Peter of England: A REal guru.

[NYGman]

How is Peter going to collect anything?

Energetic osmosis. See above.

I take that as his fancy way of saying accrue, then relieve the liability when a check is written. So if Barclay's has 200MM in UK FTT, WeRe can writh 200MM in checks that clear to Barclays.

[wanglepin]

WTF does this mean;
by bertiebert » Mon Apr 27, 2015 8:03 pm

SO SO OBVIOUS IT'S BEYOND WORDS FOR ME.....
THERE ARE 50 CHEQUES IN A BOOK!!
THERE ARE 50 ALLONGES SENT TO YOU WITH IT!!
ONE FOR EACH CHEQUE
YOU MUST ATTACH AN ALLONGE TO EVERY CHEQUE WHICH YOU SEND OUT -
IF YOUR CHEQUE IS REFUSED THEN YOU MAKE A NOTARIAL PROTEST WITHIN 3 DAYS AND THAT'S IT!
SOME OF YOU ARE NOT DOING THIS!!!

And as predicted I notice they are calling for a ban on GWC.

[Hyrion]

WTF does this mean;

IF YOUR CHEQUE IS REFUSED THEN YOU MAKE A NOTARIAL PROTEST WITHIN 3 DAYS AND THAT'S IT!
SOME OF YOU ARE NOT DOING THIS!!!

Already they're setting up the "you didn't follow the process exactly, use all the magic ingredients in just the right amounts and say the magic words precisely* that's why you fail" excuse.

On the point of "notarial protest" perhaps they mean the chief needs to stamp off on your protest....

* what was it.... "Klaatu barada necktie"? perhaps "neckturn"?..... "nickle?"

[rumpelstilzchen]

WTF does this mean;
by bertiebert » Mon Apr 27, 2015 8:03 pm

SO SO OBVIOUS IT'S BEYOND WORDS FOR ME.....
THERE ARE 50 CHEQUES IN A BOOK!!
THERE ARE 50 ALLONGES SENT TO YOU WITH IT!!
ONE FOR EACH CHEQUE
YOU MUST ATTACH AN ALLONGE TO EVERY CHEQUE WHICH YOU SEND OUT -
IF YOUR CHEQUE IS REFUSED THEN YOU MAKE A NOTARIAL PROTEST WITHIN 3 DAYS AND THAT'S IT!
SOME OF YOU ARE NOT DOING THIS!!!

Imagine the voice of Michelle Dubois. She is saying: "Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once.........alllorrrrnge"
Is that any clearer?

[notorial dissent]

I think the other term for this is wishful thinking?

[NYGman]

Isn't an Allonge unnecessary under common law, and is really only used is civil law countries?

[Hyrion]

Isn't an Allonge unnecessary under common law, and is really only used is civil law countries?

In the normal sense of the word, basic legal definition as I can find (which is subject to being wrong ):

• When a bill of exchange, or other paper, is too small to receive the endorsements which are to be made on it, another piece of paper is added to it, and bears the name of allonge.

How they're actually using the term I haven't yet figured out. How an extra space for endorsements alters the situation in this freeman sense is beyond my understanding.

I'm under the vague impression that the "allonge" has additional terms on it which then alters the situation. For example, instead of having the legal small print on the cheque, they have it on the extra paper attached to the cheque.... but then, that wouldn't be an "allonge" in the normal sense as I understand it.

Then again, this is the UK we're talking about.... and while a boot is something you put on your foot to me, a boot is where you store your luggage in the UK.

So maybe the UK definition of "allonge" is very different.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Then again, this is the UK we're talking about.... and while a boot is something you put on your foot to me, a boot is where you store your luggage in the UK.

In the UK it is both. So it is possible to put your boot inside your boot. But it wouldn't work the other way round. It would be impossible to put your boot inside your boot.

[vampireLOREN]

Then again, this is the UK we're talking about.... and while a boot is something you put on your foot to me, a boot is where you store your luggage in the UK.

In the UK it is both. So it is possible to put your boot inside your boot. But it wouldn't work the other way round. It would be impossible to put your boot inside your boot.

or if you are an aggressive type you could put the boot in........

[notorial dissent]

Isn't an Allonge unnecessary under common law, and is really only used is civil law countries?

I'm quite sure that an Allonge does not exist at all under common law, and I would be fairly certain that a check or BOE would not exist either, so they can't use that excuse at all.

