Peter of England: A REal guru.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Hmmm. So what is he telling the suckers/morons to write on the cheques?

Peter has deliberately left the currency box blank. He tells us that you decide what you write in there. You can write, GBP, dollars, euros, whatever you like.
What could possibly go wrong?

[littleFred]

Ah, yes, I think this is a recent addition to the WeRe FAQ:

Also you should be fully aware that any cheque signed off in STG £ is honoured, to the PAYEE, not in STERLING [£] but in Re units – which are “monetary units of account” “cheque book money” or “bank ledger money of account”.

The allonges don't mention this rather important fact. They say merely:

WeRe Bank confirms that this cheque IS DRAWN UPON 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”, “CHEQUE BOOK MONEY” OR “MONETARY UNIT OF ACCOUNT” and can be transferred to you, the PAYEE, either electronically or via physical means within the PRESCRIBED CLEARING PERIOD. This is why you must act now or fail.

So, if a cheque gets through clearing (ha!), Peter write to the payee something like:

Dear payee,

You have presented a cheque for £149,000. I accept this at the rate of 1:1000 so I now owe you 149 Re units. How would you like paying? I can do it by email, or by paper, or if you would prefer I can open up an account for you and keep your 149 Re units in my bank. If you opt for this option, please send me £10/month. Oh, and you have to give me a promissory note for £150,000.

Yours,

Peter.

[rumpelstilzchen]

The fun is about to begin! Someone has written out a cheque to The Co Op bank to the tune of £120,000 and the bank has been in touch with Peter.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Peter-Of ... 68?fref=nf

FIRST WeRe Bank CHEQUE HITS CO-OP BANK for £120,000.
Well done AE!
Today at 10am UK time someone from the Co-Op Bank telephoned the Clearing Hotline to verify a cheque. I confirmed after receiving the cheque number as well as account name that it was "good!" and there were cleared funds in the account. She questioned only one thing: The sort code and said that as it was NOT on the CCCCC data base they could not clear it. What she meant by that after questioning is that "they can't enter it into the system!" So I explained to her that just because we were NOT part of their monopolistic cartel it was no reason NOT to present the cheque to US for clearing at the given address. I then informed her that she now had 2 choices: The First was to accept it and present it to us and we would clear it and if necessary send electronic funds or 2: Return it and dishonour it for non-acceptance. The conversation ended there! Thanks to all who've JOINED.
I will be at the May 1st Meeting in Nottingham - look forward to seeing you all there! Peter of England

Note that Peter does not have a clue what "dishonoured by non-acceptance" means.

[wanglepin]

As I predicted here . by wanglepin » Tue Apr 21, 2015 7:07 am

Ahh, you see that is the trouble with Freeman Sov forums, you don't really get a chance to allay your genuine concerns, suspicion or worry towards some harebrained scheme scam, dreamed up by the likes of bertiebert, Ceylon /Mark Haining or Peter of England. That would all fall under "negitivity" which inevitably leads to a ban.

Bertibert on goofers

by bertiebert » Mon Apr 27, 2015 12:36 pm
"WeRe bank does not pay out." lol it has cleared funds, what the hell do you think the promissary notes were for ?

its the last time I am ever going to respond to your negative posts

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... T4V8jTF98E

[rumpelstilzchen]

bertiebert has started a thread on GOOFER'S regarding the updated FAQs but he contradicts the information found on the FAQ page. He writes:

the WeRe bank will pay the payee in the currency stipulated on the cheque...

[littleFred]

Tee hee.

Peter knows nothing about banks and banking laws because he doesn't need to. Statutes don't apply to him. And he is the Recorder of a Court of Record that is more powerful than ordinary courts, so if there is any dispute his court will find in his favour.

Conventional banks might follow conventional terminology such as BoE 1882 s17:

(1)The acceptance of a bill is the signification by the drawee of his assent to the order of the drawer.

But Peter can declare anyone to be the "acceptor", and anyone who disobeys will face the wrath of his court.

[notorial dissent]

Stupidity is probably the honest defense here, but I don't think it is a viable legal defense against having committed fraud. I can't say with certainty, but in the US when you right a check, drawn on a US account, the funds are considered to be in dollars, regardless of what you might put on the check or think to the contrary, since that is all the banking system is geared to process. One would reasonably assume that the same holds true in the UK. So writing a check in the UK on a supposedly UK bank, one would reasonably expect to be paid in pounds, not RE's or Zlotnys.

[longdog]

I've just had a look at my cheque-book and it has a £ sign next to the amount-in-figures box so by default that is the currency it's payable in.

I suppose you could cross it out and write in a dollar, euro, groat symbol but what would happen then I have no idea. Given that my account holds pounds sterling and not dollars, euros or groats I suspect it would bounce right back.

[notorial dissent]

longdog, what would happen is that it would be processed in pounds in the UK, the keypuncher, date entry operator, or scanner receiving it would simply read the number and ignore anything/everything else, that's what they're trained to do. Now if it went through another country's system, it is hard to say, but that usually doesn't happen except by extreme stupidity, on the part of the drawer.

[rumpelstilzchen]

If someone writes out a cheque to me In GBP I will only accept payment in GBP. I will not accept sheep, goats, camels, wives or a fictional currency that some bloke on t'internet has invented.
You cannot be forced to accept an alternative currency. Especially one that does not exist.

