Peter of England: He’s still F RE?

[notorial dissent]

Since most/ALL of these yoikes are probably broke or near to broke to start, it really isn't going to matter for most if not all of them in the end. Blood from stone and all that. Also since many of them either are or will be in bankruptcy in the near future those PN's will be voided at the end of the bankruptcy since PoE will not have put forward a claim, even if he were to I would expect the trustee to reject it out of hand as having no validity and I'm betting the courts would sustain.

[Seelenblut]

I dont think the promissary notes will ever be an issue because I believe that at his core Smith is a small time crook with a very limited mind, who by chance struck it big with his little sheme. He is already making more money than he thought possible, fullfilling his lower middle class dream with a house, a small business, a wife, a secure income and a circle of "friends" where he is repected and taken serious.

That he is holding questionable financial instruments with a total nominal worth of over a billion £ goes right over his head.

[Hercule Parrot]

I think you are very probably right, Seelenblut. But just for the sake of debate....

In UK a few years back, a greedy law firm got hold of lists of alleged internet pirates and carried out a very effective ransom operation. Settle now for £300, or we'll sue you for £10,000 plus all the legal costs. They were stopped by professional ethics & regulatory action, but only after they had made a lot of money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACS:Law

It seems perfectly possible that in 5 years from now someone might gain possession of Peter Smith's cardboard box, and carry out a similar operation. Filter the list to the ones who have property in their name, and offer them a choice between settling now at a generous discount or defending a claim for £150,000 plus all the legal costs. They would not get legal aid, so the cost of defending a claim would soon be more than the offered settlement price.

Not saying it's right or fair, or that it would be successful, but I could imagine it happening.

[AndyPandy]

The other thing I recall from those Promissory Notes is that they mentioned the Promissors Estate, someone dies and the heirs to any property / asset might just find Mr Smith knocking on the door with his PM, how do they defend against that?

I was astonished when I looked at them that anyone could possibly leave themselves (or any living relatives) open to a claim for £150k.

[notorial dissent]

That part is extraneous, as the notes would become debts of the estate regardless, except I doubt they really are enforceable, and I doubt if any of this lot will have enough to even file probate on in any event.

[TheNewSaint]

I was astonished when I looked at them that anyone could possibly leave themselves (or any living relatives) open to a claim for £150k.

That really is the most shocking part of this scheme: that people would write an IOU for £150,000 to have access to Peter's dubious banking services. And to pay off debts that were far, far less than that in almost all cases. And then Peter had the gall to charge them £35 plus monthly fees besides. They'd have been better off defaulting. Unbelievable.

[longdog]

On that basis, I think a court case (Peter vs Sucker), the court would ask whether Peter had fulfilled his part of the bargain. Under the terms currently on Peter's website, I think the answer would be "yes, he has". Peter promises pretty pieces of paper, and makes no solid claim that anyone will accept them as "money".

The court wouldn't be concerned about whether pretty pieces of paper are worth £150,000. If there is a contract that both parties agreed, that's what counts.

Peter's original website promised much more. It promised that payees were obliged to accept his pretty paper. Peter didn't deliver on those promises. In my view, Denning would say that PN's made under those conditions don't need to be paid.

Poe has collected PNs in exchange for his old cheques which he claimed could be used to settle debts and his current cheques which he claims to be 'legal and lawful tender'. The old cheques weren't accepted by anybody and his new ones aren't legal tender and won't be accepted by anybody either. His whole 'business model' was fraudulent from the get-go and none of his 'contractual' rights against his marks is worth a flea's fart.

In the event that Penis does try to enforce payment on the PNs through the courts a moderately attentive first year law student would be able to drive a coach and horse through his case in under a minute.

[longdog]

It seems perfectly possible that in 5 years from now someone might gain possession of Peter Smith's cardboard box, and carry out a similar operation. Filter the list to the ones who have property in their name, and offer them a choice between settling now at a generous discount or defending a claim for £150,000 plus all the legal costs. They would not get legal aid, so the cost of defending a claim would soon be more than the offered settlement price.

