Peter of England: A REal guru.

[longdog]

However I'm not sure that the video means what he thinks it means or that he actually understands all of the process.

Well for a start the 'you' referred to in the video would be the creditor who pays in the WeRe cheque not the debtor as Peter is clearly trying to imply so the 6 days between paying in and receiving the free-and-clear cash has probably only just started or not started at all in most cases.

Clearly that video is explaining the ordinary course of events with valid cheques not fraudulent / worthless cheques which are soon going to stop the clock ticking. Of course in GOOFy land videos on YouToob constitute legally binding contracts which can be enforced in court even if you have totally misunderstood them and the cheque was never actually a valid cheque in the first place.

I can't work out from PoE's Facebook page whether any of the cheques have actually been paid in to a clearing bank or whether the enquiries and queries have been coming directly from the people who have been sent the WeRe cheques.

[wanglepin]

It's not surprising but it's a shame that it's happening too soon.

It is Rumple.This news has ruined my weekend. I was hoping this would run a little longer as the forecast is rain and I have over "57 channels and nothing on".
It will be interesting to read what those ardent promoters of this con Mark Haining ceylon and bertiebert have to say.

[wanglepin]

From PoE's Facebook page:

We had a call at 14;50hrs on 1st May from John May of Bromley District Council asking procedure on a cheque drawn by one Emily Davies for £ 1,766.10p. If this is you then hear up.He quoted the cheque number amount and name and asked how to clear it, He was told how to and said he would conform. We confirmed funds available. If this is NOT you then ....you still get the point, EVERY SINGLE HIGH STREET BANK HAS CALLED US IN THE PAST 7 DAYS ASKING..."what do we have to do to clear the cheque?" Including some one claiming to be from UK Clearing"
HOLD FAST!

I shall ring Mr May at the first possible chance.

[longdog]

Well the ban-hammer has just fallen on the 'trolls', 'sheeple', 'paid shills' and 'disinformation agents' over at PoE's Faceache page now the 'I told you so's have started.

I'm surprised I lasted so long really.

[wanglepin]

Well the ban-hammer has just fallen on the 'trolls', 'sheeple', 'paid shills' and 'disinformation agents' over at PoE's Faceache page now the 'I told you so's have started.

I'm surprised I lasted so long really.

Peter has tried a spot of deflection after learning his scam has been exposed so early.

Just so we can quieten the "chattering class" and those trolls who say WeRe Bank is engaged in fraud - then I just wish that they would protest against the top 5 clearing banks as vehmently as they do against this People's Bank. So are we satisfying the 5 heads of the definition of fraud. I think not: -
Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements:
(1) a false statement of a material fact,
(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue,
(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim,
(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Peter-Of ... 68?fref=nf
I suppose he thought none of this would have been exposed before the bank holiday.

[longdog]

(1) a false statement of a material fact, - Check
(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, - Check
(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, - Check
(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, - Check
and
(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. - Check

Five out of five.

Now when it comes to court they have evidence he knew what fraud actually was so there goes even the slightest hope of an 'I didn't understand what I was doing' defence.

[wanglepin]

Five out of five.

Now when it comes to court they have evidence he knew what fraud actually was so there goes even the slightest hope of an 'I didn't understand what I was doing' defence.

Indeed longdog. He will have a reality CHECK (✓)

[rumpelstilzchen]

PoE has posted this on his facebook page:

Peter Of England

38 mins · .


WeRe Bank's currency unit, the Re, based on 1/8766 part of a Mean Soalr tropical Year [1 hour] is destined and designed to make this obsolete. So, if you think BitCoin was a fad, and you see it progressing like this then imagine where We'll be within the year...

Yes, I can imagine where Peter will be within the year........up shit creek without a paddle.
It really does look as though Peter has no idea about what he's got coming to him.
Bless him.

[Hyrion]

Holy shit!!! Sorry for language I've just checked Barclays app and three Barclay cards finito!!!!!
· 28 April at 23:30

See... this kind of response tells me Emily expected the situation to be flakey. She didn't expect it to work. What's surprising is that she didn't give any thought into her role in the situation. That if it was an invalid situation, then she might perhaps be comitting fraud.