[longdog]

longdog, what would happen is that it would be processed in pounds in the UK, the keypuncher, date entry operator, or scanner receiving it would simply read the number and ignore anything/everything else, that's what they're trained to do. Now if it went through another country's system, it is hard to say, but that usually doesn't happen except by extreme stupidity, on the part of the drawer.

I suspect you're right.

[littleFred]

That's the funny thing about Re units. If Peter had devised a system of people doing jobs for each other, "paying" each other in some nominal invented currency with central accounts kept by Peter, there wouldn't be a major problem. (People might still have to pay income tax, but that's another story.)

It would be a hippyish utopian be-nice scheme. It might be a good idea or it might not. He might even persuade some suppliers to give a 10% discount to members, dressed up as, "We can take up to 10% of payments in Re units." See his new Suckers' list page. Sorry I mean "Members list". There wouldn't be a legal problem.

But that idea wouldn't be attractive. To make it attractive, Peter has invented (or borrowed) the lies that he can enforce his invented currency on other people, so he can get suckers out of debt free.

His legal arguments are sufficiently complex that suckers can't be bothered to verify them. They simply believe him. And maybe (just maybe) Peter believes them himself.

[rumpelstilzchen]

His legal arguments are sufficiently complex that suckers can't be bothered to verify them. They simply believe him.

But even when you point out to his suckers that his arguments are wrong they still believe him. You can present them with evidence that proves him to be wrong and they will respond by calling you a "shill" or suchlike and they will continue to believe him. They will not consider any evidence that shows he is wrong. They know more than you do, or so they believe. This is why I have no sympathy for them. Anyone who is using these cheques, in my opinion, deserves everything they get.

[littleFred]

Was it Agent Mulder on X-files (or just a background poster) that said: "I want to believe".

[Hyrion]

I suppose you could cross it out and write in a dollar, euro, ...

Don't be surprised if one of those "corrupt banks" actually processes it..... providing an automatic currency exchange along with the exchange service rate (thereby charging a fee off the amount that was extracted).... assuming the currency symbol denotes a lawful currency. Think of the automatic conversion rate processing on your credit card when you charge something in a country that is not your home as an automatic example.

This is just one of the many options the bank could probably lawfully apply that the individual writing the cheque - and perhaps the individual cashing the cheque - would not like.

That's the problem with being deliberately dishonest (and I do view attempting to cheat ones way out of ones debts as being dishonest - whether or not the specific situation is lawful): it brings consequences the dishonest person isn't likely to enjoy.

[mufc1959]

On the FB page someone's posted:

Tried ringing the Clearing Hotline... 0044 - 7455 - 372365 - didn't ring Then rang.. 07455 - 372365 - same again didn't ring. Time I tried 15:45 UK time. Is the Hotline Out of Service or something? Not a good example for a dedicated phone number for a bank to ring up and try to get a cheque cleared. As it stands at the moment this is a serious problem that needs looking into as will cause problems for the WeRe banks customers.

What's the odds that the 'Clearing Hotline' is a £10 PAYG mobile?

[littleFred]

In his FAQ UPDATE, Peter is thinking of increasing his 1% financial transaction tax to maybe 5%. On his updated 5% FCUKTT, he's decided to go for it.

This seems to be on money that may not even (as far as I can tell) flow through the UK. There are international schemes that ensure for example that when a bank in Japan that is selling currency to a USA bank in exchange for USD, the two transactions occur at the same instant, so any failure doesn't cause problems. If Peter could tax these at just 1%, he would become insanely rich. He would earn more in a week than Bill Gates has in his entire lifetime.

I can see a couple of flaws. If he taxed just the transaction with a UK involvement, the money-movers would cease to involve the UK. If his tax was world-wide, the price of everything would increase by 1% to 5%. The price of grain, coal, steel, aluminium, cameras, pizzas, everything that was bought and sold involves money movement. If the cost of moving money increases, then so do prices.

I'm no economist, but is seems to me that taxing all money movements would also put a dampener on money movements. If someone makes a 2% profit on a transaction, then halving that profit (or making it negative) will make that person reluctant to do it at all. Suddenly we find that grain, coal, steel, aluminium, cameras and pizzas are no longer being moved about, bought and sold.

Currently, business are taxed on profits they make, rather than on all transactions. If they were taxed on all transactions, so we wouldn't need personal taxation, I'd think that they would merely pass that cost down to their customers, and it would eventually be paid for by people. So we wouldn't save people anything, overall. And if only one country did this, businesses would swiftly move away.

Fortunately for the UK or world economy, this tax is merely Peter's fantasy.

[mufc1959]

In addition to (or quite probably instead of) CHAPS, BACS, DDs, SOs, and all other kind of electronic banking, WeRe Bank is introducing a new method of transferring funds - energetic osmosis. (Scroll down the FAQ to read the drivel about the 1% FTT.

http://www.werebank.co.uk/faq-3/

[NYGman]

I think he may be trying to Ape the EU FTT, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_U ... action_tax which is a far lower .1% or .01% on derivitives. Either way, the UK had opted out of this, and stated that it would not be a good idea, as it may hurt the UK Financial industry. Not only that, the UK doesn't even want to collect it, if it does come in to force.

How is Peter going to collect anything?

EDIT: I think I understand this now. Peter will impose a 5% FTT Tax on all banks. He will accrue the tax on WeRe books. When debts are paid, he will debit the accrued tax, deemeing the tax paid with the cancelation of debt. Wont work, but interesting

[mufc1959]

How is Peter going to collect anything?

Energetic osmosis. See above.