Peter of England: A REal guru.

[Losleones]

Here's a dumb question:

Let's say Pete gets out of jail say in ten years after the fraud crashes down. Can Peter demand that WERE Bank members who signed promissory notes to him post dated to 2025 then pay him the millions they promised him?

He will attempt no doubt but goofers have the 3 letters followed by estoppel card up their sleeves for that scam

[longdog]

Here's a dumb question:

Let's say Pete gets out of jail say in ten years after the fraud crashes down. Can Peter demand that WERE Bank members who signed promissory notes to him post dated to 2025 then pay him the millions they promised him?

<barrack room lawyer>

I would say not.

Anybody who sent him a PN as a condition of being issued a WeeWee 'bank' chequebook would have a strong case that the 'bank' had failed to live up to its side of the contract to supply banking services. Well... Banking services that actually work that is.

</barrack room lawyer>

[guilty]

Here's a dumb question:

Let's say Pete gets out of jail say in ten years after the fraud crashes down. Can Peter demand that WERE Bank members who signed promissory notes to him post dated to 2025 then pay him the millions they promised him?

<barrack room lawyer>

I would say not.

Anybody who sent him a PN as a condition of being issued a WeeWee 'bank' chequebook would have a strong case that the 'bank' had failed to live up to its side of the contract to supply banking services. Well... Banking services that actually work that is.

</barrack room lawyer>

It would be an interesting court case. The promissory note is unconditional in that it states the cash is for 'value received', which is obviously unspecified and could be anything Peter wishes it to mean - provision of a single blank WeRe cheque, for example. The condition that the issuer has no further obligation if the note is sold (as a negotiable instrument) might cause some difficulties to prospective purchasers, but the law says, that in that case, it would be Peter who was liable to pay.
Of course, by that time, Peter has collected on 400 promissory notes (£60m), and has disappeared to a country with no extradition treaty.

[#six]

I think PofE has been really sneaky here. The last time I looked at were banks PN, it stated that if it were to be transferred to a third party that the issuer would no longer liable to pay its value. That has been completely removed from the new note. So PofE is totally at Liberty to sell all the PNs he holds, assuming they are the newer version.

So the sneakiness is where PofE has got a large number of people to sign up under the 'safe' knowledge that PofE would be unable to sell the PNs - essentially making these PNs worthless. These people then become part of the fraud. They extol the virtues of the bank and the system knowing full well that they are safe from being fleeced of 150k. New mugs however have none of this protection so PofE could already be selling these PNs to a third party. Even if he discounted them by 90% he's still sitting on 15k per person and given the number of people who have signed up PofE could still make millions from this fraud.

[Losleones]

Letissier14 & FatGambit over on goofy are about to get Weary Bank threads locked again unfortunately as the entertainment was gathering pace. Having said that, great posts from our letissier which has got a few goofers attention. To add, me thinks pony tailed Markey boy is posting as BertieBassett amongst others.....dyslexia bieng teh cule. http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... XmH0HCkqrU

[longdog]

Even if he discounted them by 90% he's still sitting on 15k per person and given the number of people who have signed up PofE could still make millions from this fraud.

I would imagine anybody with the financial resources to pay £15,000 for just one of these PNs is going to ask about the provenance of the note and run a mile from anything to do with Poe and his 'bank'.

I would guess the sell-on value of the PNs in the real world is as close to sweet FA as makes no difference. That wouldn't stop someone trying to enforce the notes for a percentage of course but money up front? I don't see it ever happening.

[Hyrion]

The last time I looked at were banks PN, it stated that if it were to be transferred to a third party that the issuer would no longer liable to pay its value. That has been completely removed from the new note.

Completely removed? I think you're mistaken...

From: https://www.werebank.com/safety-catch/promissory-note/

The Issuer understands that if they have fail to repay the note upon MATURITY, then WeRe Bank has the authority, at its absolute discretion, to Forgive the Debt upon receipt of consideration of the sum of Re1 from the undersigned

The Issuer fails to repay the note? Obviously, "Issuer" in this case is meant to be the person who is signing the PN. I'm sure any reasonable Judge would easily understand that. Example Scenario:

• John Dope (typo, strangely appropriate) signs a promissory note to WeRe Bank for 150 pounds.

If Mr. Dope is the "Issuer" then it makes sense he could "fail to repay the note".

But if WeRe Bank is the "Issuer" then it doesn't make sense WeRe Bank could "fail to repay the note".

I'd expect any Judge overseeing any argument about who the "Issuer" is would read the word in the context of what makes sense. And it doesn't make sense that WeRe Bank would have the obligation of paying the Promissory Note that John Dope signed.

whereas under such trade it shall terminate any and every obligation therein on the Issuers side

The termination clause is still there.

