Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

[Zeke_the_Meek]

Of course, there is a hopeless core of members that wouldn't believe WeRe to be a scam even if Peter himself would tell them. They can't, or they would face much larger issues with the rest of their ideas.

There's a pretty good example of that over on PoE's FB message board. The video in question explains Petey's dishonesty with the recent key fob scam very concisely and with pretty hard to ignore evidence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNfBbmZf6R4

Cathy Birchall: Hi Peter, I've just had a message on from a man called Zak Riley, friend of Danny Bamping sending me a link, that I haven't watched, about what a scam your card scheme is..... mmmmmmmmmm....... methinks he should be sending links about what a monumental scam the existing accepted bank card scheme is....

POE: Bamping and his Mini Me are trouble makers. Either as dumb as the day is long or paid to cause trouble. They intimidate, bully, use abuse and threats to frighten people. They have both been reported to the police and they tried the same tactics with The British Constitution Groups money reform initiatives. So we know who's paying them - they argue in favour of the banking system and they have nothing to say or propose except petty name calling.

POE: These people need to get a life - have they nothing better to do than hassle people - the answer is "No, they don't" and we know why.They tried the same tactics with Roger Hayes and his good cause.

Cathy Birchall: Lol.... very true. I received more private messages later from Fanny Dampthing making mild threats. Good job I have thick skin and a sense of self.

Peter Of England: Fanny Dampthing is possibly the most xxxx***8tttt and ^^6XXXxx {please fill in the suitable phrases} creature to draw breath. He's "marked" and will be suitably invited to a function soon. We need to get this lot out into the open, photographed and in full view, as things now are beginning to get really "fuelled" and many people who want WeRe Bank in clear water are getting a "tad annoyed" with their antics.

With much cognitive dissonance, no amount of common sense or evidence in the world will help Cathy.

I'd have stopped believing in Peter as soon as it was obvious that nobody on the planet had successfully cleared a WeRe cheque. Or when he made a tit of himself on Radio 4. Or when he concocted a class action lawsuit against the press, only to never speak of it again. Or when he openly slated his British followers for being cowards, then came back to ask for their support after the Germans got sick of him. Or when he promised a new series of meet-ups in England months ago, then never followed through. Or said that the police were going to totally arrest Dave Parrott, but diddly squat happened. Or when he promised car insurance, but never delivered. Or when it became apparent that people were sending him money only to receive nothing but abuse from him for months on end. Or when the gold-infused notes failed to materialize. Or when it became clear that the was too inept to maintain a simple website. Or when the support channels got closed down. Or at any one of the the umpteen times he's thrown a hissy fit on Facebook, or posted insane stuff about aliens, or predicted financial meltdowns and subsequent uprisings that didn't happen, or lied about being friends with the leader of Iceland, or promised that everyone would be begging for Re very soon...

... or that time he said we'd be blown to the four corners of the earth.

Essentially, the only thing more worthless than a promise from Peter of England is a threat from Peter of England, and the only thing more worthless than those is the Re.

[longdog]

Peter Of England: Fanny Dampthing is possibly the most xxxx***8tttt and ^^6XXXxx {please fill in the suitable phrases} creature to draw breath. He's "marked" and will be suitably invited to a function soon. We need to get this lot out into the open, photographed and in full view, as things now are beginning to get really "fuelled" and many people who want WeRe Bank in clear water are getting a "tad annoyed" with their antics.

Leaving aside the pathetic threats to "get this lot out into the open, photographed and in full view", which wouldn't scare anybody even it it weren't so blindingly obvious that Poe is way too inept to 'out' anybody, surely the fact that after over a year the WeRe 'bank' isn't in 'clear water' is damning enough on its own. Where outside of scam-land can somebody get away with charging for a service it doesn't (and can't) deliver for that length of time?

That said I don't really see why he wants the 'bank' to be in clear water. Once the ship has sunk it doesn't really matter what the water's like.

[JamesVincent]

If people wanted to use Re, they would. They use Bitcoins, Ithaca Hours, Canadian Tire dollars, and other non-government issued currencies. There isn't some all-seeing cabal forcing people to use, or not use, any means of exchange. But Peter's targets don't understand this. It's easy for him to sell them the picture of evil bankers cackling and printing bills, and present himself as the solution to that non-existent problem.

I was a member of Barter Systems for a few years when my woodworking shop was open. You get a credit card looking card with your business name on it and you can use it anywhere it's accepted. I would do work for other members, get my labor paid in barter and my shop cost in cash and then go out to eat at some very nice restaurants that were members. I once took the kids on a 2 hour limo ride around Baltimore to see all the Christmas light set-ups all around town. Cost me 400 barter dollars and a $75 tip for the driver, well worth it. The weekend we spent in a chalet at Deep Creek Lake was paid by barter and me doing some work for the guy who owned it. So, yeah, there's definitely non-governmental ways of paying for things, as long as you're willing to work for it.

[JamesVincent]

She lost everything, partly through stubbornness and an unwillingness to accept the reality of her situation. But a large part of the blame must lie with Peter.