Not saying it's right or fair, or that it would be successful, but I could imagine it happening.

I believe Poe stated that if he were to trade the PNs they were deemed to have been paid and they would therefore be worthless to the person he sold them to.

In any event the sort of people who bought into this crackpot scheme are exactly the sort of people who would refuse an offer to accept a small payment in lieu of a large claim. In the absence of the PNs being sold Mr Knuckles and Mr Kneecap the chances of anybody getting anything are about zero.

Even if Poe did try to sell the PNs even the most dodgy potential buyer is going to want to know where and how he came by this incredibly suspicious box full of virtually identical PNs and I'm struggling to think of any convincing scenario he could invent that wouldn't send the other party running away like a spooked whippet.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Devil's advocate.
Peter says that he is lending against the promise to pay £150000 in the future. Peter has said he intends to collect on those promissory notes. Peter is quite upfront and explains that he is not lending GBP, dollars, euros or whatever. Peter is quite clear in that he is lending Re. Peter's suckers accept that Re has value. Peter is in effect actually lending Re. The fact that no one else will accept Re is not Peter's fault. The agreement is the sucker promises to pay £150000 for Re. The sucker agrees they have received Re.

[longdog]

Devil's advocate.
Peter says that he is lending against the promise to pay £150000 in the future. Peter has said he intends to collect on those promissory notes. Peter is quite upfront and explains that he is not lending GBP, dollars, euros or whatever. Peter is quite clear in that he is lending Re. Peter's suckers accept that Re has value. Peter is in effect actually lending Re. The fact that no one else will accept Re is not Peter's fault. The agreement is the sucker promises to pay £150000 for Re. The sucker agrees they have received Re.

I see what you are saying but it doesn't change the fact that he has falsely marketed his Worthless Bits of Paper as being capable of settling debts. It even says that on the front of the current WBP... "This note is legal and lawful tender for all debts public and private" and the previous notes carried a 'Clearing Hotline' which gave the impression that the cheques were capable of being cleared which, quite clearly, they weren't.

I don't think a court would give an "I only dealt in Re" argument the time of day. They would look at the whole thing and declare it an outright scam.

[afateworsethandeath]

I am still trying to track down customers of Were Bank to see whether any of them will participate in my research study. If any member can help, please let me know.....

[longdog]

I am still trying to track down customers of Were Bank to see whether any of them will participate in my research study. If any member can help, please let me know.....

I really wouldn't bother for quite a few reasons not least of which is the fact that you are talking about a self selecting group of delusional, paranoid, dishonest cranks whose 'data' would be utterly worthless even if you could get them to talk to you... Which they won't.

I sympathise but you really are on a hiding to nothing on this one if you need the input of WeReNotABank members... You're not going to get it. I'd find another topic or find a way of writing your paper which doesn't depend on the cooperation of a load of cranks if I were you.

Good luck anyway

[Seelenblut]

"Peter says this or that" ... for me this brings up the issue that, as far as I know, the WeRe members have not signed any real contract whatsoever (just filled out an online registration and exchanged a few emails)? The only thing with any possible legal consequence is the signed promissory note (if that's the way WeRe members usually conduct business, it's no wonder they are in financial trouble)?

In one of my earlier posts I translated an Austrian newspaper report, in which a FMA (Financial Market Authority) representative is quoted, saying that the promissory notes are valid (I am not sure how closely they examined the actual WeRe notes, though). Sure, the WeRe bank can "forgive" the note, but only "at its absolute discretion". I would assume that other issues might arise, for example that the promissory note also mentions the "Re" as currency, that "WeRe Bank" and "Peter of England" are rather vaguely defined entities or the questions of return value, implied agreements, even money laundering. But can a WeRe victim really be certain that these notes will never come back to haunt them (even if only in a "pay a small amount or we hand the note over to a collecting agency ... I mean common law court" scheme)?

I still believe that cashing in the promissory notes is not on Mr. Smith's radar, but a lot can happen in 10 years ... a situation like that would cost me a few sleepless nights.

