Peter of England: A REal guru.

[slowsmile]

Well Smith the Swindler has replied to Alfie Lord Evans post on Facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... %22R%22%7D

So to get hold of PoE you have to go via "The Baron" whoever they are - presumably how someone signs themselves on the WeRe Forum?

[rumpelstilzchen]

So to get hold of PoE you have to go via "The Baron" whoever they are

Steve Forrest?

[mufc1959]

I see that Emily 'Love Light' Davies (any relation to Freddie 'Parrot Face' Davies, I wonder), who claimed to be mortgage-free a few weeks ago courtesy of WeRe Bank is also wanting to speak to Peter.

[slowsmile]

I see that Emily 'Love Light' Davies (any relation to Freddie 'Parrot Face' Davies, I wonder), who claimed to be mortgage-free a few weeks ago courtesy of WeRe Bank is also wanting to speak to Peter.

No doubt Smith the Swindler can direct them to "Freeman Legal Services".

http://www.freemanlegalservices.com/

Kinda surprised Robswift hasn't done a little bit of self promotion for his "remedy".

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10218&start=2420#p197351

After all, it has the approval of great legal minds such as Jimmy One Cell, Chong, SalliNae etc.

So it's likely to be a stick-man drawing in crayon.

[Hercule Parrot]

So to get hold of PoE you have to go via "The Baron" whoever they are

The Barren would be more apt.

[woodworker]

Re (no pun intended): PoE also makes a cock up with the water pipe analogy. The water is physically present inside the whole length of the run.

That is just what they want you to think. It is similar to the light inside the refrigerator door - does it really go off when you close the door.

When you can understand deep philosophical issues such as those, then WeRe Bank will make sense to you. There is no spoon.

[woodworker]

I just posted the following the the Facebook page:

"Peter not available because he knows this is all unraveling."

[Skeleton]

Hi, A first post but i stumbled across this site, (I also recognise a few names from you tube) whilst trying to find out any information about this guy after discovering someone reasonably close to me who has autism, was starting to get involved with WeRe Bank and the FMOTL guff in general. A group of us have managed to dissuade him from proceeding any further, he is in the UK and i have moved to Australia, so it did take a group effort and a few calling in of favours but we got there. Tom Crawford's case also has also made me aware that there are other people leading many others further into trouble and charging them for the privilege. I do not confess to know much about there practices but I am now fully intent on continuing to learn and to try and help stop them.
Anyway my main reason for posting was to thank you all for your efforts in "outing" this guy, it is heartening to know there are many who are against this sort of thing. It is apparent my friend got lucky, I fear others may not be so lucky. I hope it is unraveling and that happens quickly.

[daveBeeston]

Hello Skeleton and welcome to the forum.

I'm gald you and your friends managed to help someone who was almost down the rabbit hole(especially as the person in question would come under the vulnerable umbrella) and most if not all involved in the various scams with PoE,FMOTL and GOODF dont care what happens to those involved aslong as the money keeps rolling in.

If there is any justice then PoE and others will be stopped and given an extended vacation at her Majesty's pleasure adn hoepfully that will happen sooner rather than later.

[notorial dissent]

I would imagine that if Evans wrote a £120,000 check to his mortgage company, and it bounced, which it most assuredly would if it were a Re check, then I would expect that to say he is in bad odour with them would a major bit of understatement. I would also suspect they are threatening him with legal prosecution for fraud at the very least if not with outright foreclosure. For some reason mortgage companies seem to take offense at people writing big bad checks to them. I would also suspect that he is equally dumb enough to think that PoE could or would do something about it.

[Skeleton]

That is one of the elephants they seem to be dancing around on You Tube and something i can't find any info on. Are the people who are writing these cheques liable for prosecution and from who? They must know deep down the cheques were bogus. It is one thing if this fool has taken there money, but if prosecutions occur because they present the cheques a cell may be the safest place for him.

[guilty]

That is one of the elephants they seem to be dancing around on You Tube and something i can't find any info on. Are the people who are writing these cheques liable for prosecution and from who? They must know deep down the cheques were bogus. It is one thing if this fool has taken there money, but if prosecutions occur because they present the cheques a cell may be the safest place for him.

Such 'bouncing' cases are usually remedied quickly by the bank sending the cheque back and asking for re-presentation, or payment by some other means. If, that is, it is your account, it's a valid cheque, it has passed through out-clearing and the Milton Keynes Exchange, but at the in-clearing stage it is discovered that you just don't have enough funds to cover it. It is possible for the beneficiary of the cheque to sue in civil court when the cheque is returned, but that rarely happens.
On the other hand, writing a bogus cheque in the knowledge that it is fraud is a criminal offence. That will be prosecuted by TPTB and can result in a huge fine (several £thousands) and up to 10 years in chokey.

[Jeffrey]

That is one of the elephants they seem to be dancing around on You Tube and something i can't find any info on.

I think there was discussion on this which needed more clarification. In California, which I researched because there was a relevant fake check case there, writing a WeRe check would be a felony. Problem with the UK is that there's no separate law against writing bad checks, it seems to all be lumped into fraud.

[littleFred]

Are the people who are writing these cheques liable for prosecution and from who?

Welcome to the forum!

It would be the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service). I'm not a lawyer, but the most obvious offence by cheque-writers seems to be "Fraud by false representation" as defined by the Fraud Act 2006 s2. The allonges, and follow-up letters that cheque-writers are supposed to send, make the false claim that debtors are obliged to accept WeRe cheques in settlement of debt. The claim is untrue but to be an offence also requires that "the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading."