The only issue I have with this statement is a twisted one. I think fault should lie equally between, if not more on the scammed. Yes, people are out there peddling the juice but that someone has to buy into it for it to take affect. So while I believe that, yes, the scammer should pay a heavy price I don't believe the scammed shouldn't take responsibility also. And a good deal of it, especially with a scam that basically screams, " WE PAY YOUR BILLS FOR FREE!!!1!!11!!"

[SteveUK]

We should stop biting the hand that feeds us. PoE contributed a large chunk of the quatloos comedy, and I doubt the 'victims' are anything but.

Let us take a moment of contemplation to appreciate his contribution.

[TheNewSaint]

So while I believe that, yes, the scammer should pay a heavy price I don't believe the scammed shouldn't take responsibility also. And a good deal of it, especially with a scam that basically screams, " WE PAY YOUR BILLS FOR FREE!!!1!!11!!"

Especially when the victim is the one who commits the crime. The victim, not Peter, writes the bad checks. Peter is merely providing a bad check printing service. He won't face any repercussions until some regulatory body gets interested, and that could take years.

It's a brilliant scam, really. The victim commits the crime, and when they get caught, Peter has plenty of ready-made parties to blame: the government, the banking system, the cheated party who's prosecuting them, the victim themselves for not following instructions, or the ever-present "shills."

[notorial dissent]

I feel that there are two distinct groups involved in PoE's scam, the ones who are looking to see if they can pull something off and will try his scam once to see if it works, and the clueless vulnerable ones who don't have a clue and no discrimination as to things like this. Some of them are just by nature dim and bewildered and have no idea what the frack is going on normally, the kind that if someone they want to listen to tells them something they will believe it unreservedly. And the greedy/stupid quotient is spread between the two groups.

[SteveUK]

Every little helps....

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... eID=109311

t Mr C complains that Tesco Personal Finance plc won’t accept his “cheque” for the payment of his credit card bill. background Mr C had a credit card account with Tesco Personal Finance. To settle an outstanding bill of around £860 he sent Tesco a “cheque” drawn on WeRe Bank. Tesco refused to accept it or to credit Mr C’s card account. It later issued a notice of default on the account and indicated it would be closed. Mr C says it should have accepted the “cheque” as payment. One of our adjudicators considered the case. She agreed with Tesco that it didn’t have to have accept payment in the form Mr C had offered it. Mr C didn’t agree and asked that an ombudsman look at the matter. my findings I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. It’s clear from his arguments that Mr C has done a lot of research into the law and history of banking and of cheques. I’ve no reason to doubt that he sincerely believes that Tesco should treat his “cheque” as a valid payment. But, for reasons I’ll explain, I think he’s wrong about that. The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 says that a bill of exchange is “an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer.” Mr C says his “cheque” is just that. And it certainly looks like Mr C’s instruction to WeRe Bank to pay Tesco Personal Finance a specified sum. The same act of Parliament says a cheque is a bill of exchange “…drawn on a banker and payable on demand”. Mr C’s “cheque” does appear to be payable on demand, rather than at some point in the future. But is it drawn on a banker? Put another way, is WeRe a bank? Mr C says it is, since it engages in banking business. For example, it takes deposits, although these appear to be in the form of fees in exchange for membership and “cheques” of the type he’s tried to use here. But WeRe Bank isn’t a bank in the way most people – and, importantly, other financial businesses – would understand the term. It has no banking licence, either in the United Kingdom or anywhere else. It’s not covered by the regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, or by this service. The sort code printed on its cheque isn’t one that’s recognised by the cheque clearing system. Its activities appear to be limited to taking fees from people like Mr C and sending them printed documents that look like cheques – with an assurance that they can be used to make payments. Mr C says that Tesco Personal Finance was obliged to accept his “cheque” as payment and to seek payment itself from WeRe Bank. And he’s cited legal authority saying that a cheque is as good as cash. The courts have said a creditor should accept a cheque unless there’s Ref: DRN6693433 2 good reason not to. Had Mr C used a cheque drawn on a properly licensed bank with which he had an account, I might be inclined to agree with him that Tesco should have accepted it. But he didn’t. It’s possible that, had Tesco contacted the “clearing hotline” (on the face of it, a mobile phone number) printed on the “cheque”, WeRe Bank would have paid the amount on the cheque with money it had received from Mr C. But, in the circumstances, Tesco was entitled to think that wouldn’t happen. Certainly, it wasn’t going to receive payment through the normal cheque clearing channels. In the circumstances, I don’t need to decide if WeRe Bank is actually a bank or if what Mr C tried to pay with was really a cheque. Tesco was within its rights to treat the “cheque” as little more than a worthless piece of paper and to ask Mr C to make payment through more conventional means. my final decision My final decision is that Tesco Personal Finance plc doesn’t have to do anything to resolve this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 23 March 2016. Michael Ingram

[TheNewSaint]

I like how this ruling rejected WeRe Bank for different reasons than the earlier one did. It deconstructed the Bills of Exchange Act logic:

The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 says that a bill of exchange is “an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer.”(emphasis mine)

But WeRe Bank doesn't do that, do they? They don't pay anything to anyone, ever. They don't fulfill the second half of the sentence they use to justify their existence. Peter really doesn't even argue that Re constitutes "a sum certain in money", or that the payee will be paid "at a determinable future time." He just says "the check cleared" and that's the end of it, apparently.

