Peter of England: A REal guru.

[rumpelstilzchen]

It also is telling, that we have seen no new posts on WeRe by Ceylon, and no admissions by him that he has a checkbook, and is actually using it.

Ceylon is a General who commands from the rear.

[exiledscouser]

So all those people who've tried to "evade a liability" by paying with a fake cheque could also be done for money laundering. I suppose they could always plead insanity.

It would be funny if Peter's customers who have been telling us that "banking is all fraud" run to PayPal and make a claim using PayPal's money back guarantee.

Since the Goodf mantra is just that - "all banking is fraud" - no one signing up to or supporting WeRe should be at all surprised when Peter's folly proves the rule.

[PeanutGallery]

Paypal may well reverse the transactions anyway, if they find it to be fraud, which I believe they almost certainly will. I wonder if while PayPal is down Peter will resort to accepting real cheques in exchange for fake ones.

In regard to Bertie Bert's involvement, I don't think he's involved in the scam, he's just a cheerleader for it. I think he just copy pastes Peters statements from other sources onto GOODF and other sites in order to make himself feel important and to be part of the movement. I wouldn't think he's capable of writing any of this stuff himself and certainly the scam seems to be entirely Peter's endeavour. While I dislike Bertie for his political views and his involvement in cheering on the scam, I don't think he has the nous to be a part of it and is instead an unaware shill.

In regard to Peter not updating Facebook, he did post a video recently stating that he needed extra help to get all the chequebooks out and to answer the 'clearing' hotline. This could be a sign that he's planning to run, he wants others to become involved to make him harder to track down by the authorities. However it could also be nothing more than what Peter says it is, he might well genuinely believe this is not a scam and may have deluded himself into thinking he's running a lawful enterprise.

[longdog]

This taken from Facebook...

This is not Peteres prolem. It is the Banks that are committing the criminal offence. So it is our Job to leverage them. Or charge them for the criminal offence. So this would be an axample document and real work in progress to do just that.................................. We have taken the opportunity in writing because recent avents have caused us some great concern which we must address concerning the conduct and performance of Officers of/at the Co-op Bank.

Having opened a WeRe Bank Account and deposited cleared funds into that account we then proceeded to transfer some of these funds by way of a cheque. The cheque was processed by the Cashier and by the overview of the Co-op Bank Branch Manageress. My Co-op account was credited with the funds.

On returning to the Co-op bank a few days later we were asked to speak with Barbara O`Rourke an Officer of the Co-op Bank. This conversation caused us distress and alarm as claims were made that the cheque was a fraudulent cheque and WeRe Bank was not a real Bank and that our property was being illegally confiscated without processing it, which is a criminal act.

How would we know as a member of the populous that the Co-op Bank is a real Bank in difference to any other Bank or WeRe Bank or the Tridodos Bank which does not have a high street branch?

It is a maxim of the rule of law that he who brings a claim must also provide the material substance and evidence of that claim.

1. Barbara O’Rourke claimed that the Cheque is a fraudulent Cheque.
2. Barbara O’Rourke claimed that WeRe Bank is not a real Bank.
Barbara O`Rourke now has an obligation of service as an Officer of the Co-op Bank to provide the material evidence that:

1. Barbara O’Rourke has an obligation of service to provide the valid material evidence that the WeRe Cheque presented for clearance is a fradulant cheque.
2. Barbara O’Rourke has an obligation of service to provide the valid material evidence that they WeRe Bank is not a real Bank

Failure to provide the above listed evidence in the next seven (7) days will enter Barbara O’Rourke in to a lasting tacit agreement through acquiescence to the following effect:

1. That the claim being made by Barbara O’Rourke that the cheque from WeRe Bank is a fraudulent cheque is a fraudulent claim in nature is recognised as fraud by misrepresentation and malfeasance in the Office.
2. That the claim being made by Barbara O’Rourke that WeRe Bank is not a real Bank, is a fraudulent claim in nature which is recognised as fraud by misrepresentation and malfeasance in the Office.
3. That the actions taken by Barbara O`Rourke to keep the cheque without processing it is a criminal offence of property theft.

