Peter of England: He’s still F RE?

[Jeffrey]

I mean he's using the internet to promote his scam so wire fraud?

[NG3]

I'm letting this one post through as it is vaguely on topic.

I ignored it because it wasn't close enough.

It's like arguing that jumping out of a plane at 40,000ft, without a parachute, isn't dangerous because you've been falling for 100ft and you're still not dead yet.

It's not really a convincing argument, in fact it's not even an argument, or attempted argument, presents no facts, or precedents, fails to discuss anything pertinent to the case, and it really just works as an attempt to be contrary.

[KickahaOta]

As far as I know the US offence of mail fraud doesn't really have a UK equivalent and would not be an extraditable offence.

That's an interesting question. Is there a UK criminal statute for plain ol' fraud, or is that considered a civil matter?

The US has a fair number of federal crimes that are equivalents to what would normally be state crimes here, but with the addition of an extra element to act as a "jurisdictional hook" -- a way to fit the crime within one of the federal government's constitutional powers. The federal government has the power to create and run the mail system; so in the case of mail fraud, we have the normally-state crime of "fraud", with the added jurisdictional hook of "use of the mails".

When the UK government looks at a US crime to decide whether it's comparable to a UK crime, do they require a match of all the elements (so in this case there would have to be a UK crime comparable to mail fraud itself), or do they disregard the jurisdictional hook (in which case it would presumably be enough to have a UK crime of generic fraud)?

[Dr. Caligari]

When the UK government looks at a US crime to decide whether it's comparable to a UK crime, do they require a match of all the elements (so in this case there would have to be a UK crime comparable to mail fraud itself), or do they disregard the jurisdictional hook (in which case it would presumably be enough to have a UK crime of generic fraud)?

Typically, U.S. extradition treaties provide that the federal "jurisdictional hook" (use of the mails or interstate wires) is disregarded. So if the underlying fraud could be prosecuted in the UK as fraud or larceny by trick or whatever it is currently called, it is extraditable.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Typically, U.S. extradition treaties provide that the federal "jurisdictional hook" (use of the mails or interstate wires) is disregarded. So if the underlying fraud could be prosecuted in the UK as fraud or larceny by trick or whatever it is currently called, it is extraditable.

I think it is all consolidated into "Fraud" or "Theft" these days. I would also think that if he were arrested in the UK or EU then, for the amount of damage he has done in the US, the US wouldn't be bothered with extraditing him. If, however, he turned up in the US, they would happily deal with him there.

[Burnaby49]

Also I must add to no effect!

And you know that because....?

Beeeeecause nothing's happened to him in terms of arrest, charge or conviction has it (rhetorical question, with no question marks for you on that one "Arf" because we both know the answer). Not too hard for me (and other like minded lots) but maybe to hard for you to separate what you want and what you get. You haven't got Peter of England "Arf"... Carry on with your crystal balls and sh1te.

Take me off this stupid "Moderation" sh1te and we can have a "real" time conversation. I'm not so self-important to think I want to bring about the end of this site and I've played my part in not being abusive or aggressive Makes sense? No! Even the idea of oppression of speech is ridiculous. No?

I'm letting this one post through as it is vaguely on topic, unlike the other dozen plus you posted today. Keep it on topic, stop repeating yourself and quit the name calling and poor me stuff and you can keep posting.

I've been disaproving almost all of his posts on the Canadian sites because he is just asking vague open-ended questions like "Can anybody tell me what freedom really is?" He's trolling, fishing for replys to give him an opportunity to start up the gibberish again.

No, we're not taking you off moderation. Liked all Quatloos members you had the opportunity for a ""real" time conversation" and you abused it and kept doing so after being frequently warned to stop the profanity, pointless gibberish, and massive waves of posts clogging things up. There is no reason to believe that if you are taken off moderation you won't start again. Make on-topic posts that are actually relevant to the discussion and they will get through. Post pointless questions or your "the revolution is coming" rants and you are posting for an audience of two, you and me, because nobody else will read them.

[Zeke_the_Meek]

Oh, we're all over here now are we? Yikes, I was sitting around staring at the second board for days before realising it'd been locked!

From the PoE FB:

Just received your new video it cut out and is not in my history list or subscription lists I think your being watched sir

Who knows what that means or what happened, but I would have thought the point of uploading a video to YouTube is to be watched?

[notorial dissent]

In one respect I think PoE is very lucky. I don't think he has to worry about be extradited and tried here for any of his silliness, even though he is guilty of a number of state and federal crimes. He simply isn't worth the bother and expense, unless he manages to really piss off some AG or AUSA, then he could be in for a world of hurt. His followerssuckers could very probably do some serious jail time, not to mention really crapping up whatever credit they happen to have left.

If this is anything like a lot of the scams I've watched, it could be quite some time before the hammer comes down on him.

[Pox]

Sorry if this has been posted before but he says that he is opening an office in Iceland in the New Year ( he doesn't say which year though).