This is all just a spectacularly obtuse version of the "magic words" fallacy. These people really believe they can settle their debts by writing a document to transfer the funds, without any funds actually being transferred. This is furthered by Peter's byzantine and ever-changing instructions on how to write the checks and what they can be written for. As if writing a check were somehow complicated.

And this line really nails it:

WeRe Bank's activities appear to be limited to taking fees from people like Mr C and sending them printed documents that look like cheques – with an assurance that they can be used to make payments.

[Zeke_the_Meek]

This is furthered by Peter's byzantine and ever-changing instructions on how to write the checks

The golden Allonge Era seems like a distant memory, doesn't it?

I love his approach to customer service, too. Or customer contempt, really:

Ralph De Iesu Nazareno: Hi Peter, I tried several times to get feedback on my emails to you asking for the receiving of the LLT's that I ordered end of December 2015. No feedback on my questions yet

Peter Of England: So let me get this right - you say we are 6 months behind schedule with sending a book of LLT's to you? We have a 98% fulfillment rate. Please send a tracking number to us and as I have no idea what email you would have used I cannot verify what emails we might or might not have form you. Ok? Searching under any of your names reveals nada.

Ralph De Iesu Nazareno: sent you an email with picture of PN and shipping number Thx

[FOUR DAYS LATER]

Ralph De Iesu Nazareno: Peter, I sent another email regarding the PN to you on 25th. Can you confirm that you received it?

[CRICKETS]

[SteveUK]

It's all falling apart. The selective reading of Denning has got them.

If only they realised he was talking about for them (not the vendor) they might've thought twice.

[TheNewSaint]

Peter Of England: So let me get this right - you say we are 6 months behind schedule with sending a book of LLT's to you? We have a 98% fulfillment rate.

And... this person could be part of that 2 percent.

Which is a stratospheric failure rate for an institution that claims to be a friggin' BANK. At the simple task of shipping a box of paper to somebody who orders one. To somebody who agreed to pay $150,000 for the privilege.

Jesus, Peter is incompetent.

[Chaos]

Jesus, Peter is incompetent a thief.

fixed

[afateworsethandeath]

Agreed and yet, frustratingly, still free

[TheNewSaint]

Jesus, Peter is incompetent a thief.

He's both, and his incompetence is actually limiting his success at being a thief. I'm sure his abusive interactions with customers like Ralph here, and other factors like his IT problems, have scared off some would-be victims. Hooray for that, I suppose.

[Chaos]

Jesus, Peter is incompetent a thief.

He's both, and his incompetence is actually limiting his success at being a thief. I'm sure his abusive interactions with customers like Ralph here, and other factors like his IT problems, have scared off some would-be victims. Hooray for that, I suppose.

I believe it is all calculated to weed out to the lowest IQ/common sense for lack of a better descriptor.

[notorial dissent]

While I haven't read the entire BOE Act, as I don't currently need an insomnia cure, BUT, all the similar material I've ever read does not make BOE's, or checks for that matter, manadatorily acceptable. They are acceptable by agreement and/or contract but cannot be forced acceptance. The other part of this is that the payout order HAS TO BE directed towards someone who actually has the authority and the money to pay the instrument. They seem to keep forgetting that little bit. You can't just arbitrarily order someone to pay your BOE, or check, you HAVE TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP with the party that is agreeable to that act. Otherwise, the BOE/check comes back on the maker, not on the person supposed to pay it.

[arayder]

Jesus, Peter is incompetent a thief.

He's both, and his incompetence is actually limiting his success at being a thief. I'm sure his abusive interactions with customers like Ralph here, and other factors like his IT problems, have scared off some would-be victims. Hooray for that, I suppose.

I believe it is all calculated to weed out to the lowest IQ/common sense for lack of a better descriptor.

Whether it's Eldon Warman trying to carry off tax fraud, Dean Clifford ripping off clients, Tom Crawford cheating on his mortgage, Ed Belenger trying to get his something-for-nothing government check, Robert Menard ripping off restauranteurs or Peter of England trying to print his own money. . . it's all the same thing. . . freemen layabouts think everybody else is supposed to work, put food on the table while they eat for free.

They are thieving, dishonorable children whose reduced circumstances are nobody's fault but their own.

------------
Coward Clock: It has been 16 days since Robert Menard was challenged to explain his embrace of Orlando false flag theories. So far Bobby has declined.

[mufc1959]

WeRe Cards will be ready on 10 July, according to PoE. Let's hope Vistaprint come through on time!



Hayles Owen is the perfect PoE mark - sent hundreds of pounds to Ducie St which was signed for but went missing, then once he received the cheques, found out they didn't work, yet persuaded family members to try them. Now he's giving PoE more dosh for a bit of card with a picture of a chip on it. Previous here.

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10846&p=227017#p227017

[TheNewSaint]

I love how Peter doesn't even give him a real email address.