Bones wrote:I think there was a post here a couple of days ago about authorities looking into this, does anyone know anything more
That may have been the reply I had from Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Thank you for replying and clarifying that for me. I have now also sent forward the information you have provided about WeRe bank, Freeman Legal Service and the individuals mentioned to the relevant department for their consideration. With regard to the Freeman Legal Services you may wish to refer this to the Solicitors Regulation Authority in case it would be of interest to them: http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page
Yours sincerely,
Sudipa Bhattacharjee
I see that the FOTL types are also pretty free with their spelling.... doesn't help their attempt to appear serious.
Alfie Evans is an idiot, and attempting to commit check fraud.
I'm still curious as to how you deposit cleared funds into an account at a bank that doesn't take deposits, and that their sole claim to funding is based on PN's that are worthless????
Yes, I'm sure the check was credited to the suckers account, it is called provisional credit for a reason, the funds have to clear before tehy can be accessed.
I'm sure they were informed that the check was a fraud, since it didn't and couldn't have cleared, and since WeRe Bank is not a real bank or real anything for that matter. A check that doesn't clear and has a bogus routing number on it, is by definition a bogus check. The check, at least I assume that is what they are ranting about became the bank's property once it was paid in. They will hold on to it to prosecute for fraud.
I would suspect that the bank charter or license, I don't know how they do it in UK, would be the tip that it is a "real" bank.
Then we get the maxim of law that isn't worth the paper it isn't printed upon.
The fact that the check didn't and wouldn't clear through the regular channels is proof that it is bogus, and the fact that WeRe Bank doesn't have a routing number says the same about it.
And then we get to the unilateral agreement, equally not worth the paper it isn't printed upon.
Last I checked, malfeasance in the Office in office can only be brought against an elected official.
One's funds are not fluid, in a bank account, unless they are cleared first, didn't happen here. Cleared funds imply they cleared at the bank, none have in this case.
Check fraud, the last time I checked was a criminal matter, I'll see your tort claim with a criminal one.
Ms O`Rourke is acting with the bank's interests in NOT releasing funds on a bogus check.
Very good of Alfie to provide written proof of his attempt at fraud, will make prosecution ever so much easier.
I personally think Peter is an ignorant vicious tool, who is preying on the unbelievably mind numbing ignorance, gullibility, and in the final analysis greed of his victims.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
It seems that werebank.co.uk is administered by a personal registrant -
Peter Smith
75 Riveria Drive
Liverpool L11 4UR
That address is an ordinary house, the middle one in a terrace of three. Which seems strange for a commercial organisation. https://goo.gl/maps/ML8Ju
"royboyone" assures the other GOOFy's that it all looks legitimate to him, which encourages them to re-pledge their faith to PoE and keep sending him money.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.
I think Peter is starting to feel the pressure that comes with success, well the pressure of now trying to get the banks to take action at WeReBank in order to actually get their hands on his imaginary money. Of course it's also come at a cost, his PayPal's been shut down and he's got to argue with them about how his bank, which totally needs PayPal to run isn't a scam when in truth it is. PayPal can be absolute bastards when it comes to shutting down anything they think is even potentially fraudulent (a Internet forum I sometimes frequent had a legitimate fund raiser, for victims of flooding in New Orleans, shut down due to the scale of donations that came in).
To make matters worse, people who are upset that his scam isn't working are now coming to him and whining that the banks won't accept their fake cheques. His answer is to ask the bank to take legal action against him, I would suggest if you were a 'customer' of WeRe bank this is probably the best thing you can do to try and avoid trouble for yourself. Ask the bank who Peter won't pay to take action against Peter for not paying the cheque like he said he would.
I think Peter's idea of clearing was that the cheque cleared when he told them that it was clear, that he didn't realise you had to actually transfer funds (or even that money was a real thing and not an abstract concept created by the ruling elite) in order to finish the process. That or his idea of transferring funds was to say the right words down the telephone. Either way Peter's bank is collapsing and fast, sure it's not as fast as I would have liked and I totes have lost some Re on the deal, but it's going.