Basic definition of "issue"

• the action of supplying or distributing an item for use, sale, or official purposes

From that perspective, anyone who "supply's or distributes an item for use, sale, or official purposes" is an issuer.

Granted, the official financial definition of Issuer is:

• A legal entity that develops, registers and sells securities for the purpose of financing its operations. Issuers may be domestic or foreign governments, corporations or investment trusts.

But.... is WeRe really a legal entity? Sure... it claims to be a "bank" but is it a properly registered business of any type? And I'm pretty sure it's neither a domestic or foreign government.

Just found this when googling on "issuer of promissory note":

• A promissory note is a legal instrument (more particularly, a financial instrument), in which one party (the maker or issuer) promises in writing to pay a determinate sum of money to the other (the payee), either at a fixed or determinable future time or on demand of the payee, under specific terms.

Granted, it's from wikipedia and I really prefer quoting someone of more authority but I think it helps make the point that a reasonable Judge will understand "Issuer" in this context is the person signing the PN.

[#six]

The last time I looked at were banks PN, it stated that if it were to be transferred to a third party that the issuer would no longer liable to pay its value. That has been completely removed from the new note.

Completely removed? I think you're mistaken...

From: https://www.werebank.com/safety-catch/promissory-note/

The Issuer understands that if they have fail to repay the note upon MATURITY, then WeRe Bank has the authority, at its absolute discretion, to Forgive the Debt upon receipt of consideration of the sum of Re1 from the undersigned

The Issuer fails to repay the note? Obviously, "Issuer" in this case is meant to be the person who is signing the PN. I'm sure any reasonable Judge would easily understand that. Example Scenario:

• John Dope (typo, strangely appropriate) signs a promissory note to WeRe Bank for 150 pounds.

If Mr. Dope is the "Issuer" then it makes sense he could "fail to repay the note".

But if WeRe Bank is the "Issuer" then it doesn't make sense WeRe Bank could "fail to repay the note".

I'd expect any Judge overseeing any argument about who the "Issuer" is would read the word in the context of what makes sense. And it doesn't make sense that WeRe Bank would have the obligation of paying the Promissory Note that John Dope signed.

whereas under such trade it shall terminate any and every obligation therein on the Issuers side

The termination clause is still there.

Basic definition of "issue"

• the action of supplying or distributing an item for use, sale, or official purposes

From that perspective, anyone who "supply's or distributes an item for use, sale, or official purposes" is an issuer.

Granted, the official financial definition of Issuer is:

• A legal entity that develops, registers and sells securities for the purpose of financing its operations. Issuers may be domestic or foreign governments, corporations or investment trusts.

But.... is WeRe really a legal entity? Sure... it claims to be a "bank" but is it a properly registered business of any type? And I'm pretty sure it's neither a domestic or foreign government.

Just found this when googling on "issuer of promissory note":

• A promissory note is a legal instrument (more particularly, a financial instrument), in which one party (the maker or issuer) promises in writing to pay a determinate sum of money to the other (the payee), either at a fixed or determinable future time or on demand of the payee, under specific terms.

Granted, it's from wikipedia and I really prefer quoting someone of more authority but I think it helps make the point that a reasonable Judge will understand "Issuer" in this context is the person signing the PN.

I was talking about the issuer being the person who signs the note. And the only information of relevance is that which is written on the note itself. That makes no mention of the issuer not being liable for the money. What ever BS PofE writes on his website is of no relevence to the document (PN) signed.

[PeanutGallery]

I'm not so sure that the PN's will prove to be an issue from a legal or a practical perspective. Peter's essentially got a lot of promises from a load of deadbeats to pay him money that they both don't have and aren't very likely to have any time in the future.

Even if Peter were to come after these people and ask them to repay his PN's down the line, he wouldn't be likely to reclaim any amount of money simply because it won't exist. Peter may be thinking that he's got a nest egg secured in the form of these promissory notes, but he hasn't. He hasn't because he's forgotten about one of the key things that give a promissory note it's value, namely the likelihood of the promise being made good.

Secondly I'd wager that the promissory notes would be seized as part of the criminal investigation and destroyed by the fraud squad so assuming that Peter get's caught, serves his time and is then released, he may not have possession of the notes.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Letissier14 & FatGambit over on goofy are about to get Weary Bank threads locked again unfortunately as the entertainment was gathering pace. Having said that, great posts from our letissier which has got a few goofers attention. To add, me thinks pony tailed Markey boy is posting as BertieBassett amongst others.....dyslexia bieng teh cule. http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... XmH0HCkqrU

The Guvner has waded in:

Re: friendly positive advice please
Postby getoutofdebtfree » Thu Jun 11, 2015 2:54 pm

If people are being encouraged to risk their homes with these cheques, then I do not agree with it. I am quite happy to add a disclaimer at the top of the we're bank page explaining the consequences of paying for vital services, much like we have on the A4V and prom note pages. And we never had these problems with A4V and prom notes! I will also remove we're bank from the success stories and put them this topic, so it doesn't look like we're promoting them. I've always tried to remain impartial, however, I can't control everyone else on the forum.

