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

[slowsmile]

I think Peter may once have has an ambition to sell the suckers' promises for real money, and use some of this to actually pay the amounts that were written on the cheques.

IIRC, someone posted a copy of one of PoE's promissory notes and it included a line saying that, if the note were transferred to another then the debt was forgiven, or some such language. This effectively means that the notes can not be sold to someone else for cash. Only PoE could go to court to try to force the maker to redeem the note for cash.

I could be wrong.

This is what it says on the WeRe Promissory Note;

I hereby give permission to the HOLDER and/or the HOLDER IN DUE COURSE of this Promissory Note, to use this note in any way necessary as a “negotiable
instrument” to be financially traded on: and whereas under such trade it shall terminate any and every obligation herein on my side.

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

[notorial dissent]

I have to agree that I think PoE originally intended some scam later on down the road with the PN's, but the original wording on them effectively voided them if sold, and the new wording isn't much better.

In all honesty, I don't think they would be enforceable in any court once they were looked at, since there was never any real consideration given for them, and they were part and parcel with a monetary fraud. I think from a legal point, they are worth every bit as much as a WeRenotacheck, which is to say NOTHING. That his sucker list was gullible enough to sign them and hand them over says a lot about them, they'd make a good sucker list for some other conman later, since they have been proven too dumb to think about what they are being offered.

[noblepa]

This is what it says on the WeRe Promissory Note;

I hereby give permission to the HOLDER and/or the HOLDER IN DUE COURSE of this Promissory Note, to use this note in any way necessary as a “negotiable
instrument” to be financially traded on: and whereas under such trade it shall terminate any and every obligation herein on my side.

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

Doesn't that, in one sentence, both give the HOLDER the right to sell the note (HOLDER IN DUE COURSE) and simultaneously destroy any value it might have to a potential buyer ("...under such trade it shall terminate any and every obligation herein on my side.")?

IANAL, but it seems to me that it says that, yes, Peter can sell the note, but that, if he does, I have no obligation to pay it. Why would anyone buy such a note?

[Jeffrey]

IANAL, but it seems to me that it says that, yes, Peter can sell the note, but that, if he does, I have no obligation to pay it. Why would anyone buy such a note?

The underlying theme is that "promises" have value. Peter is implicitly arguing that a promise to pay is worth something even when there is no intention to pay or capacity to pay.

[longdog]

As I see it there are two reasons for the PNs... First they lend a certain air of officialness to the whole scheme to impress the suckers and second they enable Poe to say to the suckers "This is where the money will come from to settle the cheques".

Both of these are nonsense of course.

[littleFred]

... since there was never any real consideration given for them ...

I don't see that consideration is a factor. To be a valid promissory note doesn't require a consideration. (A contract requires consideration, but a PN doesn't require a contract.)

However, I guess that someone purchasing a PN from Peter wouldn't succeed in a legal action against the maker to get the £150k.

Suppose Peter isn't convicted of fraud, and at maturity sues a maker (or a deceased maker's estate) for £150k, would a court order that the sum be paid? I suspect it might.

[longdog]

Suppose Peter isn't convicted of fraud, and at maturity sues a maker (or a deceased maker's estate) for £150k, would a court order that the sum be paid? I suspect it might.

It wouldn't matter... They could pay the note with another note which, as Poe has pointed out, have to be treated as cash... No lesser person than Lord Denning said so if you recall

[Jeffrey]

Surely the fact that Peter got his customers to sign the PN via fraud, means it's invalid on that basis alone.

[littleFred]

If fraud is proven, I guess that would get the suckers off the hook.

But a mere assertion of fraud, unproven in court, wouldn't. (Tom Crawford tried that argument: B&B had committed fraud so he didn't owe any money.)

[longdog]

Surely the fact that Peter got his customers to sign the PN via fraud, means it's invalid on that basis alone.

I agree totally.

From a purely civil point of view Poe obtained the PNs on the basis that his 'bank' was a debt elimination scheme that would work. It doesn't work therefore the implied contract is invalid from the start and the PNs cannot be redeemed.

From a criminal point of view if and when he is held to account and found guilty of fraud he would not be permitted to profit by it.

Either way the PNs are utterly unenforceable in my opinion (as a barrack room lawyer).

[Losleones]

It's never going to happen but what if on maturity of the PN Peter knocked on door for collection,an astute sucker had mown his lawn, cleaned the car, put out the garbage etc to the full tune of the sum on the note?

[littleFred]

For avoidance of doubt: in my opinion, Peter is committing fraud and would be found guilty if prosecuted for this.

However, he hasn't been prosecuted yet. If he took a sucker to court for the £150k, the onus would be on the sucker to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that the PN was actually conditional on receiving a service (therefore wasn't actually a Promissory Note), or that Peter had obtained it by deception, or whatever. I'm not convinced that this defence would work, unless Peter is actually convicted of fraud.

