Peter of England: A REal guru.

[littleFred]

Could I ask that posts about Tom Crawford are NOT posted to the Peter of England thread (or vice versa)?

Thank you.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I feel most of these people signing up for these cheque books are in it simply for the mischief, a kind of paper terrorism and or simply trying their luck at getting something for nothing.

That is exactly what they want. Something for nothing. Or rather, that is exactly what they believe to be their right. When you read the GOOF threads it soon becomes obvious that the majority of posters are not trying to avoid paying because they cannot afford to pay, they are not paying because they believe they should not have to pay. They believe other people, but never themselves, should be made to work full-time in order to supply them with all their needs but not be paid for their labour. They expect to receive all the benefits from society but do not believe for one moment they should contribute towards the cost of supplying those benefits. They are parasites. If parasites get scammed, I say "Good". If parasites end up facing criminal charges, again I say "Good". I have absolutely no sympathy for them and I hope it costs them dearly. So what if PoE is making money off their backs? You have got to admire him. He is feeding off parasites. You can't knock that.

[Normal Wisdom]

Neither have we heard any more about the investigation by the police's "complex crime" division in London.

Yes, this has been niggling me for some time, Normal. I did say that if the fraud of stamps, seals, wet signatures and other court documents were actually the subject of a "complex crime" that is being investigated, as Crawford has said (three times to my knowledge) then this couldn't have been brought up in Crawford's recent case, simply because it was the subject of an ongoing police investigation. I believe it was another bunch of balloni dreamt up by Crawford and the three wise clowns and Roger Hayes to keep those supporters interested and to give them the impression it had all been worthwhile and things were now moving in the right direction.
It was all shite,that is unless Tom would like to give us an update of course?

I would love to think that the inspector or whoever Tom eventually spoke to was quick enough to spin Tom the line about an investigation by the "complex crime" division in London and like everything else Tom just swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

[Normal Wisdom]

It's probably a good idea to have started a new thread to deal with issues around Tom Crawford's potential eviction as this one seems to have drifted a little (or a lot). Actually I rather forgot that my OP wasn't even about Tom's own case but about him sending an email to a large group of politicians etc to advise them of the "organised crime and international terrorism".

As one of those recipients was my own MP I wrote to them to ask about he Government's view on the "common law/ lawful rebellion/ sovereign citizen" movement and if they had any plans to deal combat the harmful and misleading propaganda they disseminate. Predictably the reply oozed with complacency. I imagine any response to Tom would have been in similar vein. We certainly haven't heard any more about this from Tom, Guy etc.

Neither have we heard any more about the investigation by the police's "complex crime" division in London.

See how confused I've got - not even the right thread. Apologies. I've copied this into the "Tom Crawford Calls for Help" thread. Is it possible for a Mod to move the related responses above?

[littleFred]

Peter wants his cheques tested in a court. It has now happened. The cheque failed.

We discover this from a GOOFer, clawhammer.

This may be related to a reported from clawhammer in March 2015. He applied to have a case set aside, but signed in the style Name of the Family: freeman, so that was thrown out, and he received a County Court Judgement. This was probably in Birkenhead.

Today's report, of an attempt to get a default judgement overturned, contains more of the same, including berth certificate junk, but he also tried to pay his debt a few days before the court hearing. How did he try to pay? With a WeRe cheque. It was immediately returned so clawhammer followed Peter's instructions and sent a Notarial Protest, copied to the court. The result was:

Judge said section 42 &43 of BOE act doesn't apply as the cheque is not drawn on an authorised Bank account ..

[NYGman]

Judge said section 42 &43 of BOE act doesn't apply as the cheque is not drawn on an authorised Bank account ..

Obviously this was spoken in Legalese so it means it really does apply

[Hyrion]

judge says are you the defendant I say No I'm tony of the family:blah... judge after some remonstrating says well then I must dismiss the request to set aside as MR TONY BLAH is not here

Not surprisingly, some Judges are allowing the OPCA little game of "that's not me" and simply treating them as though they are not present.

the Letters process is dismissed by courts and DCA as of no value... we need new ammo new guns tactics cos our doesn't work

Oh oh.... a negative comment on the tactics.... clawhammer can expect to be attacked and/or booted.

And not surprisingly he hasn't clued in that the WeRe cheques equally don't work. I guess they need to experience that same message several times before they draw that conclusion themselves.

[Hercule Parrot]

judge says are you the defendant I say No I'm tony of the family:blah... judge after some remonstrating says well then I must dismiss the request to set aside as MR TONY BLAH is not here

Not surprisingly, some Judges are allowing the OPCA little game of "that's not me" and simply treating them as though they are not present.

That's very neat. Sorry, but this hearing relates to the private affairs of Mr Tony Blah. If you are not that person then you are not a party to the case. As Mr Blah has chosen not to appear today, the claimant's case is unopposed and I'll make the order they are requesting. Next!

