Peter of England: He's going to be in REal trouble

[NYGman]

The RV will be on Sainsburys car park for a short walk to the venue.

Peter certainly lacks finesse. That is not the type of announcement that you would normally expect from an international bank.

Don't let the Dinarians know, they have been waiting on the RV for a while

[slowsmile]

I agree if they were going to do it they would have done it by now, with one proviso, he has not been in the country. Lets see if he makes this meeting, I am hoping he does because i doubt very much he is going to be warmly welcomed by all the people he has conned, I think that's partly the reason for the car park meet.

The meeting is not his usual WeRe Bank spiel and taking of brown envelopes - and no-one on his FB page or the WeRe Bank Forum has expressed wanting their money back so far - so lynch mob highly unlikely. So far I can't see any real interest on his FB page - and his latest post regarding the meeting is just plain bonkers (as usual).

https://www.facebook.com/43704917970076 ... =1&theater

There is a meeting for facilitators and those interested in setting up a hub branch of WeRe Bank around the country as well as Recruiters for ReUnion which is a Workers Collective Arm of ReMovement... THIS SATURDAY IN NOTTINGHAM. 10AM START THROUGH UNTIL WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH......

We will also be covering "Ceremonial High Magic" in preparation for the launch of the Bind Rune for ReMovement for early September. So this is a pre-announcement for the shills and trolls and "others" to zip up tightly because if there are any holes - WeRe coming right through...and you know what, you people are as naked as the day you WeRe born!

[Hercule Parrot]

The RV will be on Sainsburys car park for a short walk to the venue.

Peter certainly lacks finesse. That is not the type of announcement that you would normally expect from an international bank.

But were-bank is not a mere-bank (you can have that catchphrase, Peter). It's a magical wonderland of treasure, where a lucky traveller can just reach out and pluck a handful of precious, inflation-proof Re notes. Come in, you chosen few, and leave your tired, dirty old Sterling currency at the door.

[Wilson]

I would attend Nottingham purely for the entertainment value.

[timcurgenven1]

Is anyone else going?

Would be a bit disapointed if i happen to be the only one going on here.....

[mufc1959]

Remember this lady?



It's all gone horribly, horribly wrong ...



From solvency to homelessness in just TEN DAYS! I wonder how Peter is able to sleep at night. He must be a sociopath.

[NYGman]

Remember this lady?

It's all gone horribly, horribly wrong ...

From solvency to homelessness in just TEN DAYS! I wonder how Peter is able to sleep at night. He must be a sociopath.

I mean really, what are these people thinking? That they can create money with a promissory note they never intend to repay, and that passing checks against that note would really be accepted. When will people learn, you don't get something for nothing or there is no such thing as a free lunch? The level of stupidity boggles the mind.

[guilty]

From solvency to homelessness in just TEN DAYS! I wonder how Peter is able to sleep at night. He must be a sociopath.

Although the following article drifts off into some spiritual woo at the end, I think if you read it you will recognise the traits of a certain person...
http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_socio ... uence.html

[rumpelstilzchen]

From solvency to homelessness in just TEN DAYS! I wonder how Peter is able to sleep at night. He must be a sociopath.

But he reduced her available balance which means that the payee's balance must have increased by the same amount. Well, that's what Petey boy says.
If people are stupid enough to believe in this twaddle then imo they deserve everything they get....or don't get..... as in this case.

[mufc1959]

But he reduced her available balance which means that the payee's balance must have increased by the same amount. Well, that's what Petey boy says.

And, of course, because he's reduced her balance, according to WeRe Bank logic, that's money she now has to pay back to WeRe, using credits for work done or, Peter's preferred option, paying it off in cash.

This same woman also tried to pay offher student loans, without success. Cheque fraud in the USA is a federal offence, so she may well find that she's re-housed in a nice, secure environment in the not-too-distant future.

[hardcopy]

But he reduced her available balance which means that the payee's balance must have increased by the same amount. Well, that's what Petey boy says.

And, of course, because he's reduced her balance, according to WeRe Bank logic, that's money she now has to pay back to WeRe, using credits for work done or, Peter's preferred option, paying it off in cash.

This same woman also tried to pay offher student loans, without success. Cheque fraud in the USA is a federal offence, so she may well find that she's re-housed in a nice, secure environment in the not-too-distant future.

It's a shame. If she was The Bank of England she could create money out of thin air, or a bit of Quantative Easing, doesn't work for ordinary people unfortunately.

[#six]

Is anyone else going?