Maybe when this scheme crashes and burns, those who got burnt by it will have second thoughts, others though I think will only go in deeper and start to believe that the banks wouldn't let poor old Peter win when he tried to play their 'game'.
It seems that werebank.co.uk is administered by a personal registrant -
Peter Smith
75 Riveria Drive
Liverpool L11 4UR
That address is an ordinary house, the middle one in a terrace of three. Which seems strange for a commercial organisation. https://goo.gl/maps/ML8Ju
"royboyone" assures the other GOOFy's that it all looks legitimate to him, which encourages them to re-pledge their faith to PoE and keep sending him money.
Zoopla says the house is only worth £75k, based on the spending limit of a WeRebank account we could afford to buy two! In fact, if Peter has access to such large amounts of money, why is he living in such a small property? If he's such a financial powerhouse, wouldn't he have a mansion?
It seems that werebank.co.uk is administered by a personal registrant -
Peter Smith
75 Riveria Drive
Liverpool L11 4UR
That address is an ordinary house, the middle one in a terrace of three. Which seems strange for a commercial organisation. https://goo.gl/maps/ML8Ju
"royboyone" assures the other GOOFy's that it all looks legitimate to him, which encourages them to re-pledge their faith to PoE and keep sending him money.
It seems that werebank.co.uk is administered by a personal registrant -
Peter Smith
75 Riveria Drive
Liverpool L11 4UR
That address is an ordinary house, the middle one in a terrace of three. Which seems strange for a commercial organisation. https://goo.gl/maps/ML8Ju
"royboyone" assures the other GOOFy's that it all looks legitimate to him, which encourages them to re-pledge their faith to PoE and keep sending him money.
Zoopla says the house is only worth £75k, based on the spending limit of a WeRebank account we could afford to buy two! In fact, if Peter has access to such large amounts of money, why is he living in such a small property? If he's such a financial powerhouse, wouldn't he have a mansion?
Be interesting to check with land registry if he has a mortgage after telling others to pay it off with WeRe cheques
Jo Perry James We give over ourselves by registering into the system...so when we realise that it is US that has the power..OUR SIGNATURE creates the bonds....ie birth certificate..or any thing registered with the government that is traded on the stock market...and then also our slave labour...(WE ARE ALL TOO WILLING TO GIVE OVER TO THIS CURRENT SYSTEM AND SAY IT WORKS...Becasue WE say YES....When I started either dishonouring or rejecting contracts UCC 1-308.....once I had a person that I had contact ie tutor on this subject...I placed everything on them for it to work...but I found when I read Judge Jim Dale (or people that I had no contact with) I had to WoMan up and take authority and do it for me....THAT IS WHEN I GOT MY SUCCESS....for me I know the current system there is no rememdy...so Yes I am with Peter Of England...it makes good sense...Bless you Peter and thank you for your time and efforts and studies, which you do not have to share...and yes there will be a fight...but if we all stick together and say the same thing, there is strength in numbers and to be in one accord as they are....
It's all there - signature; birth certificate; UCC; Judge Dale...
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
Something I have noticed.