ClawHaemmorhoid says :
My first thought is to submit a commercial lien against every person involved, including the Judges, as Notice of intent to issue a lien has already been issued back in November. and I have them all on a notarised un-rebutted commercial lien, my own judgement in Law , Now, lets see how they like when men in flak jacket come knocking on their doors.

Perhaps he doesn't realise that there is no legal basis to claim or enforce or collect a foisted "commercial lien" in the UK? Perhaps he just enjoys the momentary sense of power he gets from making these absurd threats?

[Jeffrey]

Judge said section 42 &43 of BOE act doesn't apply as the cheque is not drawn on an authorised Bank account

Could someone expound on what this means?

For example, does this mean these don't count as insufficient funds checks since they're not from authorized bank accounts? What is the applicable law here? I'm fairly sure in most states these would count as felony level NSF checks since the amounts are over $500.

http://www.ckfraud.org/penalties.html

[IDIOT]

It basically means the bloke is a con man.

His 'bank' is not recognised and his cheques are only recognised, if at all, until the bank staff suss them out as being worthless.

I mean come on, his pitches of this and all his other rubbish concepts are pitiful to say the least. The sound quality is laughable, the chosen locations are dire beyond belief and he hosts his meetings in boozers.

I have to say anyone that doesn't see through this con artist and hands over any money to him deserves to be ripped off by him.

[PeanutGallery]

I had an interesting chat today with a lady from Trading Standards, I'd reported Peter's latest meeting to them, thinking they might be interested in stopping him and his counterfeit cheque scam.

She was quite surprised at how much I knew about his business (most of which wasn't my own research but was from you guys and of course the wonderful BertieBert who keeps us very well informed of what Peter is up to, sterling work their Bertie, you'll be due for a promotion soon). She was also rather concerned about how long Peter's scam had been operating, I explained that it wasn't exactly new, but that it had only really started to pick up speed and customers in the past couple of months. I also explained a bit about what we do here on Quatloos and why it is of interest to me (well I said one of my hobbies is debunking scams on the internet and pointed her in our direction).

While she told me this wasn't a matter for trading standards, as it was in her view more a police/fraud matter and the sort of counterfeit goods they go after are more normally copies of others trademarks and not fake cheque books for a bank that doesn't actually exist, she did say that she would follow the conversation up by sending an email to the local fraud squad to report the intelligence, so we know that some more people are looking rather closely at Peter.

We both agreed that the scam was in fact a scam and that Peter was taking advantage of potentially vulnerable people. I thanked her for her help in this matter and for forwarding the details of the scam on to the appropriate authorities.

[Jeffrey]

Peter thinks that if he can impose a 1% tax on every financial transaction in the UK he can rake it in from the dealings in the City of London. He thinks that a tax like this would mean that nobody in the UK would need to pay tax again ever.

Without getting into the politics of it. This seems to be an example of mainstream political proposals being absorbed and mutated by OPCA communities. The financial transaction tax is a very real proposal that's been made by a number of different groups, including US senators.

Where Peter goes off the rails, seems to be his confusion about the purpose of the tax and the predicted tax revenues.

For starters, based on the last WERE Bank Meeting, he seems to think that the London stock exchange isn't taxed. That simply isn't true.

He also makes the absolutely astounding claim that a 1% UK financial transaction tax would raise £1.8 trillion a year. Going off a study I was able to find concerning estimated revenue from a .5% tax in the US. The estimates for a .5% tax in the US are between $220 and $100 billion. Multiply by two to get the 1% estimate of say $400 to $200 billion in the US.

Given that the UK economy is about 1/6th the size of the US, we can estimate very roughly that Peter's proposed 1% tax would only raise between $67 billion to $33 billion a year. For context, the UK's government budget is $1.14 trillion so Peters tax would only cover 6% of the governments costs.

In fact just to underline how out of touch with reality Peter is. The United Kingdoms GDP, that is to say, the value of every single good and service produced by the UK, is only $2.7 trillion. Tom's predicted tax revenue of $1.8 trillion a year would mean his 1% tax would somehow magically seize a full two thirds of the entire UK economy.

More importantly, Tom fundamentally misunderstands the point of a financial transaction tax. It's meant to reduce market volatility by putting a cost on each individual transaction. It is not meant as a revenue generator or a replacement for other taxes.

[littleFred]

A thread on GOODF is titled Criminal investigation into Were Bank (Peter of England)

I thought people who know about Were Bank and those who were thinking of joining it and paying a fee that Alan Peter Michael Smith (Peter of England) is under investigation by a specialist section of the Met Police.

Criminal complaints have been made to the police from more than 1 council and more than 1 bank.

