Peter of England: He’s still F RE?

[Philistine]

Someone woke up with a sore head this morning.

I was up at 6:30, bright and alert, to attend a tax evasion trial. I've been to so many court hearings in the last few weeks it's like I'm still gainfully employed.

Well pay your taxes and you would not have to get up so early Burnaby

Snort
Thanks Bones, I quite enjoyed that.

[grixit]

As far as I can tell, the webinar voted for Dijon to retain the database. Difficult to tell as they don't know how to run a webinar very well.

Colonel Mustard, at the webinar, with the rigged vote.

[mufc1959]

I found this little gem in my gmail this morning. Funny, the emails from Djon go straight to my Inbox, but this one from PoE went to spam. The email is the same as the .pdf, so I'll just attach the link to that.

https://mega.nz/#!LZlTCKaB!_Ql9Ytzkq8PZ ... 7jBAEZvd_c

The moral of the story is don't upset a narcissistic megalomaniac, or he'll go off on one at you whilst not actually being able to, er, do, anything about it.

According to PoE's 'close the door' rant on YT the other day, Djon is being investigated by US Federal agencies and the US Department of Justice. PoE can't tell the same story twice, he's such a liar.

ETA: Oh, and if you're interested, his email address is: peterofenglandwerebank@gmail.com

[Bones]

I found this little gem in my gmail this morning. Funny, the emails from Djon go straight to my Inbox, but this one from PoE went to spam. The email is the same as the .pdf, so I'll just attach the link to that.

https://mega.nz/#!LZlTCKaB!_Ql9Ytzkq8PZ ... 7jBAEZvd_c

The moral of the story is don't upset a narcissistic megalomaniac, or he'll go off on one at you whilst not actually being able to, er, do, anything about it.

According to PoE's 'close the door' rant on YT the other day, Djon is being investigated by US Federal agencies and the US Department of Justice. PoE can't tell the same story twice, he's such a liar.

ETA: Oh, and if you're interested, his email address is: peterofenglandwerebank@gmail.com

Looks like he is going to go with the bat shit crazy defence

[NYGman]

On no... Peter dishes out a ReAl fine rune combination for the kill, right at the end. I am sure that will have an immediate impact to the ReAl villain here. ReAlly going to work well, as no one can stop the power of the rune.

[Jeffrey]

I think I missed something, what is this new LLT thing?

[notorial dissent]

I think I missed something, what is this new LLT thing?

Not sure what the initials actually stand for, but PoE's new tack that his WeReNotAChecks are now legal tender and have to be accepted. Works at least as well as they did beforehand.

[mufc1959]

Yes, the cheques have been replaced by "Lawful and Legal Tender" notes. Here you can see the old cheque and the new note. The wording on the new note "This note is legal and lawful tender for all debts public and private" is adapted from US Federal Reserve notes.



US dollar bill, where you can see the wording.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... series.jpg

[#six]

I found this little gem in my gmail this morning. Funny, the emails from Djon go straight to my Inbox, but this one from PoE went to spam. The email is the same as the .pdf, so I'll just attach the link to that.

https://mega.nz/#!LZlTCKaB!_Ql9Ytzkq8PZ ... 7jBAEZvd_c

The moral of the story is don't upset a narcissistic megalomaniac, or he'll go off on one at you whilst not actually being able to, er, do, anything about it.

According to PoE's 'close the door' rant on YT the other day, Djon is being investigated by US Federal agencies and the US Department of Justice. PoE can't tell the same story twice, he's such a liar.

ETA: Oh, and if you're interested, his email address is: peterofenglandwerebank@gmail.com

Peter of England: A fine purveyor or word soup.

Seriously, I didn't understand a single bit of that. To paraphrase Morecambe and Wise... all the right words - but not necessarily in the right order.

[Forsyth]

Yes, the cheques have been replaced by "Lawful and Legal Tender" notes. Here you can see the old cheque and the new note. The wording on the new note "This note is legal and lawful tender for all debts public and private" is adapted from US Federal Reserve notes.

The difference between the notes is quite significant. The old notes would appear to be intended to represent cheques, that is, they were an instruction from the customer to Were Bank ordering them to pay the entity named on the 'cheque' the sum of money specified.

The new notes are promissory notes. While the Were Bank name is emblazoned on the top the agreement is nothing more than a promise from the individual signing the note that they will pay the entity addressed. The fact that it is on Were Bank headed paper cut to the same size as a cheque and lists a sort code and other information commonly found on a cheque would seem to be mere detail - they are no longer cheques.

The 'Legal and Lawful Tender' part is interesting, though, as that is still a claim made by Peter and, presumably, supported by the person signing the note. The note is, obviously, not legal or lawful tender in any jurisdiction I can think of, but is it an offence to claim that it is?

Fraud Act 2005, Section 2

1. A person is in breach of this section if he—
   1. dishonestly makes a false representation, and
   2. intends, by making the representation—
      1. to make a gain for himself or another, or
      2. to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
2. A representation is false if—
   1. it is untrue or misleading, and
   2. the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

[...]

Fraud Act 2005, Section 7
Making or supplying articles for use in frauds

1. A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article—
   1. knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or
   2. intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud.