The opening post of the GOOF thread about the £120,000 Co-OP cheque started by bertiebert on Monday April 27th April at 11.09am has been edited by bertiebert. He edited it yesterday Thursday May 7th at 8.59am. The third post in the thread was made by GWC on Monday April 27th and GWC quoted bertiebert's post made on that day. bertiebert's post which was edited yesterday matches GWC's quote from April 27th word for word. They are exactly the same. So what has bertiebert been up to? I repeatedly looked at both posts trying to figure out what has happened and then it eventually hit me. The OP has been edited by bertiebert two times. I could be wrong but it is my belief that bertiebert has edited not the post, but the thread title. I believe what we see now is not the original thread title. When you read the the thread the title that appears in each of the posts is not the same as the thread title. The thread title today is "WeRe Bank CHEQUE CO-OP BANK for £120,000" but we see that each post contains: "Re: FIRST WeRe Bank CHEQUE HITS CO-OP BANK for £120,000" That is the original thread title. It contains the words "first" and "hits". They have now disappeared. So we know the thread title has been changed at least once. But I am sure the thread title has actually been changed twice. I believe bertiebert's first edit (done a few days ago) added the words "IT'S CLEARED" to the title. I could be wrong but I am convinced I remember seeing those words in the title. He probably had to remove "first" and "hits" because there was not enough space to fit "IT'S CLEARED" if he did not. It is my belief that bertiebert edited the thread title for a second time yesterday in order to remove "IT'S CLEARED" from it. When he did that he did not bother to put "first" and "hits" back in. If I am correct (and I am convinced I am) it would demonstrate just how underhand these people are. If bertiebert's claim was that the cheque had cleared that would have to mean that PoE had cleared it and transferred the funds to the Co-Op. But it looks as though bertiebert has backpedaled which must mean that PoE has not cleared that particular cheque. If PoE had cleared that cheque there would be no need to remove "IT'S CLEARED" from the title.
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
For those GOOFers who think it is a jolly lark to use PoE's cheque books:
Possessing an item to be used in a fraudulent act (such as a forged cheque book) can result in 5 years imprisonment (Fraud Act 2006 S6 (2)(b))
There is no defence of "reasonable excuse”.
You don't have to have used it... Merely possessing it could result in a charge.
When the PtB raid Peter's premises, will they find a list of names and addresses of all those who have paid for, and been sent, cheque books?
BTW, to those GOOFers who wonder why they haven't had their cheques returned... It is evidence of commission of a crime.
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
Section 9 makes it an offence for a person knowingly to be a party to the carrying on of a fraudulent business.
Under Section 9(6)(b) conviction carries a sentence of up to 10 years.
I hope your real identity is not known by anyone
Crown Prosecution Service says
The term "fraudulent purpose" connotes an intention to go "beyond the bounds of what ordinary decent people engaged in business would regard as honest" R v Grantham [1984] 1Q.B. 675; 79 Cr App.R.86.CA; or "involving, according to the current notions of fair trading among commercial men, real moral blame" Re Patrick & Lyon Ltd [1933] Ch. 786, Ch D, per Maugham J. at p.790
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
GaryBale wrote:Realistically, what is likely to happen?
I can imagine PoE getting a 2 year suspended sentence, with the rest facing humiliation and some small financial loss.
His position is worse than the 'customers' and bertiebert, because PoE may also be charged under Section 2 'False Representation', and Section 7 'Making or supplying articles for use in frauds'.
But it depends on the CPS. How tough do they want to get? I would think quite tough, because there are, according to reports, at least 400 cheque books of 50 cheques out there in the wild. That's at least 20,000 cheques with a total liability of £60m.
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
GaryBale wrote:
But it depends on the CPS. How tough do they want to get? I would think quite tough, because there are, according to reports, at least 400 cheque books of 50 cheques out there in the wild. That's at least 20,000 cheques with a total liability of £60m.
I think that's wrong. If each customer has £150,000 in total to spend that would be 400 customers x £150,000. I make that £6m.
ETA Nope, just checked it. You're right I'm wrong.
Note to self: Stop trying to use a calculator without wearing my glasses.
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
rumpelstilzchen wrote: If I am correct (and I am convinced I am) it would demonstrate just how underhand these people are. If bertiebert's claim was that the cheque had cleared that would have to mean that PoE had cleared it and transferred the funds to the Co-Op. But it looks as though bertiebert has backpedaled which must mean that PoE has not cleared that particular cheque. If PoE had cleared that cheque there would be no need to remove "IT'S CLEARED" from the title.
underhanded, backpedaling.
You sound surprised rumpel.
