Peter of England: A REal guru.

[guilty]

Jimmy goes on to say that if they won't present the cheque for clearing he will personally draw the "cash" from WeRe Bank & delivery to the utility provider.

Jimmy seems to think that PoE is some sort of philanthropist who just wants to pay everyone's bills for them.
"There's funds in my account."
Really?

[rumpelstilzchen]

One Cell wrote:

as far as i'm oncerned if they think my bank is invalid, then that is thier lookout.

Er, Jimmy ol' son I've got some very bad news for you. Your bank is invalid and unfortunately for you it is your lookout.
But thank you very much for being a constant source of amusement.

[longdog]

From that goofy thread...

"Well, their oviously not going to accept the cheque. "

Correct

[mufc1959]

The WeRe Bank thread is unlocked on GOOFY.

[Hyrion]

Jimmy goes on to say that if they won't present the cheque for clearing he will personally draw the "cash" from WeRe Bank & delivery to the utility provider.

Oh please please please please please PLEASE

Jimmy: Please withdraw the pounds sterling from WeRe Bank.

I really, really, really want to see your response when PoE tells you no.

[Hercule Parrot]

What a muppet. The British Gas guy is, I think, following some kind of internal guidelines that say "if someone phones up about one of these cheques, just tell them it's not a valid payment method and don't be drawn into any arguments about it, as we know it's a scam."

He doesn't seem to grasp that British Gas can choose what payment methods it wishes to accept or refuse. If it suits them to refuse cheques from were bank or the NatWest, that's up to them. Jimmy One-Cell can pay by one of their approved methods, or he can move to a supplier which chooses to accept werecheques.

But as usual, he gets carried away with the sheer excitement of hectoring a call centre operative. Does he seriously think that a front-line operator can change British Gas's banking policies on his own authority, just because Jimmy repeatedly asks him to do so? He's astonishingly stupid.

[mufc1959]

Another win!

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 10#p388967

[mufc1959]

And this is Alfie, Lord Evans, the cretin who tried to pay off his Co-Op mortgage with a £120K WeRe cheque and then went ballistic at Barbara O'Rourke, the Co-Op's fraud officer.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id ... 6&fref=ufi

[PeanutGallery]

Considering that the GOOF's are only using WeRe Banks account details screen to determine if a Cheque has or has not cleared, I can only imagine that they are in for some confusion and disappointment when they get told that in spite of Peter adjusting his imaginary ledger and debiting the amount of Re they have, it hasn't actually done anything for them in the real world.

Peter will be telling them one thing and the people who they owe money too (as well as the courts, bailiffs and sundry debt collection facilities) will be telling them another and coming to take their stuff. I imagine that when this occurs, they will double down on stupid with more meaningless woo.

These people don't seem to realise that when they buy Re from Pete they are buying something without any value. A currency ITS OWN BANK DOESN'T ACCEPT, which would to normal people be a red flag.

[littleFred]

... some confusion and disappointment when they get told that in spite of Peter adjusting his imaginary ledger and debiting the amount of Re they have, it hasn't actually done anything for them in the real world.

I've been there, got that T-shirt.

I once had a summons for not paying my council tax even though my bank statement said I had paid it. There was obviously a mistake somewhere, but where? Soon after I phoned them, the council found the money. They had received it but somehow hadn't credited it to my account.

The WeRe Bank works differently. It pretends it pays, but doesn't. In my view, this is another act of fraud.

Incidentally, on some videos Peter has protested his innocence of forgery. As far as I can see, he isn't guilty of an offence under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, because I don't think his instruments are "false", as defined in section 6. But fraud and forgery are two different things.

[PeanutGallery]

I would agree with your assessment regarding fraud and forgery.

My understanding would be that this would be covered under more than one part of the Fraud Act 2006.

I think the first part to be dealt with would be Fraud by false representation.

Code: Select all

(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).

Now what is the false representation, simply that WeRe cheques can be used to settle 'public facing' debts. They cannot, they cannot in fact be used as anything other than a novelty item. Peter intends to make a profit from this by selling the cheques and access to an account that does not do what he says it will.

Code: Select all

Possession etc. of articles for use in frauds

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he has in his possession or under his control any article for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine (or to both).
(3)Subsection (2)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.

Each Cheque book would count as an article for use in fraud. As would the website (note that the act requires it to be under control and a latter part defines article as also including computer data) so that would likely be a second count (possibly more - if you wanted to be cruel you'd include the merchandise in this).

Code: Select all

Making or supplying articles for use in frauds

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article—
(a)knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or
(b)intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).
(3)Subsection (2)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.