A complication may be that, if the person signing the note believes - potentially without any doubt - that the statements made on the note are true, then they might not have committed fraud. If not, has Peter? While Peter may have made a false representation to his customers, has he also made this to the third parties who have received the notes through the independent actions of the customers? Does the expectation that the customers will issue these notes matter here - that is, has Peter made this representation to the third party as well as the customer? Does Peter himself, honestly and without doubt, believe that promissory notes are legal and lawful tender? Is this statement sufficient to make the note fraudulent?

Another possibility that has occurred to me, and is possibly the view taken by the Were Bank customers, is that the the new promissory notes could be notes issued on Were Bank's behalf under the authority of the member - much as a company might delegate such authority to individuals in their finance team. Given the relative prominence of the Were Bank name, address, contact details etc. compared to the name of the customer this might be a reasonable expectation, and might be a troublesome one for Peter. If a cheque is returned unpaid then the bank is not out of pocket, if a promissory note, signed by an apparently authorised person and confirmed and authorised by fax, is unpaid then Were Bank could be held liable directly if it is issued in their name and not that of the member.

I must say, I feel it inevitable that an old cheque or a new promissory note is tested in a European court before too long and I really hope that Peter himself gives evidence as to how he believes these things work minus the aliens, fairies and wishful thinking.

On a separate matter, I don't think simply claiming an item is legal tender is enough to be caught under the counterfeiting law, at least in the UK. That seems to be phrased as 'a counterfeit of a currency note or of a protected coin'. My interpretation of that is that the counterfeit is something that doesn't simply claim to have the same property as a currency note, but is intended to be mistaken for a specific original item. I don't think we can claim that for the new Were Bank notes.

Finally, I note that the telephone number is now given in an attempt at international format, presumably in recognition of the expansion to other countries. The attempt is (in keeping with the rest of the cheque note) actually gibberish. The international access code is not necessarily 00, and the use of brackets varies from country to country and this sort of ambiguity must be avoided in the international format. The correct presentation would be +44 7455 372365. While this sort of nonsense attempt might be expected of someone whose only use of international calls is to call back to the UK while abroad themselves, I would not expect this of someone familiar with international business as it is likely to result in many failed attempts to contact him. I do wonder if this is by design.

[mufc1959]

Oh, this gets better and better.

June Clarke The Parrott is now blackmailing Peter. he wants £35 per member then he will release the information on that member...the man is not only a thief, he trying to hold Peter to ransom and blackmail...even his own wife and mother have said he'll do anything for money....and he is not to be trusted....

[Chaos]

Oh, this gets better and better.

June Clarke The Parrott is now blackmailing Peter. he wants £35 per member then he will release the information on that member...the man is not only a thief, he trying to hold Peter to ransom and blackmail...even his own wife and mother have said he'll do anything for money....and he is not to be trusted....

and this person knows this how?

[PeanutGallery]

Didn't Peter want £35 a member first?

[notorial dissent]

Consistency at least, of a sort, they're equally as worthless as the original WeReNotAChecks, just for very different reasons. I don't know about UK, but around these parts the courts really wouldn't much care, they attempt to pass them as checks, fraudulent instruments, they'll be treated as such, still a felony in a lot of jurisdictions, particularly depending on the dollar amount, and you'd have to convince the judge and DA you were really really really brain dead stupid to not get hammered for it, and most of them just won't buy it on general principal, the contention being that you should have known. I don't see this ending any better for the WeResuckers, particularly the ones in the German speaking countries.

[Zeke_the_Meek]

Oh, this gets better and better.

June Clarke The Parrott is now blackmailing Peter. he wants £35 per member then he will release the information on that member...the man is not only a thief, he trying to hold Peter to ransom and blackmail...even his own wife and mother have said he'll do anything for money....and he is not to be trusted....

and this person knows this how?

Apparently, June knows this because: "We have men with boots on the ground......they watch everything from afar....they are there to protect the good guys....."

Give it a rest, June. You're not a militia leader, you're just a dickhead with a Facebook account.

[AndyPandy]

It just gets better

June Clarke
June Clarke All we have to do is to send him an email and tell him that he does not have our permission to retain our information and to release back to it's rightful custodian..Otherwise it's breach of Data Protection.....

Right, We'Re bank is a registered data holder then is it June, maybe you should be asking Petey boy what his Data Protection Registration number is !.

[NYGman]

That is the Common Law Data Protection Act, as those pesky statutes don't apply to WeRe, it just gets to use them against others.

[AndyPandy]

That is the Common Law Data Protection Act, as those pesky statutes don't apply to WeRe, it just gets to use them against others.

Well if it's common law data protection he's breached and not statutory data protection then I can't see what she's belly aching about !!

[mufc1959]

June Clarke's happy to post a picture of Djon on PoE's Facebook page, so it's only fair I should post one of her over here.






ETA: Source - http://unity.lv/lv/news/1506224-Absurd- ... --25-pics/

[letissier14]

I've heard a little rumour that the ICO are interested in speaking to PoE as you can get quite heavily fined these days retaining people's data without a licence