Peter of England: A REal guru.

[Jeffrey]

Worth underlining that this may be the first ever economic system proposed where the person performing a service and the person receiving the service, both get paid.

I mean think of the inflationary effects.

[PeanutGallery]

Worth underlining that this may be the first ever economic system proposed where the person performing a service and the person receiving the service, both get paid.

I mean think of the inflationary effects.

Not only that but you can value the job at *whatever* and based on the economic model, it's in your interest to give the work to the contractor with the highest bid.

[littleFred]

No word, yet, from Ceylon about the questions to Peter.

However, Peter is busy adding junk to the WeRe Bank webite.

Peter tells payees that they have to accept WeRe cheques. Not true: cheques are not "legal tender", and payees are not obliged to accept them.

NOTICE TO PAYEE - LEGAL DEPARTMENTS AND ACCOUNTING/BOOK - KEEPING DEPARTMEES (pdf)

Most payees and their banks know how cheques work and what to do with them. But Peter puts his own spin on it, misunderstanding Bills of Exchange Act s42 and s43. The cheque-book will contain 50 copies of these misunderstandings, one for each cheque, presumably with the intention of blinding the payee with BS. S42 and s43 refer to "presented for acceptance". This will occur when the cheque is sent to the WeRe Bank for payment. The WeRe Bank would either accept it (and pay it), or dishonour it. Peter thinks that "presented for acceptance" occurs when a WeRe customer hands a cheque to a supplier. He is wrong.

Should you fail to accept it or refuse to honour it you will be in breach Section s42 & 43 for Non Acceptance and Dishonour and the DRAWER walks free and clear

Nope. That is garbage. s42 actually says that if the WeRe Bank dishonours the cheque, and the supplier doesn't get back to the WeRe customer saying the cheque has bounced, the supplier has no come-back on the customer.

Peter often references the "UN Convention on Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes 1988". He means the United Nations Convention on International Bills of Exchange and International Promissory Notes (New York, 1988). For the convenience of readers, he has copied the document to his own site, linked from his page UN Convention & Cheques. As usual, Peter cherry-picks. He ignores three important points. (1) The convention does not apply to cheques. (2) The sample promissory notes Peter shows are not International notes, so the convention does not apply to them. (3) Even worse: the convention has not been signed-up to by ten states, so by article 89 the convention isn't even in force. So the convention doesn't apply to anything.


These fifty slips of paper, one per cheque, include:

WeRe Bank confirms that this cheque IS DRAWN ON A BANK ACCOUNT –THE BANK HAS FUNDS ON DEPOSIT in the name of the DRAWER TO CLEAR THE ISSUED NOTE TO YOU THE PAYEE – THE “MONEY” IS BANK LEDGER MONEY OR MONETARY UNIT OF ACCOUNT and can be transferred to you either electronically within the CLEARING PERIOD

"Either" ... or what? The sentence stops abruptly. Anyhow, this is the heart of the matter. Either this is a lie and WeRe does not have funds on deposit, or it does in the form of the £150,000 promissory notes the suckers have sent to the bank. When the cheque arrives at the WeRe Bank for clearing, how will Peter pay it? How will Peter honour the cheque? My answer: he doesn't have the sterling money to cover it, so he won't pay it. Cheques will bounce. Suppliers will go back to the suckers and say they haven't paid their bills. Either this, or Peter has sold a few £150,000 promissory notes, in which case those suckers are in real trouble. To be fair, yes, there is a third possibility: Peter waves his magic wand, creates money from thin air, pays the cheques and everyone is happy. I wouldn't bet £10 on this possibility, let alone £150,000.


I love the KARMIC CLICK! page. An extract:

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WISH TO DENIGRATE THE INTEGRITY OF THIS SITE…

it’s ideology, intention and purpose, raised up, as it has been by Divine Degree… those of you whom attempt to assail the unassailable – Re-Movement, WeRe Bank, Freeman Legal Services, the International Common Law Court of Record 75 01 81, and Peter of England,and all peoples of the world enjoined with it – then you should be made aware of the Law of De-Polarization which is hereby invoked:

Well, I suppose that would be me, pointing out that the WeRe Bank won't work. What is this "Law of De-Polarization"? I can't follow it, but I enjoy:

Tell me: "Has your soul just felt the CLICK?"