Peter made the Cheque books, but liability for this may also extend to the printers of the cheque book. Of course the issue with that will be proving intent, clearly the printers took some precautions (they didn't let Peter use a real bank sort code and they made the account code all 8's (I doubt that was Peter's doing)). However Peter made the website and certainly designed the cheques.

Of course I'm not a lawyer and more importantly not involved in the CPS nor would I have anything to do with what Peter would be charged with, but certainly I can see enough evidence (in the public domain) to feel that a conviction would be possible on all three of those charges. I really cannot understand why the authorities are dragging their feet on this as I don't think they need much more to warrant arrest, trial and conviction.

[littleFred]

A video is out of the meeting on 7 June 2015. See http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... Xe--Ebu18E

[Losleones]

65 suckers joining each day so Peter's salary is £9100.00 per week. I'd be interested to know if he's declaring this to the Inland Revenue. You could understanding that many new recruits if the scam actually worked but as it clearly doesn't (& never will) you then have to question the mentality of these GOOFers.But then again in true goofy logic, "The cheques aren't clearing & are being returned or kept as evidence" ........"Great it works,count me in!"

Peanut is quite right also about the Fraud Squad dragging their heels on this one given the amount Peter is fleecing from these nut jobs ,but at the same time it's rather amusing to see such numbers (that's if PoE isn't lying) hooking up to the scam.

[rumpelstilzchen]

A video is out of the meeting on 7 June 2015. See http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... Xe--Ebu18E

Wow. It's a constant barrage of quick-fire bullshit. Just the right thing for a room full of freeple who are attending a meeting and hold the preconceived notion that the product is legitimate. PoE is telling them what they want to hear. He even justifies why they now pass round brown envelopes at a meeting.
PoE tells the audience that they are his "protection". It makes them feel wanted. It makes them feel important. But "protection" is Peterspeak for "cash cow".
Peter tells his audience that the last place TPTB want Peter is in a court of law.
I love watching these GOOFs getting scammed.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Peanut is quite right also about the Fraud Squad dragging their heels on this one given the amount Peter is fleecing from these nut jobs ,but at the same time it's rather amusing to see such numbers (that's if PoE isn't lying) hooking up to the scam.

I believe there is a fair chance that PoE will escape prosecution. No victims of the scam are making complaints to the police. Quite the opposite in fact. The victims continue to believe in PoE. He is not acting fraudulently in their minds. It is the banks who are. I would not be surprised if once he has amassed a large amount of cash he will jump ship and disappear. That would be hilarious if that WeRe to happen.

[littleFred]

The WeRe Bank...The Road Ahead [Peter of England]

[As always, my infrequent comments in square brackets.]

65 people/day joining. 70% are from UK.

Paypal account still not accessible. Looked at Paytronics. Meetings are good. "The last place they want me is in a court of law, talking about this." We need to grow the meetings.

15m 0s: short break.

Some cheques are being returned, eg by utilities and councils. WeRe is a bank because I say it is.

22m 0s: Nat West Egham branch, 50 High Street, has sent Peter a letter with attached WeRe cheque for £1093.64, "to the manager of WeRe Bank", asking for clearing. "Advice of a special presentation cheque." The letter has a bank giro paying-in slip at the bottom. [25m 40s] Peter points to the credit slip and says, "In effect, they have sent you a cheque."

A similar letter from Sedgemore in Somerset. Others from Hewlett-Packard from Crawley, Scotia Bank in Hamilton, Ontario etc.

30m 0s: War. The agenda of this planet is war. Banks handle money for war. Devaluation of money is bad.

39m 48s: The Re is pegged to time. The Matrix, Neo. Gold.

48m 40s: The world of ideas. We [WeRe Bank] have got to get to critical mass. Probably 10,000 people. The black cube and red sphere. The runic symbol. We must grow the movement, meetings that fill stadia by the end of the year. "You are either with it, or against it." A brotherhood, a collective, a union. A membership drive. It is not for me to make money.

1h 05m 0s: The web site will contain a facility for the banks, to see what cheques have cleared. We are the bankers' prayer. There will be a map so you can see what members are in your area. 1h 10m 0s: There will be both the Re units, and a gold-backed unit. We are going to create our own reserve currency.

1h 11m 6s: A slide says:

Divest yourself of toxic, worthless "counterfeit" paper while you can!

Send me gold and I will multiply its value by eight. We will create paper money that contains physical gold.

1h 20m 0s: There will be two Re Units: for time (ReT) or gold (ReG).

1h 25m 55s: Join ReMovement. Put your cash in an envelope. Fee is now £35: £10 for first month, and £25 for book of 25 cheques. Thereafter membership is £120/year, £30/quarter, payable with 1gm 99.99% fine gold (special delivery postage is £6.47). Cheques will soon have name and account number pre-printed.