Bankers in Iceland get jail sentences though.

https://www.facebook.com/Peter-Of-Engla ... 179700768/

[Daft Ada]

It occurred to me that a "Re" could be considered a bit like a bitcoin so I did a little reading on the history of bitcoins, how they are created and how they are "mined"

Whilst reading about them I noted the following:

On 19 November 2013, the value of a bitcoin on the Mt. Gox exchange soared to a peak of US$900 after a United States Senate committee hearing was told by the FBI that virtual currencies are a legitimate financial service.

So all Piss Pot needs to do is convince the FBI that a Re is legitimate and all will be hunkydory.

[mufc1959]

Sorry if this has been posted before but he says that he is opening an office in Iceland in the New Year ( he doesn't say which year though).

Bankers in Iceland get jail sentences though.

https://www.facebook.com/Peter-Of-Engla ... 179700768/

He also claims to be a 'good friend' of Vladimir Putin.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 9179700768

And that WeRe Bank has offices on the fifth floor of the HQ of the Central Bank of Ireland.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 9179700768

Nutter. Absolute batshit crazy nutter.

[Zeke_the_Meek]

From the PoE FB:

Just received your new video it cut out and is not in my history list or subscription lists I think your being watched sir

Who knows what that means or what happened, but I would have thought the point of uploading a video to YouTube is to be watched?

Aha, just seen the Youtube alert on my phone - at about 6pm tonight, he uploaded a video called 'Merry Christmas - Legal Tender ReLeased by WeRe bank' but it looked like he pulled it minutes afterwards.

This is going to be fun.

[grixit]

Also I must add to no effect!

And you know that because....?

Most of Piggy's posts are to no effect.

[NigelJK]

Typically, U.S. extradition treaties provide that the federal "jurisdictional hook" (use of the mails or interstate wires) is disregarded. So if the underlying fraud could be prosecuted in the UK as fraud or larceny by trick or whatever it is currently called, it is extraditable.

Thanks for that. Here in the UK the SFO are hopeless. Not a single conviction after the recent Bank offences. If the US started proceedings would the UK authorities take a look and decide they might have a case here? From there point of view it's an easy win.

[Skeleton]

Typically, U.S. extradition treaties provide that the federal "jurisdictional hook" (use of the mails or interstate wires) is disregarded. So if the underlying fraud could be prosecuted in the UK as fraud or larceny by trick or whatever it is currently called, it is extraditable.

Thanks for that. Here in the UK the SFO are hopeless. Not a single conviction after the recent Bank offences. If the US started proceedings would the UK authorities take a look and decide they might have a case here? From there point of view it's an easy win.

Trouble is and it pains me to say it but does Piss Take have a case to answer? Man sets himself up selling worthless bits of paper that he advertises as cheques. People give him real money to buy these cheques and then use them fraudulently to try and pay for things, they are the ones taking the risk not Piss Take. To my mind It is a given what he is doing is wrong on a number of levels but is he doing anything criminally wrong? The FSA in the UK have advised that his bank is not real and they run the risk of adding to their debt, but their are apparently some who do not want to heed that advice and continue to issue cheques. As long as Piss Take declares his earnings to the tax man he appears to be in the clear, unless there is a law that says you cant sell pretend cheque books to dumb asses who are stupid enough to believe the crap he spouts.

[guilty]

... unless there is a law that says you cant sell pretend cheque books to dumb asses who are stupid enough to believe the crap he spouts.

Yes there is such a law. It's called the Fraud Act 2006.
If he was selling Mickey Mouse chequebooks that were very obviously fake and they were sold for childrens' games with 'not a valid cheque' printed across them, then he would probably be in the clear. Unfortunately for PoE and his customers he is selling them as valid legal cheques that can be used to pay off debts. That's fraud.

[guilty]

He goes out of his way to state that these cheques are legal:

[Zeke_the_Meek]

As long as Piss Take declares his earnings to the tax man he appears to be in the clear,..

Would you like to place a bet on Mr. of England ever sitting down of an afternoon and willingly filling out a tax return before sending the requisite portion of his hard-scammed cash off to The Man?

[longdog]

He goes out of his way to state that these cheques are legal:

Is that a new version or an old one? With its 'I promise to pay the bearer on demand' it reads like a a bank-note not a cheque.

A cheque is not a promise to pay it is an order to a third party (the bank) to pay not a promise from the writer to pay. Looks like Poe has a genuine reason not to clear one of those 'cheques'... It doesn't say he has to

The 'This note is legal and lawful tender for all debts' nonsense is of course exactly that... Nonsense. It quite clearly is not legal tender anywhere which would make the sale of them fraudulent as they are not what they purport to be.

In effect those 'cheques' or 'notes' are just a step back to the whole 'you can pay your debts with a promissory note you don't intend to honour' crap that's been doing the footler rounds for many years.

[Skeleton]

As long as Piss Take declares his earnings to the tax man he appears to be in the clear,..

Would you like to place a bet on Mr. of England ever sitting down of an afternoon and willingly filling out a tax return before sending the requisite portion of his hard-scammed cash off to The Man?

LOL Of course not.