[Hyrion]

Surely the fact that Peter got his customers to sign the PN via fraud, means it's invalid on that basis alone.

I'd love to see one of his victims try to argue - in a real Court:

Your Honor: A contract covering an illegal act is in itself an illegal - and therefore void - contract. Since it's an act of fraud to attempt to pay a debt via a cheque drawn against a non-real bank, WeRe Bank, and the PN was predicated on having those cheques, the PN must surely thereby be invalid.

And then of course, the obvious response from the Judge:

Did you just admit that you sent those cheques knowing it's criminal fraud?

Yes Your Honor - and that makes the PN invalid

Given the lack of consideration the OPCA crowd have regarding the future consequences of their actions - it absolutely would not surprise me such an exchange has a real chance of occurring.

[Hyrion]

Suppose Peter isn't convicted of fraud, and at maturity sues a maker (or a deceased maker's estate) for £150k, would a court order that the sum be paid? I suspect it might.

It wouldn't matter... They could pay the note with another note which, as Poe has pointed out, have to be treated as cash... No lesser person than Lord Denning said so if you recall

That assumes they - specifically PoE - would honor the rules they attempt to bind others (including each other) with. The OPCA crowd have proven time and again they do not hold themselves to the same rules they try to bind others with.

Consider - as direct evidence - the fact that PoE will not accept as payment for the 10 GBP monthly service fees on the accounts a WeRe cheque. There's no way he'll accept another PN to pay for an existing one. He won't accept Res as payment either, payments to him must be in cold hard GBP cash.

[Dr. Caligari]

To be a valid promissory note doesn't require a consideration. (A contract requires consideration, but a PN doesn't require a contract.)

I don't know about U.K. law, but in the U.S., lack of consideration is indeed a defense to a suit on a promissory note (with a huge caveat to be discussed below). UCC 3-303(b). But consideration doesn't have to be "equal," so arguably giving the maker of the note check books would be adequate consideration.

The maker of the note would also have a defense of fraudulent inducement (they were told the checks would work, and they don't. (But same caveat discussed below.)

However, I guess that someone purchasing a PN from Peter wouldn't succeed in a legal action against the maker to get the £150k.

A bona fide purchaser for value of a promissory note takes the note free of virtually all defenses that would have existed between the maker and the original payee, with only a few exceptions. UCC 3-305(b). But one defense that can be raised against a BFP is illegality of the underlying transaction. UCC 3-305(a)(1)(B).

Here, however, the dodgy language of the note (especially the part saying that sale of the note relieves the maker of liability) would probably preclude anyone from being a bona fide purchaser. See UCC 3-302(a). For the same reason, it would make the note unsaleable as a practical matter.

[Pox]

It is to hoped that the suckers have kept screen shots of everything - the web site, the forum, his Facebook page.

Given their seemingly adoration of their 'idol' POE, they may not have, as they seem to think that he can do no harm and only has their interests at heart.

More fool them.

Will I have any sympathy when it all goes pear shaped - not a chance.

[littleFred]

I don't know about U.K. law, but in the U.S., ...

I should stress that I'm referring only to law in England and Wales. Even Scotland is different, let alone far-off places across the pond. Which raises interesting points about international law and jurisdiction and stuff that is well beyond my armchair laywering.

[vampireLOREN]

For avoidance of doubt: in my opinion, Peter is committing fraud and would be found guilty if prosecuted for this.

However, he hasn't been prosecuted yet. If he took a sucker to court for the £150k, the onus would be on the sucker to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that the PN was actually conditional on receiving a service (therefore wasn't actually a Promissory Note), or that Peter had obtained it by deception, or whatever. I'm not convinced that this defence would work, unless Peter is actually convicted of fraud.

What really interests me is the monthly subscription, there are those who spring to mind I am sure only ever paid the initial £35. If anyone here is in the WeRe group could they post and ask if members are sending their plain brown envelopes to the print/Knocking shop complex.

[Dr. Caligari]

I should stress that I'm referring only to law in England and Wales.

Understood, but I suspect that the law of negotiable instruments is very similar throughout the English-speaking world.

[Bones]

For those that don't know

Darren's success with Firstplus using a were cheque - is not a success and sadly neither Darren whilst he was quick enough to post about his "success" or for that matter the admin of the WeRe Bank forum that deleted his thread have the honesty to post what has now happened. It would appear much like the mod's of GOODF, the Admin of the WeRe Forum find it all to easy to hide the truth from their members.

The idiots should ask themselves, if the truth about Darren and Firstplus is being hid from them, what else are are they not being told about WeRe Bank by the people that run it.

Let's put it this way, Darren will be continuing to repay his monthly payments to Firstplus for a longtime to come

Robswift, is keen to start up his own scam now that at some point in the future will no doubt require a financial donation from the faithful. He posts as if he actually knows what he is talking about. Sadly that is his own view of himself, virtually everyone else can see him for the idiot that he is.