1h 29m 30s: As well as the note, there will be a charge card. It will be charged up with Re Units, either gold-backed or time-backed. Retailer won't need permanent electronic connection, but will download information in the morning, upload in the evening.

1h 31m 0s: Questions.

Paying a mortgage: don't bother paying every month, just pay it all off with one cheque. Make it out to the mortgage lender. Ignore any request to make it payable to your own name.

Peter mentions that the UN Convention on International Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes has a section that says it doesn't apply to cheques. But a draft of the convention, before it became legislation, said it would apply to cheques. [It isn't legislation at all.]

In the old days, they would send your cheque back for your records. So if they do this now, it doesn't mean they haven't used to credit your account. [As always, Peter is confused. In the old days, the drawer's bank would return the cheque to the drawer, marked as "PAID". It wasn't the payee who returned the cheque.]

1h 38m 30:

Just so we clarify fraud, fraud is a passing-off. That's trying to dupe somebody [...] on the belief that what they are acting on is the genuine article. So that's the copying of a Monet picture, copying a Bank of England note, [...] So no-one can use that argument, if the sort code isn't recognised as being of any other bank in the UK [...] So it's stretching credibility for them to suggest it is fraudulent.

[As before, Peter is confusing fraud with forgery.]

If the payee returns the cheque, do a notarial protest. Tell them they must send it for clearing.

What can the cheques be used for? For alleviating debt. A last resort for people in danger of repossession, of credit card company taking them to court, etc. Public side includes banks, council, car finance, insurance etc. Not to be used like a chap whose usual Barclaycard bill was £500. One month it was only £19, so he paid with a WeRe cheque and they closed his account. Use WeRe cheques only when your back is against the wall.

Q: People such as John Harris have died for doing less that you are doing; what is your protection? A: Hitler said the degree of heroism is proportionate to the degree of risk. I'm not a fan of Hitler but everyone should read Mein Kampf. Extra terrestrials.

Q: If 150 people in this room give you £35, are you going to move to the Caribbean? A: There are easier ways of making £35. I live very frugally, I live in a camping car. You can only recognise the truth.

2h 04m 30s: Q: Within how long should we make the notarial protest? A: Within 3 days.

Q: Can we send you a second promissory note? A: We are trying not to do that, although some people have sent in as many as ten. It should be payable-down in about ten years.

Q: Can we pay off an overdraft with a cheque? Yes.

Q: If we get a cheque from someone else [from a real bank], can we pay this into the WeRe bank? A: No.

Peter has one other helper, near Gloucester, doing data entry etc.


As always:
- Peter never said he actually pays any cheques. He says he "clears" them, but never says he "pays" them.
- Peter never said he has tried to use a WeRe cheque.

Why didn't anyone ask these questions? Perhaps they did, but they were edited out of the video.

[rumpelstilzchen]

The reason no one asks awkward questions is because they are brainwashed before attending the meeting. They know that if they ask a question that goes against the grain the rest of the group will look on them as not being "awake". Emperor's new clothes and all that. It is the herd mentality.
You have to take your hat off to PoE. He has got them exactly where he wants them. He's good.

[Jeffrey]

Plenty of potential customers by the way:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -work.html

[Losleones]

The reason no one asks awkward questions is because they are brainwashed before attending the meeting. They know that if they ask a question that goes against the grain the rest of the group will look on them as not being "awake". Emperor's new clothes and all that. It is the herd mentality.
You have to take your hat off to PoE. He has got them exactly where he wants them. He's good.

He's a bit like a hypnotist spoon feeding his garbage which the suckers readily gobble up. He comes across quite intelligently in his talks (unlike Haining Ceylon) but is clearly mentally unstable. Someone over on goofy did actually ask if Peter had used his own dud cheques but it was i think deleted & the poster banned. Anyway, I'm making a call to the Revenue shortly about Peter's antics as no way is he paying his growing Income Tax Liabilites with sterling, but then again why would he when he's got Re currency. Whilst watching these freetards getting shafted is amusing , seeing this scam artist earn upwards of £10k per month doesn't sit nicely with me.

[littleFred]

You have to take your hat off to PoE. He has got them exactly where he wants them. He's good.

Agreed. His presentation style, which was already quite good, has improved. He is more focused on what he wants to say, and rambles less on esoteric topics his audience doesn't care about.

At 22m 0s, the "Advice of a special presentation cheque" may be an answer to the question: why hasn't Peter been pulled? They may be offering him more rope to see how much he will hang himself.