4. That Barbara O’Rourke has denied of access to our fluid assets which is a (Tort)
5. That the actions taken by Barbara O`Rourke to not process the cheque is denying Mr Alfie Evans access to available cleared funds which is a tortuous and criminal Act.
6. That Barbara O’Rourke who is an officer of the Co-op Bank is not acting in alignment with the interests of the Co-op Bank (Which is to place commercial instruments on deposit and provide a service to their clients.)
7. That the actions of Barbara O`Rourke not to process the cheque is not in alignment with the interests of the Co-op Bank where the function of the Co-op Bank is to deposit cleared funds into MR ALFIE EVANS` Account and provide MR ALFIE EVANS, client with Co-op Bank services where has demonstrated that Barbara O`Rourke is not a fit and proper person to be in a position of trust which is not in alignment with the interests of the Co-op Bank.

All correspondence will be kept on file pending future legal action.
Without ill will or vexation.
For and on behalf of the principal legal embodiment by the title of MR ALFIE EVANS
For and on behalf of the attorney general of the House of Evans
For and on behalf of Baron Alfie of the House of Evens

There you have it from the attorney general... Straight from the horse's arse mouth.

[NYGman]

Not being a registered Bank, not being a registered company, not holding any real assets, not being insured, not paying any actual money, these are all good evidence of a fraud going on. It is as simple as, Bank presented check for clearance, bank got no money because WeRe bank has no money, depositor never deposited actual money, are these not some clear signs of fraud. Unless Bank gets its money, I cannot see them being satisfied with a Duff cheque.

WHile I think setting up an alternative currency, like the Swiss WIR is an interesting concept, this is not how Peter and Co actually marketed it. He basically gave out cheques and said, you can pay most bills with these, so go and have some fun. He seemed to imply these checks are good and they will clear, because WeRe bank accepted your worthless promissory note as cash, and the checks draw against that balance. Before collecting money from the first suckers, he never clearly stated that there is no money in this program, and that the banks that process these checks will eventually reverse out the credit when they do not get paid, and that you then have to cast some Freeman woo and foist a unilateral contract within an arbitrary time frame, that poses questions that will never be satisfactorily answered, a process bound to fail, as it has done in the past, over and over again.

I think Peter was less than forthcoming to his followers on how this actually was supposed to work. While he did later post the WIR video, what he is doing is nothing like WIR. Companies have to consent to accepting the WIR, they can refuse it, or set limits on the percent of WIR they will accept. Peter has no such limits, and seems to believe everyone must accept it, and no one can opt out. This tact always makes me laugh, as Freeman always get to opt out of laws they don’t like, but they insist that companies are bound and can’t opt out.

EDIT: I think in Peters mind, a PN is Cash, but no one was accepting it, so he started a bank to accept the PN, and issue cheques, that he believes have to be accepted, because the banking laws require checks to be accepted. Once someone accepts the check, and present it, they are bassically accepting the underlying PN as cash. Since they have to accept the checque, they have recieved value, and should discharge the debt. Unfortunatly, a PN is not cash, and has no value if the issue has no intention to ever pay on it. Therfore the whole scheme is a fraud, and is bound to fail. The whole Banks create money from nothing is a very attractive concept, and easily explained by the Gurus. However what they fail to reealize is that they have to have the money to lend, and it is esentially an advance on your future earnings. Teh money may not be there at time the loan is created, but over time, it is earned by the borrorwer and paid back with interest, which is the banks payment for advancing funds and taking the lending risk. That and most loans are secured by an asset that has value, should the lender default. Loans issued by real banks can be securitized and sold, but this has no impact of the borrowers obligations, another concept lost on Freemen

[rumpelstilzchen]

Alfie of the House of Evans wrote:

All correspondence will be kept on file pending future legal action.

Yeah that's right Alfie, let's see you take it to law. Then we can watch them wipe the floor with you.
What a plonker.

[mufc1959]

He'll probably go to the ombudsman first, because it's free. They've been bouncing the 'void mortgage' FOTL cases with some fairly strong words about the dangers of relying on idiotic advice from random strangers on the internet. I think I can guess how a complaint that the Co-op's refusing to accept a cheque from an imaginary bank to pay off a mortgage will go.

[Hercule Parrot]

Failure to provide the above listed evidence in the next seven (7) days will enter Barbara O’Rourke in to a lasting tacit agreement through acquiescence to the following effect:

1. That the claim being made by Barbara O’Rourke that the cheque from WeRe Bank is a fraudulent cheque is a fraudulent claim in nature is recognised as fraud by misrepresentation and malfeasance in the Office.....