With minimal research, a cheque-writer would know that debtors are not obliged to accept any cheques, even good ones, if they don't want to. But a possible defence to a charge of fraud would be that Peter is a very convincing con-man, and the cheque-writer believed his lies.

The law in the USA seems to be much stronger against writing bad cheques.

There is some discussion in the private WeRe Bank forum about how the bank transfers actual money, or indeed whether it does so at all. (It doesn't, of course.)

Peter himself is on much thinner ice. He claims to have a law degree, and a background in financial services. I am convinced he knows his statements are false and, therefore, would be found guilty of fraud.

[mufc1959]

That is one of the elephants they seem to be dancing around on You Tube and something i can't find any info on. Are the people who are writing these cheques liable for prosecution and from who? They must know deep down the cheques were bogus. It is one thing if this fool has taken there money, but if prosecutions occur because they present the cheques a cell may be the safest place for him.

For something like a £120 credit card bill, the company will just reverse it, add fees and interest and demand payment by another method. But for a £120,000 mortgage? Undoubtedly the Co-op's T&Cs will contain a provision that it's repayable on demand in certain circumstances, so Alfie may well now find himself in the position of:

- having to find £120K to repay the Co-op immediately, if it is no longer prepared to have him as a customer;

- unable to raise a mortgage anywhere else if there is now a CIFAS fraud marker against him;

- quite possibly in some criminal trouble under the Fraud Act 2006.

[Skeleton]

Thanks Guilty for the explanation, that makes sense of it, no wonder the die-hards who signed up for this as a sure fire winner went suddenly quiet, the full horror of what they have done may actually have hit home, trying to get hold of him via Facebook smacks of desperation. I do feel sorry for the more vulnerable who have been caught up in this though, and it is why i find the man's actions all the more annoying.

I still can't decide if Peter is deluded and believes all he "sells" or a simple con artist. I apologise for all the questions but i am new at this and thank you for the replies.

[guilty]

If the Fraud Act doesn't cover the situation, then S2 of the Theft Act 1978 will. That's up to 5 years in chokey.

[guilty]

Thanks Guilty for the explanation, that makes sense of it, no wonder the die-hards who signed up for this as a sure fire winner went suddenly quiet, the full horror of what they have done may actually have hit home, trying to get hold of him via Facebook smacks of desperation. I do feel sorry for the more vulnerable who have been caught up in this though, and it is why i find the man's actions all the more annoying.

I still can't decide if Peter is deluded and believes all he "sells" or a simple con artist. I apologise for all the questions but i am new at this and thank you for the replies.

The other thing that WeRe members should keep in mind is that, for all their whinging about how they don't really owe anything and it's all a fraud by the bank, the presentation of the cheque (even though it is bogus) is, under the law, a recognition of their debt, and the cheque can be used as evidence in court against them. There is very little defence that can be used in court for issuing a dud cheque.

[PeanutGallery]

The difficulty with being able to say with any certainty that this will lead to a prosecution and conviction is simply that their is an argument that the person writing the cheque may not fall foul, if they genuinely believe that the cheques are real.

The relevant legislation is going to be the Fraud Act 2006, now this contains various descriptions of what constitutes fraud in the United Kingdom (note that these Cheques have spread overseas and different nations have different laws and legal customs). I would think that the relevant part of the Fraud Act is Section 2, this defines Fraud as being "a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation to cause a gain for himself or to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss".

I would be certain that writing a WeRe Cheque is making a false representation to cause a gain for the person writing. The stumbling block, from the point of fact of the person issuing the cheque is whether the Cheque is written dishonestly or not. That is very obviously a question for the courts to decide. However a vulnerable person, such as someone with a mental health condition, may not be acting dishonestly when writing a WeRe cheque. Again it would only be an issue to be decided at trial.

The other aspect of the Fraud Act, which again could be brought into play is I think section 6, this makes it an offence to have in your possession articles for use in frauds. This is a simpler law and doesn't require intent, it simply states "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." Now a WeRe Cheque book would meet that criteria, unless it had been clearly marked as being void.

Of course this is just looking at it from the point of view of a customer/victim of Peter and the scam. It's not looking at it in terms of what Peter is guilty of. I would also think that Peter not using his own Cheques and not using his own currency would suggest that he knows the Cheque books are fake and he is dishonestly selling and marketing them. However I cannot 100% say that every used has used the Cheques dishonestly due to the simple fact that some of those who have fallen foul of this scam will be vulnerable adults. But this is just a lay opinion so take it with plenty of salt.

However it should also be taken that writing a fake cheque, would be considered making an admission that the debt exists and they would be liable for enforcement action through the civil courts. Now the civil courts can't imprison someone but they can petition for bankruptcy, repossess a home and do all manner of other things that will negatively affect a persons credit rating/future prospects. So it's really a lose lose situation. Nobody writing one of these cheques will come out with a win.

In regard to 'Lord' Evans, I would think his lordship is about to find the stately home repossessed, he would have 'cleared' the mortgage, with a fake cheque, then I don't think he would have saved the money he should have spending on it and would have fallen into arrears. I also think it entirely possible that the police may also have had a stern word. Either way I think things are going to start to get interesting as this unravels. Time to find a comfy chair from which to watch the show.

[PeanutGallery]

I apologise for all the questions but i am new at this and thank you for the replies.

No need to apologise for questions. We welcome them.