So... to test the cheques. Kind of makes you wonder why she didn't test the cheques by writing a cheque for 100 pounds sterling to herself, then cashing that directly with WEre Bank to see if she ended up with 100 pounds in her hand.

You can do that with a real bank, write a cheque to yourself and cash it - like filling out a withdrawal slip without having to remember your bank account number. So why wouldn't it work with WEre Bank if the cheques and accounts were real?

[longdog]

TROLLS - SHILLS - IDIOTS - THE DOWNRIGHT STUPIDLY MISCHIEVIOUS, ignoramuses AND THOSE NEGATIVELY PRE-DISPOSED TOWARDS THAT WHICH WE ARE DOING, WILL BE BANNED FROM THE PAGE. IF THEY DON'T AGREE THEN THEY STAY AWAY AND SHOULD FIND SOME INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGED PAGE COMMENSURATE WITH THEIR PRONOUNCED PREDISPOSITION TOWARDS THEIR MASTERS OF THE NWO WHICH THEY SERVE WITH BLIND BLANKED MIND IGNORANCE

Temper, temper Peter.

Well he hasn't blamed the Jews yet but I suspect it's only a matter of time

[rumpelstilzchen]

TROLLS - SHILLS - IDIOTS - THE DOWNRIGHT STUPIDLY MISCHIEVIOUS, ignoramuses AND THOSE NEGATIVELY PRE-DISPOSED TOWARDS THAT WHICH WE ARE DOING, WILL BE BANNED FROM THE PAGE. IF THEY DON'T AGREE THEN THEY STAY AWAY AND SHOULD FIND SOME INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGED PAGE COMMENSURATE WITH THEIR PRONOUNCED PREDISPOSITION TOWARDS THEIR MASTERS OF THE NWO WHICH THEY SERVE WITH BLIND BLANKED MIND IGNORANCE

Temper, temper Peter.

Well he hasn't blamed the Jews yet but I suspect it's only a matter of time

What's gotten into Peter? He appears to be a bit ruffled. All that shouting.......Perhaps he cannot handle having his beliefs questioned? Well, he'd better get used to it. Soon he's going to find his beliefs being questioned in a manner that he never dreamed of.
Should we read anything into the fact that the word "ignoramuses" is not in all-caps? Is it because he is addressing the human being and not the corporate fiction or something?

[mufc1959]

Oh this is funny. Again from the PoE FB page.

A recent email from a ReMember - they're on the run! and so, so greatfull that WeReHeRe.
Hi Peter,
The one thing that she said to me was that they had discussed your Bank with Barclays and others and they had come to the conclusion that they would not accept your cheques, I am not so familiar with the law but can companies gang up on another company and try and put it out of business ? surely you must have some recourse in law?.
I will take this up with the CEO of the Co-op.
Cheers____________AP

I think the only one on the run soon will be Peter. How dare the banks talk to one another! And his recourse in law? FLS and the CLCOR. The banks must be quaking in their boots. I'm sure all their lawyers are working full-time over the Bank Holiday to try to come up with a defence against the might of WeeWee Bank. After all, Peter has the ultimate weapon - HE WILL SHOUT AT THEM ON FACEBOOK!!

[rumpelstilzchen]

After all, Peter has the ultimate weapon - HE WILL SHOUT AT THEM ON FACEBOOK!!

Hey, don't knock it. Never underestimate the power of the ALL CAPS.

[arayder]

So... to test the cheques. Kind of makes you wonder why she didn't test the cheques by writing a cheque for 100 pounds sterling to herself, then cashing that directly with WEre Bank to see if she ended up with 100 pounds in her hand.

You can do that with a real bank, write a cheque to yourself and cash it - like filling out a withdrawal slip without having to remember your bank account number. So why wouldn't it work with WEre Bank if the cheques and accounts were real?

That makes sense to me. But, I suspect part of WeRe's appeal to gullible freemen and freewomen wannabes is that they are supposed to be able to stick it to the tax man and the big corporations by paying them off with Peter's monopoly money.

The whole scheme plays into the fantasy of putting it to "the man" through the brilliance of freeman scholarship.