On the other hand, why worry, the promissory notes were only signed with blue ink and without fingerprint ...

[longdog]

I really don't think the validity of the PN is the issue as even if Poe did manage to successfully argue in court that they were valid and the person who made it out should pay-up that person would have a cut and dried counterclaim against him for breach of contract in the sum of £150,000.

Yes... The WeReMembers are at best a bunch of gullible morons and at worst a bunch of freeloading bastards but they have paid for a service that Poe has not delivered and cannot deliver... Debt elimination and / or good old fashioned free money.

[Hercule Parrot]

I really don't think the validity of the PN is the issue as even if Poe did manage to successfully argue in court that they were valid and the person who made it out should pay-up that person would have a cut and dried counterclaim against him for breach of contract in the sum of £150,000.

You are assuming that Peter Smith will bring the claims himself or in the name of werebank. If it was to happen, I think it is more likely that the cardboard box of PN's would be sold at a huge discount to some third-party speculator / lawyer / debt agency, who would then try to recoup their investment through threats and settlements. If so, there would be no scope for a counter-claim.

Take Mr O, for example. He absolutely believes that werebank is valid, and that a PN must be honoured. (http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... eID=104875). If someone was to subsequently demand that he honoured his own £150,000 PN, I think he might struggle to defend that. He can stand up in court and bluster that it was a rip-off scheme and the PN isn't valid, but the burden of proof would be upon him. And without an expensive professional advocate, Mr O doesn't stand much chance of proving that.

As I've said, I do not think it is likely that werebank customers will be pursued for repayment of their PN's, but in terms of legal process it is a real possibility - as the Ombudsman says :
"Mr O has signed a contract in the form of a promissory note to pay WeRe Bank £150,000. I don’t know if WeRe Bank will ever call in the promissory note. But I’ve looked at the template on its website and it seems to me to create a legally binding obligation on Mr O to pay the money if WeRe Bank demands it"

[longdog]

[
You are assuming that Peter Smith will bring the claims himself or in the name of werebank. If it was to happen, I think it is more likely that the cardboard box of PN's would be sold at a huge discount to some third-party speculator / lawyer / debt agency, who would then try to recoup their investment through threats and settlements. If so, there would be no scope for a counter-claim.

There would be virtually a virtually indefensible scope on the grounds that the PN was issued in exchange for services X,Y and Z for WeRe bank and WeRe bank had failed to deliver therefore the PN does not have to be honoured. I'm pretty sure a UK court would find that the refusal to honour the PN would be no different to a post-dated cheque issued to pay for future building work (for example) which never happened which was stopped on the grounds that the work was never done. Penis Of England obtained the PNs by claiming his 'bank' could do certain things... It couldn't and so there was no 'consideration'... It was an out and out con.

Penis can't possibly trade the PNs because they carry this statement which makes them worthless...

"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://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ ... =firefox-b

As I read that it means Poe can trade the PNs but only under conditions which make the PN worthless to the purchaser. Effectively the PNs can be called in by Penis... Who can't call them in due to breach of contract or A.N Other who can't call them in because they can't be enforced.

If a promissory note is defined as an unconditional order to pay then they fall at the first hurdle because they contain a condition viz- 'if this PN is sold it's void'.

[LaVidaRoja]

Add to all that the fact that at the time the notes were signed, PoE knew quite well that the signors could not then nor ever in the foreseeable future be able to meet those obligations. I might promise to pay you $5 million on Thursday, but if you know perfectly well that I am a pensioner with no assets, you also know that my promise is worthless. PoE KNEW when those notes were executed that the people he was fleecing had no means to pay them off.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Just think though...... out of twelve thousand promissory notes Peter only needs to collect on half a dozen of them and then he can use the rest to light his big fat cigars.......

[Zeke_the_Meek]

Just think though...... out of twelve thousand promissory notes Peter only needs to collect on half a dozen of them and then he can use the rest to light his big fat cigars.......