Oh, I bet it has!

The Egregore has just been engaged.

This page has been charged with an ENERGY FIELD.

It is now attached to you.

"Egregore" seems to mean "collective group mind", though I guess "group-think" would cover it. Gosh, a group-think of WeRe suckers engage with me. Help me. I'm so frightened.

Perhaps Peter will prove me wrong. I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong in the future. Perhaps Peter really can magic-away people's debts. But his explanations of how he will do this are clearly wrong. He has shown no evidence that his "Bank" is registered, regulated, carries any of the usual guarantees, has any capital, nothing. It looks like a scam and smells like a scam, so I call it a scam.


EDIT: I forgot to mention: Peter signs the Karmic click page as "Peter of England LL.B, FRC". I don't know what "FRC" might stand for. If he has a law degree, he should demand a refund.

[Hercule Parrot]

Should you fail to accept it or refuse to honour it you will be in breach Section s42 & 43 for Non Acceptance and Dishonour and the DRAWER walks free and clear

Nope. That is garbage. s42 actually says that if the WeRe Bank dishonours the cheque, and the supplier doesn't get back to the WeRe customer saying the cheque has bounced, the supplier has no come-back on the customer.

Yes, there's no way that any creditor can be obliged to accept one of these make-believe 'cheques' as legal tender for a debt. The reverse interpretation of the Denning judgement is another classic example of delusional hope.

I really hope that Peter does send out the 'chequebooks', it will be hilarious to read the spluttering stories of disappointed customers. Of course they won't be complaining that Peter took their real money and gave them worthless pretend money. They will be complaining that the banks are unfathomably refusing to accept the worthless pretend money.

[notorial dissent]

I'd like to know just how the "cheque" are going to be presented, since there is no way this pretend bank can have joined the clearing house/assn, whatever it is called in UK.

Either he isn't expecting them to, or he may be using his own acct, and that won't last long. I'm still trying to figure out who and how he got someone to print them up,

[PeanutGallery]

I have a feeling that things are going to get very interesting for Peter of England in the next few weeks, at least based on an email I just received relating to his Freeman Legal Services. This email is from the SRA who have confirmed that they are considering whether to launch an investigation into his 'firm'.

Of course now that Peters claimed to have an LL.B I'm sure the SRA will make sure that claim to a qualification is above board.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Peter thinks that "presented for acceptance" occurs when a WeRe customer hands a cheque to a supplier. He is wrong.

The ignorance displayed by Peter here is astounding. The man is supposed to be running a bank but he is clearly demonstrating that he has absolutely no idea what is meant by "holder" and "drawee".
I can only assume that, if he really does have a law degree, he found it in the bottom of a box of Cornflakes.

Hercule Parrot wrote:

I really hope that Peter does send out the 'chequebooks'

Me too. When the inevitable car crash occurs I will take great pleasure in pointing at them and laughing.

[wanglepin]

I'm still trying to figure out who and how he got someone to print them up,

The more I read of Peter of England the more I see Roger Hayes' lawfulbank
Here at around 1:06: 30 onwards, Hayes shows his audience his "design for forgeproof" lawfulbank notes adding, "if you bring £20 to me I will replace it with this and I will retire that £20". This is where Hayes gets asked at the Q&A's at the end,at 1:13:15 about his safety and security, comparing this threat to that of "President Kennedy"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dljoLArlFXo
When he first introduced his bank to the world he suggested to his audience that Guy Taylor ( a self confessed forger of U.S. dollars) would be handling the printing.

[notorial dissent]

I think the misnomer here is that "Peter thinks" as I am quite sure he doesn't, there certainly is no verifiable evidence of it at any rate, that coupled with his stupendous and all encompassing ignorance is just a perfect storm of FOTL/sovrun fail, and the inevitable con game against their own followers. It just never seems to miss.

I can't believe anyone is actually falling for this, except that they are even more ignorant and self deluded than he is, and most of them will never figure out or believe that they have been had because it doesn't fit in with what they want to believe.

Thank you wanglepin, that is about what I expected since I just couldn't see a reputable check printer touching this with at ten foot pole. Doesn't the UK have a law about printing fraudulent bank documents? Which would be another nail in their collective coffins.