TROLLS - SHILLS - IDIOTS - THE DOWNRIGHT STUPIDLY MISCHIEVIOUS, ignoramuses AND THOSE NEGATIVELY PRE-DISPOSED TOWARDS THAT WHICH WE ARE DOING, WILL BE BANNED FROM THE PAGE. IF THEY DON'T AGREE THEN THEY STAY AWAY AND SHOULD FIND SOME INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGED PAGE COMMENSURATE WITH THEIR PRONOUNCED PREDISPOSITION TOWARDS THEIR MASTERS OF THE NWO WHICH THEY SERVE WITH BLIND BLANKED MIND IGNORANCE

It's no wonder Peter gets so riled up when folks point out that his house of cards is falling down. The shock of realizing he's not a hero who's leading the faithful, but a chump who has gotten others in financial trouble is such that it's psychologically easier for him to rationalize that he's the victim of sheople/trolls on the government payroll.

[littleFred]

So are we satisfying the 5 heads of the definition of fraud. I think not: -

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements:

(1) a false statement of a material fact,
(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue,
(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim,
(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and
(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

Peter's "five elements" of fraud are copy-pasted from a US law dictionary, or another US website with the same words.

Peter claims to have a UK law degree. If he is considering a defence against fraud charges, he should read the UK Fraud Act 2006 and the CPS Legal Guidance.

[mufc1959]

Cindy Harris Yes there seems to be a common consensus about refusing payments. They are not returning the cheques though!

They're probably saving them all to use as evidence in the fraud prosecutions.

[PeanutGallery]

TROLLS - SHILLS - IDIOTS - THE DOWNRIGHT STUPIDLY MISCHIEVIOUS, ignoramuses AND THOSE NEGATIVELY PRE-DISPOSED TOWARDS THAT WHICH WE ARE DOING, WILL BE BANNED FROM THE PAGE. IF THEY DON'T AGREE THEN THEY STAY AWAY AND SHOULD FIND SOME INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGED PAGE COMMENSURATE WITH THEIR PRONOUNCED PREDISPOSITION TOWARDS THEIR MASTERS OF THE NWO WHICH THEY SERVE WITH BLIND BLANKED MIND IGNORANCE

Why is ignoramuses in lower case. What's so important that it got Peter to let off the shift key for that one word? It makes it seem all the crazier.

[ArthurWankspittle]

The real relevant legislation:

2Fraud by false representation

(1)A person is in breach of this section if he— (a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b)intends, by making the representation—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2)A representation is false if—

(a)it is untrue or misleading, and

(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

(a)the person making the representation, or

(b)any other person.

(4)A representation may be express or implied.

(5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

And the guidelines:

Fraud by false representation (Section 2)

The defendant:

made a false representation
dishonestly
knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.

The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant.

So, for Peter and any WeRe account holders, I'm having a go at why you are breaking the law.
Peter:
made a false representation - Peter isn't a bank, can't issue cheques, can't hold bonds
dishonestly - he knows the above is true
knowing....untrue or misleading - the chequebooks are fake and there's nothing to back them
with intent..... - he wants others to believe they can pay off their bills, he's making money from subscriptions and selling fake cheques
WeRe Account holders
made a false representation - you know it's not a real cheque, or you never checked if it was real
dishonestly - you know the above is true
knowing....untrue or misleading - the chequebooks are fake and there's nothing to back them
with intent..... - you are trying to pay off bills with fake cheques

[little mouse]

Had to comment on this train wreck... I've never come across such a strange Lil cult it's insane. How people think cheques written with a fake sort code will pass through clearing is beyond me and then to pay with magical RE currency.

Btw cheques are returned to the drawers bank if unpaid but as the We We bank dosent exsist there is no where to return them to so they won't see them again. Will probably be collected as evidence as you say.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Btw cheques are returned to the drawers bank if unpaid but as the We We bank dosent exsist there is no where to return them to so they won't see them again. Will probably be collected as evidence as you say.

Isn't he using the accommodation address in Manchester? I would guess a lot of these cheque payments will just be reversed on the freeloader's account and the cheque sent to WeRe. Until Peter does something about it, the whole situation just stays as it is. e.g. freeloader still owes £1500 in Council Tax. Peter might have a lot of post to go through when he gets round to collecting it. (Because you can be damn sure he isn't paying to get it forwarded.)