[grixit]

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.)

That's how BXI worked. It helped me get a lot more business, but it didn't reduce my taxes in any way.

[grixit]

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/

Is energetic osmosis anything like advanced-resonance plasma physics?

[grixit]

WTF does this mean;

IF YOUR CHEQUE IS REFUSED THEN YOU MAKE A NOTARIAL PROTEST WITHIN 3 DAYS AND THAT'S IT!
SOME OF YOU ARE NOT DOING THIS!!!

Already they're setting up the "you didn't follow the process exactly, use all the magic ingredients in just the right amounts and say the magic words precisely* that's why you fail" excuse.

On the point of "notarial protest" perhaps they mean the chief needs to stamp off on your protest....

* what was it.... "Klaatu barada necktie"? perhaps "neckturn"?..... "nickle?"

You have to wear the lime green paisley boxers on your head or it won't work.

[notorial dissent]

Petey really doesn't know sh** it seems. The "notarial protest" nonsense has to do with BOE's, although you can do it with a check, and is only available to someone the DRAWER gives it to if the item is declined/dishonored. The DRAWER doesn't get to, EVER. So it is to laugh. at the fool.

[Normal Wisdom]

I just saw this comment from someone called Amanda Wymer on what of PoE's latest YouTube videos:

For all those with doubts, if this is any kind of a scam, - Peter of England is very well known to Mark Ceylon, Guy Taylor & Tom Crawford and many many more, if this was a scam, one (0r all) would have exposed it long before now. They are all supporting Peter and the bank, I hope that reassures everybody. Have some faith xx

I have commended her for posting the single funniest comment that I have ever seen on YT.

[wanglepin]

I just seen that. comment. she mentions nothing of having a peter of england checkbook herself though.

[littleFred]

Possibly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0RDm_ZifyU , though Normal's comment is no longer there, leaving a hanging "????" response by Amanda.

The scheme certainly is a scam, but the sort of scam approved of by Ceylon and Co where the payee gets stiffed. That's the whole advertised point of the scheme: energy suppliers, mortgage companies etc don't acually get paid but they can no longer require money from the debtor.

Amanda thinks Ceylon, Guy, Tom etc would have exposed the scheme as a scam debtors if they thought it was. But I notice that none of those three have said they have joined WerRe. In my view, they know the scheme won't work, and they would waste their £35. Worse, their reputations would take a dive.

[Normal Wisdom]

Possibly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0RDm_ZifyU , though Normal's comment is no longer there, leaving a hanging "????" response by Amanda.

The scheme certainly is a scam, but the sort of scam approved of by Ceylon and Co where the payee gets stiffed. That's the whole advertised point of the scheme: energy suppliers, mortgage companies etc don't acually get paid but they can no longer require money from the debtor.

Amanda thinks Ceylon, Guy, Tom etc would have exposed the scheme as a scam debtors if they thought it was. But I notice that none of those three have said they have joined WerRe. In my view, they know the scheme won't work, and they would waste their £35. Worse, their reputations would take a dive.

I don't know if my comments have been deleted or if it's some kind of glitch with Google+ that means they are not visible. I can still see them in the Google+ notifications and Amanda is responding to me. She asks how can I pass judgement on WeRe Bank if I don't have a cheque book!! I replied that I don't have any forged £20 notes but I know they are illegal.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I find it amusing that Amanda attempts to give the impression that she knows what she is talking about by stating she is a journalist and she predicts a financial collapse, but in the same post she admits to it being a struggle to find the £35.
She must be one successful journalist if she finds it difficult to raise £35. Most of the GOOFERs are on the dole and they appear to have no problem with it.

[vampireLOREN]

Possibly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0RDm_ZifyU , though


Amanda thinks Ceylon, Guy, Tom etc would have exposed the scheme as a scam debtors if they thought it was. But I notice that none of those three have said they have joined WerRe. In my view, they know the scheme won't work, and they would waste their £35. Worse, their reputations would take a dive.

As long as a utility company / local council get shafted they will see it as a worthwhile scheme. I wonder what assistance is given to those like the really stupid family in Co Durham?
after you have lost your home / motor car do you see back up videos showing this bunch planning to assist. Watching their videos can give us something to talk about and are amusing......I guess. But maybe after watching these lunatics we maybe should up our game and Flag them to YouTube especially if the content deserves it. The latest SriLanerc video is really nasty and received a flag from me .