Would be a bit disapointed if i happen to be the only one going on here.....

I was considering going to the car park and laughing at them but I have an prior appointment with a hangover. Maybe as walk to the venue will clear my head

[Bones]

170959MM @werebank forum

Re: What a ******* day...

Report this post
Quote

Unread postby 170959MM » Fri Aug 21, 2015 12:56 am
“I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.” Douglas Adams, The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul.

My hearing took place in Court Number 2 at Exeter Magistrates’ Court at 10.05 a.m. Adjourned from the initial hearing on the 30th of July when Magistrate Dorothy Robson sat in – Tuesday, I had the displeasure of District Judge Nicholls (and I have since discovered we have a history – date-line 26/08/14).

The reception was heaving when I arrived: something big going down in Court Number 1 (I don’t know what exactly). I arrived before Mr. James May the EDF Rep’. When he did arrive he greeted me; although he sat as far away from me as he possibly could and avoided any eye contact, unlike on the previous occasion when we sat together a chatted. When we were summoned to the hearing he walked ahead of me and when we entered the court room I knew something wasn’t right because behind us was a security guard (who was outside the court smoking a fag upon my arrival) and I witnessed a silent acknowledgement between Messrs May and Nicholls; and throughout the hearing the door was ajar (3-4 inches) and the security guy remained outside from start to finish. We took our respective oaths, during which two other individuals entered and took seats behind me and to my right (a woman with a note pad and a chap with a beard with a brief case and folder and a note pad).

To say I was feeling uncomfortable at this point is an understatement.

Mr Nicholls addressed Mr May and asked him to hand over correspondences (these were requested by Mrs Robson on the 30th of July to be presented on the 18th of August as evidence denoting that EDF had returned my cheques to me – they had only returned one cheque – the second). I had copies of these 3 letters with me, and they are proof that only the second cheque had been returned, yet, Mr May handed Mr Nicholls 6 letters; and Mr Nicholls asked that I had copies of the 6 letters with me: I replied I only had 3. Mr Nicholls recited the dates of the letters he had, of which the last 3 corresponded with the dates of my copies. I asked Mr Nicholls about the other 3 letters he was handed. He ignored me and directed a question to Mr May as regards EDF’s bank (HSBC) not accepting the cheques (I can’t recall the wording exactly). Mr May replied that he agreed that the cheques had been deemed as unacceptable by both HSCB Bank and EDF.

Mr Nicholls then requested that the Clerk hand him a law dictionary which dealt with the 1954 Gas & Electricity Board’s Act; and would you believe that the very book was in hand’s reach of the Clerk upon the table she was sat at; just that one volume, no other. At this point I’m thinking the warrant is going to be granted dude. Furthermore, and considering that the hearing lasted about 15 minutes, Mr Nicholls spent 7 of those minutes reading either the letters or the contents of the law dictionary. There was total silence as he did so, which gave me the opportunity to observe Mr May, the Clerk, the recorder, none of whom would make any eye contact with me; and at this point another clerk entered and sat at a small desk next to the door; and it appears to me that the door was purposely left ajar with the security officer stood outside.

Eventually Mr Nicholls did put the reading material aside and he would address me by asking me, why did I consider that the cheques had been cleared if they had been returned to me? I replied that only the second cheque had been returned and I considered that HSBC Bank had not discharged their obligation to present either cheque for clearing - Mr Nicholls interjected and inferred that HSBC did not consider the cheques acceptable and that’s why they were returned.

Mr Nicholls reiterated that if the cheques were not acceptable then my debt to EDF remained. At this point I’m expecting Mr May to get his warrant; however, Mr Nicholls addresses Mr May and asks him what other forms of payment do EDF accept and makes a reference to my banking circumstances (undoubtedly appertaining to the previous hearing, when I made it clear that I had completely revamped my banking practices). Mr May responds by suggesting that methods of payment can be found on the reverse of all EDF’s bills.
Mr Nicholls then suggests to me that I should consider paying EDF with cash.

Then I ask, is the court affirming here today that WeRe Bank cheques are invalid? I also offer Mr Nicholls sight of documentation that outlines WeRe Bank’s procedures and requirements. His immediate response was (I’m paraphrasing here and cannot recall everything) “If I require to see any such documents I will ask for them. And no we are not saying as you suggest, but there must be a precedent set that no organization is obliged to accept any cheque they deem as unacceptable... ? ... WeRe Bank members are required to consider very seriously using cash for any sums unpaid.” There was tangible emphasis in the delivery, and it wasn’t just for my benefit dudes.