Yep, it's a numbers game. It's like debt collection agencies who buy up a shit tonne of debts that other parties have given up on - the chances of strongarming the person into paying is slim, but they bank on it working in 1% of cases because it's worth it.

Also, I do love Peter's promissory note mechanism: "This is worth £150,000 until you try and do anything with it, then it's worth nothing." So it's completely worthless from the off, then.

Reminds me of an old joke:

Magician: "This amulet will bring you untold wealth!"
Adventurer: "Great, I'll buy it!"
Magician: "Okay, that's 1,000 gold pieces."
[hands over the gold]
Adventurer: "So when does the wealth happen?"
Magician: "When you sell it to someone."

[TheNewSaint]

Now that I read the promissory note from Longdog's link above, I see no way it can be enforced, because the language of it is nonsense from beginning to end.

Tender under terms of Bills of Exchange Act 1882

As the with the ombusdman's comments above, I'm sure any court would quickly find that the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 doesn't work the way Peter thinks it does, and would void this document on that basis alone. But there's more:

I, __________________________________________________________ promise to pay WeRe Bank [or Order] the sum of £150,000/Re148,000 for VALUE RECEIVED

This phrasing offers Peter's customers an easy out: simply pay 148,000Re instead of £150,000. Problem solved. However:

WeRe Bank has the authority, at its absolute discretion, to Forgive the Debt upon receipt of consideration of the sum of Re from myself, the undersigned, or my estate

But how can Peter's customers pay off the promissory note in Re, when they only acquire Re in exchange for the promissory note? Or do they just create their own Re out of thin air via universal energy transfer or whatever? Either way, it renders the whole scheme pointless. A promise to pay is exchanged for an imaginary currency, and then exchanged back.

This contradicts how WeRe Bank is supposed to work. As best I understand it: the promissory note creates value in Peter's "bank", which the issuers of the notes can then use to pay debts. If Peter had said "you are exchanging the promissory note for the currency Re", then he could argue that he provided value. He's still selling magic beans, to be sure, but at least he'd have a consistent position. There are other inconsistencies as well, like the Parlees writing a WeRe check that exceeded the amount of their promissory note.

or “Peter of England”

So Peter has the power to pay off the debt to himself. Seems unnecessary when he already has the power to forgive the debt.

whom I appoint as Referee in Case of Need per Section 15 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882

Which says:

The drawer of a bill and any indorser may insert therein the name of a person to whom the holder may resort in case of need, that is to say, in case the bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance or non-payment. Such person is called the referee in case of need. It is in the option of the holder to resort to the referee in case of need or not as he may think fit.

So if Peter doesn't repay himself, doesn't forgive the debt to himself, and doesn't accept the payment from himself, he can now appeal to himself to pay himself instead of himself. I guess if that doesn't work, he can sue himself in his own Common Law court, where he's also the judge. I imagine this all taking place in a padded room.

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.

I interpret this passage differently than others did above. The "holder in due course" is someone who takes ownership of a note, in good faith that it is valid and free of defects. This, along with the "negotiable instrument" language, implies that the note is transferrable. That being the case, I believe the phrase "terminate any and every obligation herein on my side" means "if I sell the note to someone else, then I'm free from fulfilling any of WeRe Bank's obligations to the person named on the note."

But even this interpretation runs into problems, since the note explicitly assigns Peter every possible obligation pertaining to both paying and receiving payment of the note. If transferring the note "terminates all obligations on my side", what would be left to enforce?

I also think "negotiable instrument to be financially traded on" is a fig leaf for how WeRe Bank is supposed to function in general.

This note is therefore inflation proof and interest free

I suppose that's true. The note explicitly designates Re as an acceptable form of payment, and that currency will never see any interest or inflation.

a Sovereign Money Bill at my end.

Is "sovereign money bill" even a real thing? The only real-world mention of this phrase I could find on Google pertained to the Vollgeld Initiative in Switzerland, an attempt to outlaw fractional reserve banking. And in that context, bill means "legislation" rather than "financial instrument".

So, yeah, good luck enforcing any of that.