accept payment.

http://www.werebank.co.uk/refusal-discharge/

He is "interpreting" -Bills of Exchange Act 1882 which states;
Dishonour by non-acceptance and its consequences.
43 (1)A bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance—

(a)when it is duly presented for acceptance, and such an acceptance as is prescribed by this Act is refused or cannot be obtained; or

(b)when presentment for acceptance is excused and the bill is not accepted.

(2)Subject to the provisions of this Act when a bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance, an immediate right of recourse against the drawer and indorsers accrues to the holder, and no presentment for payment is necessary.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/45-46/61

[grixit]

Yes, is appears to be a contradiction BUT that is only because during the embryonic stages, we require £ to pay for the various items and services which we cannot re-solve with our Re units i.e. website designs, printing, web hosting and the printing company certainly would NOT entertain "taking a cheque" for the first run of cheque books etc. Eventually this sterling requirement will NOT be required. Also we are pragmatic in that, for now, we will HAVE TO RUN THE TWO CURRENCIES SIDE BY SIDE in order to facilitate an eventual TOTAL cross over.

Cool! Put me on the list to join up after you stop requiring sterling.

[littleFred]

... Where he is referred to this Re Page and Peter of England's `researcher'

Researcher’s Note: My interpretation and synthesis of the section above, specifically in relation to the tender of promissory notes ...

As I comment above, this is copy-pasta from Michael of Bernicia's blog. (See also Quatloos thread Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster.)

Michael quotes much of the Bills of Exchange Act, adding his own "Researcher’s Notes" as a gloss. He even quotes section 89 but fails to realise that it shoots holes in his previous Researcher’s Notes.

Michael's pages blind people with BS. They seem to have blinded Peter.

As always, I ask myself: does Peter believe his own junk? The concept that he can create his own bank and pay everyone's bills from nothing at all and that creditors will be satisfied is so obviously junk that I can't believe Peter can't see this. It takes only a little thought to see that creditors won't be satisfied, and then a little more thought to find the flaws in Peter's (and Michael's) argument.

However, browsing through Peter's old videos, eg ReMovement - Declaration of SACREMENT and Preamble to Affidavit 1 (uploaded 6 August 2012), he has has been deeply steeped in SovCit Kool-Aid. Perhaps Peter has fooled himself and believes that his bank will work and creditors will be satisfied. Or, at least, that his bank should work and creditors should be satisfied.

But it won't work, and there will be tears before bedtime.