[Losleones]

I'm not so sure that the PN's will prove to be an issue from a legal or a practical perspective. Peter's essentially got a lot of promises from a load of deadbeats to pay him money that they both don't have and aren't very likely to have any time in the future.

Even if Peter were to come after these people and ask them to repay his PN's down the line, he wouldn't be likely to reclaim any amount of money simply because it won't exist. Peter may be thinking that he's got a nest egg secured in the form of these promissory notes, but he hasn't. He hasn't because he's forgotten about one of the key things that give a promissory note it's value, namely the likelihood of the promise being made good.

Secondly I'd wager that the promissory notes would be seized as part of the criminal investigation and destroyed by the fraud squad so assuming that Peter get's caught, serves his time and is then released, he may not have possession of the notes.

Peter will have no need to chase down the PN (worthless) as he will be extremely wealthy with 65 suckers joining Re scam daily.

[longdog]

Peter will have no need to chase down the PN (worthless) as he will be extremely wealthy with 65 suckers joining Re scam daily.

I'd take that claim with about this much salt...

[Hyrion]

I was talking about the issuer being the person who signs the note. And the only information of relevance is that which is written on the note itself.

I was thorough enough to cross-reference what he posted on his site with the PN itself that is downloaded and signed:

• https://www.werebank.com/wp-content/upl ... ote-A4.pdf

I copied from the site because it's commonly easier then copying from a pdf.

and whereas under such trade it shall terminate any and every obligation herein on my side

Now... unless he's handing out other promissory notes during those meetings - that's the one people are downloading, signing and sending to him.

Or perhaps you have a link to a different promissory note that WeRe bank is providing?

[Hyrion]

I'm not so sure that the PN's will prove to be an issue from a legal or a practical perspective.

Agreed. In my humble perspective it should be fully treated as the scam it is. However, my opinion does not affect the decisions Judges make.

I was simply speaking to the point of Six claiming the get-out-of-pn-clause was gone when it's clearly still in place.

[guilty]

Peter understands insurance about a well as he understands banking:
http://werebank.com/issues/upload/kb/faq.php?id=18

Underwritten? Does he even know what that means?

[#six]

I was talking about the issuer being the person who signs the note. And the only information of relevance is that which is written on the note itself.

I was thorough enough to cross-reference what he posted on his site with the PN itself that is downloaded and signed:

• https://www.werebank.com/wp-content/upl ... ote-A4.pdf

I copied from the site because it's commonly easier then copying from a pdf.

and whereas under such trade it shall terminate any and every obligation herein on my side

Now... unless he's handing out other promissory notes during those meetings - that's the one people are downloading, signing and sending to him.

Or perhaps you have a link to a different promissory note that WeRe bank is providing?

my apologies. You are correct. I can only offer in my defence that I'm at work and skim read it on my phone.

[guilty]

John Witterick says:

A word of caution

Postby getoutofdebtfree » Thu Jun 11, 2015 3:16 pm

Please be aware that although some people are having success with the We'Re bank, others have had cheques returned.
We would suggest you do not pay for vital services with them.
We make a similar warning for the Promissory Note and the A4V process, elsewhere on the site.
As We'Re Bank do not seem to have a forum, much of the discussion is taking place here, however, please note, getoutofdebtfree has no connection with We'Re Bank.

It might have been a little more accurate to say that 'some people are claiming success'

[letissier14]

Letissier14 & FatGambit over on goofy are about to get Weary Bank threads locked again unfortunately as the entertainment was gathering pace. Having said that, great posts from our letissier which has got a few goofers attention. To add, me thinks pony tailed Markey boy is posting as BertieBassett amongst others.....dyslexia bieng teh cule. http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... XmH0HCkqrU

The majority of my posts on that thread have now been deleted by a moderator on goodf

[mufc1959]

As anticipated, the thread where the housing association tenant is being threatened with eviction for trying to pay her rent with a WeRe cheque has now been locked, after that cretinous SalliNae waded in with the 0.5 of a brain cell that s/he possesses.

The implications for the OP if she loses her entitlement to social housing are massive, potentially life-changing. I really hope she's able to come to her senses and reach an agreement with the housing association to pay her arrears with proper money.

[rumpelstilzchen]

The majority of my posts on that thread have now been deleted by a moderator on goodf

Nice to see that freedom of speech is alive and well over on the GOOF forum.