I was absolutely gob-smacked on two counts...
1. The sudden realisation (as if by my higher self – yes, I kid you not) that I had been unknowingly appropriated to be on the receiving end of this shit, and probably against my will. 2. This statement was in complete contrast and contradiction to the cashless society hypothesis (which I agree with Peter is the bankers’ ultimate goal); and I lost the plot and my concentration from here-on. And, it was the way in which Mr Nicholls conveyed that sentence, which suggested to me that the court with EDF have conspired to streamline the matter and their respective handling of it; and this was a veiled threat to all of us - no more no less dudes; and there are those who would undoubtedly dismiss it as the ordinary, not I; albeit, I discern the extraordinary therein, and make the valid observation that myself, and others in attendance, were perhaps the envoys thereof – don’t shoot this messenger as I never knowingly consented to this.

I can also recall offering Mr Nicholls sight of a letter which clearly suggests that EDF had initially accepted my first cheque, and I stated that I had discharged my obligation; but again he responded by telling me if he required to see any such documentation he would request them when he was ready to do so.

There was subsequent quietened discourse between Mr Nicholls, Mr May and the Clerk, and I endeavoured to attract Mr Nicholl’s attention and repeated that I had discharged my obligation... before he would address me again, and advised me that the matter was to be adjourned until a later date...; however, if by the 7th of September (we all reached an agreement upon that particular date) I hadn’t submitted a cash payment to EDF he would grant them a Warrant of Entry on that very day.

If I’m honest the last 2 or 3 minutes of the session are a complete blur, as I was still trying to come to terms with the previous issue. I can recall however seeing that the lady sat behind me had written something in her note book; and I can also recall her grinning at me as if to say that told you didn’t it matey!

The very last thing I recall saying is asking the Clerk to confirm the judge’s name, whilst he sped by me and into a side room like a whippet. Mr May had disappeared (although I did see him outside the court on the opposite side of the road speaking on his mobile and seemingly very content). And the security guy followed me back to the reception area; nonetheless, I couldn’t wait to get out of the place. There were still people in the reception – the silence however was oppressive and I felt absolutely numb with foreboding.

Now I consider that Mr Nicholl’s message was clear enough for me to pass the warning onto our members of what to now expect when attending court. What I went through on Tuesday I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy; and our members will require greater support - the kind as is clearly alluded to in WeRe Banks Procedures and Requirements.

Compared with the hearing on the 30th of July, which was congenial and gentile, Tuesday’s experience was oppressive and sinister; (for example) the Clerk, who had attended both hearings, was not the same person who was animated and corrected Mrs Robson on more than one occasion - on Tuesday she was subdued and never uttered a word, until invited to do so that is. And, as I write this, there is something else, which I can neither put my finger on nor satisfactorily articulate, but it disturbs me greatly; nevertheless, when I suggest that WeRe Bank should seriously reconsider or amend their approach to the whole court issue, I do so from the heart – the current policy of non-involvement does not bode well with me at all; and I consider myself something of a competent intuitive. And, if my genuine concerns for the members imply that I’m a Doubting Thomas, then so be it dudes. So be it.

For those who might ignore the significance as respects the above events, I say they do so at their peril. Consider that the initial hearing derived from EDF’s application for a warrant of entry for [alleged] non-payment of charges; and I understand that the Information of Warrant included no reference, whatsoever, to WeRe Bank or its cheques (I was given this data from Mr May prior to the hearing of the 30th of July). Notwithstanding, I had already made the court doubtless aware of my cheques and rebutted EDF’s nefarious claims in writing: a matter that Mr May was not aware of, it would appear. Moreover, the initial hearing had been adjourned to allow EDF and myself to acquire further evidence as respects the return of the cheques and the (non)presentment of the cheques for clearing. However, and betwixt the hearings, I suspect that some tweaking had been set in motion as respects ‘priorities’ (cheques over warrant) and who should best handle the matter (considering that Magistrate Dorothy Robson had selected the date of the second session to accommodate her being able to attend); and I confidently suggest that the second hearing was tailored to invalidate the potential for me to attain the ammo to convene a case against WeRe Bank; and consider also that the word ‘fraud’ has not been cited once during both hearings – that’s significant in itself. Subsequent courts hearings involving WeRe Bank members will be conducted to offset the threat of witnesses being sequestered from the various corporations, and they’ll do so by Machiavellian design.