My guess is that bertiebert is maybe realising the consequences of his actions and has attempted to delete all the false claims he has been making whilst promoting the bank scam along with king goofer Mark Haining Ceylon and the fawning brown nosed SalliNae and landlubber, to name a few.
rumpelstilzchen wrote:. . . I believe bertiebert's first edit (done a few days ago) added the words "IT'S CLEARED" to the title. . . . It is my belief that bertiebert edited the thread title for a second time yesterday in order to remove "IT'S CLEARED" from it. When he did that he did not bother to put "first" and "hits" back in. If I am correct (and I am convinced I am) it would demonstrate just how underhand these people are. If bertiebert's claim was that the cheque had cleared that would have to mean that PoE had cleared it and transferred the funds to the Co-Op. But it looks as though bertiebert has backpedaled which must mean that PoE has not cleared that particular cheque. If PoE had cleared that cheque there would be no need to remove "IT'S CLEARED" from the title.
Rumpelstilzchen, it seems to me that Peter and the WeRe bank apologists are doing everything they can to avoid any honest discussion of and reporting on the make or break issue of whether the checks WeRe clients write actually clear.
After a WeRe check is written and sent in there is a period of time in which whoever the check is written to credits the WeRe check user's account and moves the balance to zero. At this point the WeRe banksters go all orgasmic and post about their brilliance.
But when the check isn't cleared by WeRe bank, the WeRe bank users gets his/her account moved back to the amount originally owed and questions are asked the WeRe propaganda machine swings into motion.
Folks are told they didn't write the checks correctly. . .Facebook posts from questioning clients are removed. . .Peter opines that the banks are ganging up on him. . . .and as you point out, rumpelstilzchen, old posts get edited to make it seem promises broken were really kept.
Hardly honorable behavior.
------------
Dope Clock II
It has been 108 days since Robert Menard announced the revival of the Association of Canadian Consumer Purchasers. So far there is no documentation of a successful purchase using Menard's system.
No Honor amongst Theives, who would have thought....
To me it seems Peter keeps moving the Goal Posts. Fisrt he said you will get a checkbook to use for you public debts. He didn't really define Public debts, but it seems it is any debt other than one to yourself, or any other person. So any company, and you must follow his rules for check writing. However, these rules were not published until after checks were distributed to the users dupes. Then we get the added step of Notarial Protest http://www.werebank.co.uk/notarial-protest/
However, why should we need this step, if Peter is correct the banks should just accept his checks.
Didn't Peter say many times, Either this works or I am a Lunatic. I think we are close to confirming the answer to this retorical question....
Chong » Thu May 07, 2015 6:16 pm
Does anyone know how your credit score is affected by this?
I mean, if you pay your alleged debt off surely it will increase you CR?!
The answer is obviously Yes, "your credit score is affected by this," but not in the way you think it will be....
The Hardest Thing in the World to Understand is Income Taxes -Albert Einstein
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose - As sung by Janis Joplin (and others) Written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster.
I wonder if the inability of Peter to transfer money based on the Promissory Notes (that the GOOFERS think should have magicked it up) will put to bed the whole notion of money being created by people's signatures?
I also consider it perhaps ironic that for a group who readily believe ALL banking is fraudulent they rush to sign up for a bank, that would fit the definition of fraudulent for most reasonable people on the planet.
As for Peter moving the goal posts, I am sure I read in a newspaper a couple of years ago a story about a man who wrote by hand a cheque, placing the correct account details and sort code, in order to pay a debt because he had forgotten, misplaced or otherwise did not have access to his chequebook. The bank did honour it, although it took them slightly longer to do so because they had to confirm with the account holder that the cheque was in fact valid. However the point was, you can write your own cheque on paper and provided you get the details right and the account holder confirms that it is valid then the bank will treat it as a normal cheque. As such Peter's instructions are just a set of woo and wibble so that the failures can be blamed on the traditional guru excuse of "You're not doing the magic right".