So nice of them to provide the Crown Prosecution Service with all the information they'll need and make it all so very public.

[mufc1959]

I'm sure the FCA will be interested in this. I've already reported WeRe Bank. I encourage other people to report it. Use the 'unauthorised firms' link, select Financial Crimes and then choose any one of Scams, Fraud, Unauthorised Business, etc. from the drop-downs.

http://www.fca.org.uk/site-info/contact

[tm169]

This raises some interesting questions in my eyes as to how cheques actually work and accordingly how the banks will process the "cheques".

Technically they won't bounce because they won't get as far as going through the clearing house process as inevitably this fake bank isn't a member of SWIFT or affiliated with the clearing banks. There is a bit more info here: http://www.chequeandcredit.co.uk/cheque ... o_cheques/

In my eyes this is fresh territory as, unlike the fake promissory notes and A4V this is engaging a whole different area of law and of course the criminal law on passing of or printing cheques which might not tolerate this as readily as other business might:

Preventing fraud

There is a range of prevention measures at both bank and industry level. They include the following:

The industry sponsors its own specialist police fraud squad – the Dedicated Cheque and Plastic Crime Unit - to target the organised gangs behind cheque fraud.

A focus on identifying lost or fraudulent cheques as they pass through the clearing system. The overwhelming majority of attempted cheque fraud is spotted and stopped in the cheque clearing process.

The Cheque Printer Accreditation Scheme (CPAS) helps combat fraud by requiring that all bank customer chequebooks are printed to the highest security standards. All cheque printing companies must be accredited to this Scheme. Security features on cheques are particularly effective in combating both counterfeit and fraudulently altered cheques. CPAS is managed by the C&CCC.

[Hyrion]

[this websites] ideology, intention and purpose, raised up, as it has been by Divine Degree [decree?]…

Hmm.... either Peter thinks he's been in communication with a Divinity or perhaps he thinks he is a Divinity....

Either way.... he's probably in need of some psychological help.

[notorial dissent]

tm169, checks are still cleared pretty much the same way they have since the dawn of time, except nowadays instead of being mailed of hand carried to the issuing bank, they go through a central clearing house, the end result is the same. Bank A gets a check in as a deposit, credits it to the appropriate account and the check is then sent on to the clearing house for final processing, and they essentially send it on to the issuing bank for payment. Now what you(the public) don't see in this, is that in each step of the process an account is credited and passed on to another to be debited until it reaches the issuing bank, bank C. Where the monkey wrench gets inserted is when the check hits the issuing bank who says "I'm not paying this, no money in account or no account" and sends it back the other direction, busily reversing transactions all along the way until it gets back to the initial depositing bank, Bank A who then debits the account of deposit for the amount of the check and processing fees and the merchant, or whoever is now out the amount of the deposit plus.

The ritual is pretty much the same whether it is a bad check or a non-check. Where this one falls apart is when it hits the clearing house who determines there is "no such bank" and sends it back, or it hits whatever bank it was drawn on and they say no such account". End result is the same, and it is called check fraud.

The variations here are that you use a valid sort code and made up account number, or both are made up. The ones with valid sort codes will last longer in the system than the totally made up ones that the clearing house will catch first run.

I don't know what Pete is going to do, but it will be some combination of the above. It is still check fraud.

[PeanutGallery]

I think what Peter is expecting to be able to do is that when WeReBank is presented with a cheque, he's going to say "Yes absolutely we have teh monies" let me send them from my imaginary ledger.

Remember a common theme among Sov's and assorted Wibblers is that money, especially in banking, is just an artificial construct and nothing more than imaginary numbers. Peter is thinking he can invent some numbers too and play the banks at what he thinks is their game. Chances are he doesn't even know what a clearing house is or what it does.

[Normal Wisdom]

Should you fail to accept it or refuse to honour it you will be in breach Section s42 & 43 for Non Acceptance and Dishonour and the DRAWER walks free and clear

Peter thinks that "presented for acceptance" occurs when a WeRe customer hands a cheque to a supplier. He is wrong.

Isn't this the common and fundamental problem with all sovs from Hannah Shotbolt to Peter of England? They simply fail to understand who is who in the Bills of Exchange / Promissory Note process and all (by accident or design) interpret it completely back to front? The result is that they put all the onus on the person that is due money and none on the person that is bound to pay it.