I was going to ask "where do they get this gibberish from?" but then I remembered it's the same pathetic make-believe drivel that endlessly circulates on GOOFy etc. These fools deserve eveything they get.

[Hercule Parrot]

Latest Development -

Much is happening I don't have time to comment on it all.Several people have confirmed that their accounts have been CONFIRMED TO ZERO.

Others have said accounts were zeroed and then a week later re-adjusted back.You must decide the legality of that - if you acted upon it...they have a fiduciary liability to provide "accurate accounting!"

Others say that their bank has said that they phoned WeRe Bank and "we" refused to clear the cheque. Utter rubbish! And common sense says there could be no truth in this and we would gain nothing!

Others (bank operatives) say it's FRAUD and there is no money to clear the cheques and they(the DRAWER , er you) have therefore been duped!

Now, Let's get a few things straight for the ReCord, should we!

I have led you towards the ""Promissory Note Land"" but you too have got to get a grip of yourselves and fight for what YOU CLAIM THE CHEQUES TO BE nothing short of your inheritance:

Post this on GOODF:
1. If you have stapled an Allonge to the cheque...
2. If you have NOT signed it on the back....
3. If you have NOT made it payable to SELF/CASH or your own company or a friend...
4. If they have zeroed your account and then re-adjusted it
5. If they say WeRe Bank refused to clear it or that you have been duped etc....
6. If they claim fraud etc.....
7. And you have made Notarial Protest....

THEN YOU CONTACT THEM BY LETTER, RECORDED DELIVERY, AND STATE THAT YOU NEED THEM TO CONFIRM IN WRITING THE TIME AND DATE AT WHICH THEY CONTACTED US [WeRe Bank] under full commercial liability and penalty of perjury] AND TO STATE IN A FEW LINES WHO MADE THE CALL OR WHO WILL CONFIRM IT IN COURT & WHY THEY CLAIM THERE ARE NO FUNDS AVAILABLE AS YOU ARE CONSIDERING BRING LEGAL ACTION......not against THEM but against:......

WeRe Bank...and you are calling them as a witness for the PROSECUTION....Ok?

So, now off with the wingeing and on with the battle - what did you expect? For the enemy just to roll over and play dead - after thousands of years of domination?

Man up - all of you, get some steel in your spines and on with the task

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 9179700768

Or to put it more simply -
The worthless pretend cheques that I sold you have bounced? That's your problem. Perhaps you could try blustering some GOOFy-law nonsense at them.

[little mouse]

AS YOU ARE CONSIDERING BRING LEGAL ACTION......not against THEM but against:......WeRe Bank...and you are calling them as a witness for the PROSECUTION....Ok?

I have no idea what he's babbling on about can someone translate

[ArthurWankspittle]

Others say that their bank has said that they phoned WeRe Bank and "we" refused to clear the cheque.

So how many cheques have you cleared Alan Peter Smith?

Utter rubbish!

So, as a bank, do you clear cheques or not?

And common sense says there could be no truth in this and we would gain nothing!

Apart from the £10 a month and a markup on the chequebooks.

Others (bank operatives) say it's FRAUD and there is no money to clear the cheques and they(the DRAWER , er you) have therefore been duped!

Well is there any money? Bit of a crap bank if it doesn't have any money, isn't it? And who has been duped? Are you Alan Peter Smith going to claim that you didn't know all those Promissory Notes were worthless? So all your "customers" have committed fraud?

[ArthurWankspittle]

On returning to the Co-op bank a few days later we were asked to speak with Barbara O`Rourke an Officer of the Co-op Bank.

Ms O'Rourke has a job title.

Barbara O'Rourke

fraud investigator at Co-operative Financial Services

[Hercule Parrot]

AS YOU ARE CONSIDERING BRING LEGAL ACTION......not against THEM but against:......WeRe Bank...and you are calling them as a witness for the PROSECUTION....Ok?

I have no idea what he's babbling on about can someone translate

It's blustering nonsense.

PoE is implying that any werecheque presented to him by a creditor has been honoured and paid. Therefore any creditor who says that werecheques are a worthless has not attempted to present it to his £10 PAYG hotline. And if the creditor says werebank is a fraud then the weremember should demanded evidence of this so that they can 'prosecute' the werebank.