I would therefore suggest anyone who is thinking of using these cheques or paying Mr Smith any money for these cheques to think carefully.

There is no point coming back with some argument about the banks committing criminal offences, this is now a formal police matter.

If/When arrests are made, and if.when anyone is charged then this information will be provided.

In his second and so far final post, Paulboy says he has made a witness statement to the police.

Naturally, he is accused of being a Quatloosian. One reaction includes:

Well, Paulboy, I hope that it backfires on you, because right up to this moment, Peter has followed banking laws to the letter.

Peter gives plenty of evidence that he misunderstands banking laws. His "bank" isn't authorised. He never pays out on cheques. He charges for a service which he cannot deliver. In my opinion, he drives a coach and horses through the Fraud Act 2006.

[Losleones]

Yes, I've just read the link & our mark will be acting swiftly in locking thread then banning Paulboy. It's incredible to see these GOOFers aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the scam. I'm sure they just agree to avoid being labelled a troll or even worse a ban. Posting utter garbage & agreeing with all the SOV/CIT scams keeps you popular & who knows you can become a mod like brown noser AuntSally.

Good news though with Paulboy's post & no reason to disbelieve, as this course of action is inevitable anyway.

[rumpelstilzchen]

landlubber wrote:
Well, Paulboy, I hope that it backfires on you, because right up to this moment, Peter has followed banking laws to the letter.

I challenge landlubber to come here and say that.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Jimmy was has had a WeRe cheque returned that he had used to try and pay off his Barclaycard. He is now questioning the WeRe bank concept.

jimmyw wrote:
i can't see how that can help people paying good money to were bank?

i might as well of just stopped paying and used 3 letters.... now i've lost my credit card or have to pay late fees.

or am i wrong?

bertirbert's reply is a classic:

did you think it was going to bean easy ride?
would you still have ypur credit card to use if you had used the 3 letter process?

you dont say whether the intention of using the WeRe CHEQUE was to pay them off , once and for all.. (a good thing)
or using it to clear ongoing use of the credit card... the latter being "not a good thing to do" for obvious reasons

Would those obvious reasons be because the WeRe cheques don't work?
If the WeRe cheques were kosher they could be used to pay your monthly credit card bill. Just like any other cheque can. But it looks as though that "is not a good thing to do" with a WeRe cheque.

ETA: There is now dissent in the ranks. jimmyw has come back. He is beginning to realise that he is being scammed. Ha ha ha Jimmy. It's hilarious.

yes i was hoping to reuse it... it says in your post above credit card re-payments.

if were bank is just to ignore all debts, then what are we paying money for? i can do that quite well with out paying £10 per month. and it still leaves the problems of dca's and bailiffs.

ive sent off 3 cheques an all 3 have failed. i have held off from saying anything as I want WERE bank to work. but from the beginging i've noticed that the whole scheme resembles a confidence trick. using peoples desperation and greed to part with hard earned real money.

its been 2 months now and i've held my tongue.. which is good for me.

but if i don't start seeing some proof about some cheques actually CLEARING.... or at least some form of clarification on the process.... then i'm out.

"then I'm out......"
MAN OVERBOARD!!!!!!!!! (Note my use of the obligatory nine exclamation marks. I'm going all sov/cit)

[Jeffrey]

i might as well of just stopped paying and used 3 letters

Ah but unlike the 3 letters, Peters fake checks come with the risk of criminal prosecution for check fraud.

[Bones]

Peter should be more careful who he lets join were bank - I have joined and copying everything for later

See you at the meet Peter

[mufc1959]

i might as well of just stopped paying and used 3 letters

Ah but unlike the 3 letters, Peters fake checks come with the risk of criminal prosecution for check fraud.

And, having used a fake cheque to try to pay off a debt, it'd be rather difficult to then try to use the 3 letters to claim there's no valid debt. Sending off a cheque, even a dodgy WeRe one, is a clear acknowledgement of the debt.

Jimmy has shot himself in the foot here.

[Hyrion]

you dont say whether the intention of using the WeRe CHEQUE was to pay them off , once and for all.. (a good thing)

If the WeRe cheques were kosher they could be used to pay your monthly credit card bill. Just like any other cheque can. But it looks as though that "is not a good thing to do" with a WeRe cheque.

It's possible Bertiebert meant "pay off your debt and don't get yourself into debt again" which is actually a reasonably intelligent concept.

Of course, having sound credit so you can get the lowest interest rates for that mortgage is also a pretty decent concept. Which would indicate one viable strategy is to use your credit card for monthly expenses and keep the balance cleared. That way Jimmy would have the value of solid credit without the interest rates of an out-of-control useage.

Then again.... if Bertiebert was thinking that clearly he wouldn't be saying that using WeRe cheques was a good thing at all when it can easily get you convicted for some form of cheque fraud.