The process and law on Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes etc is all new to me and it is difficult to understand clearly. I have recently gone a few rounds with the Bills of Exchange Act and while I currently may be ahead on points the bugger still won't stay down. I thank my fellow Quatloosians for being the horse shoe in my glove. Even so I wouldn't dream of trying to use the process in my own financial dealings. The problem for most sovs seems to be that they are simply not equipped to be in the ring with such a heavyweight and could get seriously hurt.

[littleFred]

I first came across the Bills of Exchange Act in the context of SovCits. They claimed the BoE said weird things that didn't correspond to real life as I experienced it or common sense.

For example, section 42:

When a bill is duly presented for acceptance and is not accepted within the customary time, the person presenting it must treat it as dishonoured by non-acceptance. If he do not, the holder shall lose his right of recourse against the drawer and indorsers.

With the mistaken SovCit reading, this could refer to me sending a cheque to my electricity supplier, and them not "accepting" my cheque, so I can "treat it as dishonoured". But then what does the second sentence mean? If the electricity supplier is the "holder" and I am the "drawer", then the electricity supplier would lose their right of recourse against me if I don't treat it as dishonoured. That doesn't make sense. Moreover, it makes a nonsense of the SovCit theory that we should make a "protest of dishonour". Surely I would want the holder to lose his right of recourse against me, so it is better for me if I don't treat it as dishonoured?

The SovCit reading is wrong.

Much of the complexity of the BoE Act is because cheques (and other bills of exhange) can be used for more than simply paying debts. If I write an uncrossed cheque to person B, then person B can indorse the cheque as payable to person C, who can also indorse it, and so on. Eventually person Z wants the money, so presents the cheque, and my bank will pay person Z, even though I have no connection with person Z and he wasn't the payee on the cheque. If the cheque bounces, then Z has recourse against Y, who has recourse against ... C, who has recourse against B, who has recourse against me. (These days, cheques are usually crossed and can only be paid into a bank account of the payee.)

I'm not a lawyer, accountant or banker. I think I correctly understand the principle of the BoE Act, but the fine detail is beyond me.

It seems to me that WeRe "cheques" are not cheques as defined in the BoE Act s73 because "WeRe Bank" isn't a banker. However, they may be valid Bills Of Exchange (s3): a request from a sucker to WeRe that WeRe pay the electricity supplier. Of course, suppliers won't have the admin to process Bills of Exchange, and don't have to accept them.

[PeanutGallery]

Surprise surprise, the Bank of England hasn't heard of WeRe Bank and suggested that they should be reported to the FCA. They even provided a helpful link and a degree of encouragement.

[notorial dissent]

I would say that reading comprehension, and reading for comprehension are certainly two of the over riding points of fail in the FOTL crowd, as well as reading for what they want to see, which I think is the next biggest point of fail. They think they have found something that validates one of their fantasies, and they only read the parts that agree with what they want to believe, and conveniently ignore the rest. General ignorance of just about everything real world, would be the next major point of fail in my point of view.

Normal Wisdom, I have to agree with you on the BoE Act, of course I read it from the point of sanity and actual experience, and I still found it confusing and obtusely written. In other words not light reading or something I would choose for relaxation. The plain fact that it is something that I would expect that 99.9% of the universe would never have reason to come in contact with is another factor. When you don’t know what it means to begin with, it is real easy to misinterpret it to suit your own fantasies.

You are dead right though on the main part, the loopy loos don’t even have a grasp on what the terms used in the Act actually mean, so they simply disregard them and make it up as they go along.

[vampireLOREN]

He is appearing on a Ceylon Video posted today, am up to 16:51 and so far all he has talked about is Energy/reptilian/"the secret" and other good stuff.
https://youtu.be/ldq1bQr_RxQ
This video is over 2:50 long
it might need someone with patience......

[Normal Wisdom]

He is appearing on a Ceylon Video posted today, am up to 16:51 and so far all he has talked about is Energy/reptilian/"the secret" and other good stuff.
https://youtu.be/ldq1bQr_RxQ
This video is over 2:50 long
it might need someone with patience......

I only got as far as 11 minutes where he explained that it's got something to do with Prince Charles growing peas. I think I just saved myself two and a half hours.

Just call me when the police arrive.