He perhaps imagines that creditors will be afraid to get involved in such matters, and they will just start accepting werecheques to avoid it. That is naively mistaken, of course. More cynically, I think his real intention is to give worthless advice which weremembers will not follow. Then when the house of cards finally falls, he can say that it's their own fault.

His challenging and insulting tone contrasts very markedly with the soothing reassurances of a week ago. He's trying to distance himself, to disclaim responsibility. If weremembers don't get what they wanted, it's because they didn't stand up for their rights.

[littleFred]

So, as a bank, do you clear cheques or not?

Don't forget that Peter's definition of "clearing" is different to everyone else's.

Utility: I have this cheque from a sucker. What do I do with it?

Peter: Send it to me. I'll clear it.

Utility: What does that mean?

Peter: I'll debit the sucker's account with WeRe Bank. Then you credit their utility account.

Utility: And you will transfer the funds to us?

Peter: Certainly. But in Re units. Not in pounds. We don't pay in pounds.

Utility: Ah, umm, okay.

[Hercule Parrot]

Ms O'Rourke has a job title.

Barbara O'Rourke
fraud investigator at Co-operative Financial Services

Oh dear. Then Ms O'Rourke is unlikely to be deterred by blustering make-believe legal threats, and will have the time, skills and aptitude to pick this fraud apart. And then she will log it on the inter-bank fraud alert systems, and it's Game Over for the werebank.

Peter will say that there's nothing he can do, the weremembers must assert their imaginary OPCA rights. But thanks for the £14,000 anyway.

[NYGman]

Ms O'Rourke has a job title.

Barbara O'Rourke
fraud investigator at Co-operative Financial Services

Would be nice if someone can contact her and provide the link to this thread.

[Hercule Parrot]

Ms O'Rourke has a job title.

Barbara O'Rourke
fraud investigator at Co-operative Financial Services

Would be nice if someone can contact her and provide the link to this thread.

She's on LinkedIn, if anyone has an account there they will be able to get her contact details.

[littleFred]

So, Peter is alive and well and responding to FB posts and removing others. Splendid. The entertainment continues. He makes a statement, of sorts:

OH...How they winge!!! FIRST THE WINGE AND THEN MY REPLY BELOW...

Someone has asked:

Unfortunately a lot of people are concerned as they are not seeing any results at the moment and don't know if cheques have been honoured ...

If this means, "Has WeRe paid sterling on the cheques?" then the answer is "no". His FAQ clearly says he won't. In today's response Peter isn't so explicit:

Others say that their bank has said that they phoned WeRe Bank and "we" refused to clear the cheque. Utter rubbish! And common sense says there could be no truth in this and we would gain nothing!

I suppose Peter has said on the phone that he won't pay sterling. Refusing to honour the cheque avoids paying on it, so that is a gain for WeRe. And Peter claims the sucker has also gained, by having the debt magically discharged. And with virtually no expenses, Peter has a monthly income of at least £4000, which is a substantial gain.

Peter says the suckers should seek further answers from their debtors under the pretence of considering legal action against WeRe, ie Peter personally. Yes, I think the suckers would have a good case against Peter for selling a service he cannot provide. However, other organisations have bigger guns, more time and expertise for legal action.

Peter knows that a "notarial protest" from a sucker will not be effective. So the next step is for the sucker to "Man up - all of you, get some steel in your spines and on with the task". The task being pointless correspondence with "the enemy", ie debtors, the payees of these useless cheques.

Peter is giving misleading information. Debtors don't have to accept any cheques if they don't want to. They certainly don't have to accept cheques drawn on a bank that isn't a real bank. When that unreal bank says it won't honour the cheque -- the request to pay sterling -- there is no chance at all of the debtor accepting the cheque as payment.

Peter knows this (or should know it). He knows his advice is bad. Especially for people like Cindy who have their houses at stake.

[wanglepin]

Latest Development -

So, now off with the wingeing and on with the battle - what did you expect?

Man up - all of you, get some steel in your spines

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 9179700768
This is the utter contempt, indifference and disdain goofers like Mark Haining Ceylon, SalliNae and Peter of England have and hold for those vulnerable victims such as Cindy mentioned yesterday.

[notorial dissent]

Ceylon is a General who commands from the rear.

I wish you hadn't put it quite that way, since we all know where Ceylon is talking from, I almost fell out of my chair .