And, I suggest that District Judge Nicholls ushered forth the means to consolidate those same designs. And, I pray that Peter makes the first move, sooner, rather than later, to oppose these antics, and before more members suffer the same shit as I have. I sincerely want WeRe Bank and Peter to succeed, but it is of vital priority that our members are supported in the court room environment. Period!

[Bones]

Not having much luck paying his rent so off to see Peter tomorrow to be suckered in by more BS

[Bones]

More WeRe Bank SUCCESSES !!!!1!!!!



This will end in tears

[Bones]

Robswift and Maurkee from GOODF having a bit on a love'in session on WeRe Bank Forum

[littleFred]

Robswift and Maurkee from GOODF having a bit on a love'in session on WeRe Bank Forum

Neither of those two are RobSwift from GOODF (unless Rob has two memberships). RobSwift is 150976SR. He was a drum-beater for WeRe on GOODF, and enthusiastic on the private forum. Now he has gone quiet on the private forum, and tells GOOFers:

I do not use PoE cheques nor follow the man blindly, but that is not to say that I do not see the merit in his cheques as his method is legitimate.

His immediate response was (I’m paraphrasing here and cannot recall everything) “If I require to see any such documents I will ask for them. And no we are not saying as you suggest, but there must be a precedent set that no organization is obliged to accept any cheque they deem as unacceptable...

I suspect 170959MM (Mike Meehan, Michael David Meehan) is mistaken. "No organization is obliged to accept any cheque they deem as unacceptable." That is a fact. No court would rule otherwise. Especially not rubber cheques.

I suppose the District Judge gave Mike the benefit of the doubt, that he might actually be trying to pay his bill, so didn't grant the warrant to fit a pre-paid meter. But I guess he will next time.

This should come as no surprise to Peter's suckers. Payees are not not obliged to accept cheques. Peter lies when he says they are.

[wanglepin]

Robswift and Maurkee from GOODF having a bit on a love'in session on WeRe Bank Forum

I do hope Mark Haining Ceylon is reading your last four posts Bones. I am only sorry bertiebert isn't around to see the shite that he and Haining have both helped to create.
It was my understanding that Pof E couldn't wait to go to court to defend the legitimacy of his cheques and his is bank (freeman legal services and all that). It seems he has the perfect platform to show his members how it is done. But no doubt, like those other tossers, Santos and Menard, he will steer well clear of any court room is my bet.

[slowsmile]

Robswift and Maurkee from GOODF having a bit on a love'in session on WeRe Bank Forum

Are you sure that's Robswift?

When he first introduced himself on their forum he says he's from New Brunswick, Canada.

http://www.werebank.com/forum/viewtopic ... f3ac2#p619

He's also used the sig motorheadv10 beneath Rob - and there does appear to be a person active on a few websites with that handle.

https://www.thingiverse.com/motorheadv10/about

[#six]

Robswift and Maurkee from GOODF having a bit on a love'in session on WeRe Bank Forum

Neither of those two are RobSwift from GOODF (unless Rob has two memberships). RobSwift is 150976SR. He was a drum-beater for WeRe on GOODF, and enthusiastic on the private forum. Now he has gone quiet on the private forum, and tells GOOFers:

I do not use PoE cheques nor follow the man blindly, but that is not to say that I do not see the merit in his cheques as his method is legitimate.

His immediate response was (I’m paraphrasing here and cannot recall everything) “If I require to see any such documents I will ask for them. And no we are not saying as you suggest, but there must be a precedent set that no organization is obliged to accept any cheque they deem as unacceptable...

I suspect 170959MM (Mike Meehan, Michael David Meehan) is mistaken. "No organization is obliged to accept any cheque they deem as unacceptable." That is a fact. No court would rule otherwise. Especially not rubber cheques.

I suppose the District Judge gave Mike the benefit of the doubt, that he might actually be trying to pay his bill, so didn't grant the warrant to fit a pre-paid meter. But I guess he will next time.

This should come as no surprise to Peter's suckers. Payees are not not obliged to accept cheques. Peter lies when he says they are.

In case of any doubt

http://www.chequeandcredit.co.uk/cheque ... o_cheques/

Ever since their inception it has been the case that cheques are not a promise to pay by the bank, but a request to the bank that it pays, out of the funds deposited by the customer, an amount to a third party. This means that the bank will only honour the cheque if the account holder has sufficient funds to meet it or it can be covered by an agreed overdraft or other line of credit. Cheques are not legal tender and never have been. Even today, if you owe someone money they are not obliged to accept a cheque. Instead a creditor is entitled to be paid in legal tender and can refuse payment in any other form.