SteveUK wrote:Ah, but you've failed to misquote Denning and also failed to ignore the other 99% of his judgement. They're as good as cash remember- that's where you're going wrong!
Their was someone complaining earlier on BTBATB that Barclaycard had cancelled their card for no apparent reason. They seemingly were unable to comprehend that you have to pay them some of the money you have borrowed back. She/he was advised to sue for compensation as the card had been cancelled early. They really are 99% stupid.
The post has since been removed.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
SteveUK wrote:Ah, but you've failed to misquote Denning and also failed to ignore the other 99% of his judgement. They're as good as cash remember- that's where you're going wrong!
Don't forget the fact that Federal Reserve Notes or Bank of England pound notes are, in reality, promissory notes. So, one promissory note is as good as another, right?
If Barclays will accept those evil Bank of England pound (promissory) notes, then they have to accept MY promissory note, right?
This is all very well except for the minor flaw that bank notes are NOT promissory notes. Nor are promissory notes legal tender, even if PoE says they are. Only the government can define what is legal tender.
SteveUK wrote:Ah, but you've failed to misquote Denning and also failed to ignore the other 99% of his judgement. They're as good as cash remember- that's where you're going wrong!
Don't forget the fact that Federal Reserve Notes or Bank of England pound notes are, in reality, promissory notes. So, one promissory note is as good as another, right?
If Barclays will accept those evil Bank of England pound (promissory) notes, then they have to accept MY promissory note, right?
This is all very well except for the minor flaw that bank notes are NOT promissory notes. Nor are promissory notes legal tender, even if PoE says they are. Only the government can define what is legal tender.
noblepa, I'm sorry this post does not make any sense. The material after the first quote needs to either be placed in quotes, or further explained, to explain where it came from, otherwise your message makes no sense, please correct.ND-MOD
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
SteveUK wrote:Ah, but you've failed to misquote Denning and also failed to ignore the other 99% of his judgement. They're as good as cash remember- that's where you're going wrong!
Don't forget the fact that Federal Reserve Notes or Bank of England pound notes are, in reality, promissory notes. So, one promissory note is as good as another, right?
If Barclays will accept those evil Bank of England pound (promissory) notes, then they have to accept MY promissory note, right?
This is all very well except for the minor flaw that bank notes are NOT promissory notes. Nor are promissory notes legal tender, even if PoE says they are. Only the government can define what is legal tender.
noblepa, I'm sorry this post does not make any sense. The material after the first quote needs to either be placed in quotes, or further explained, to explain where it came from, otherwise your message makes no sense, please correct.ND-MOD
Isn't he or she just satirising common freeman rhetoric? The sarcasm emoticons put it into context.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Peter of England wrote:LEGAL TENDER IS LAWFUL MONEY WHEN PRESENTED IN A COURT OF LAW IN ORDER TO SETTLE A DEBT IS IT NOT?
LEGAL TENDER BOTH AS DEFINED ON THE US DOLLAR FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES AND THE BANK OF ENGLAND’S NOTES ARE PROMISES TO PAY ALL DEBTS ARE THEY NOT?
AND IN THE CASE OF THE US$ NOTES STATED AS “GOOD TO PAY ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE” ARE THEY NOT?
LEGAL TENDER IS THE OFFERING OF “PROMSSORY NOTES” IS IT NOT?
LEGAL TENDER IS THEREFORE A “PROMISE TO PAY” IS IT NOT?
Which was discussed at length in one of the previous WeRe Bank threads.
Yes, it makes no sense, and, yes, it looks like a parody of freeman arguments. But this ridiculous string of logic is the foundation upon which WeRe Bank is built.
The POINT being, that it would be nice to know where the comment came from. When something is just flung out in the middle of a comment with no quote marker or anything, it is assumed it is the poster making the stupid statement. That is why the quote function is there in the first place, so that readers can tell the difference between something someone else said and something the poster said.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
notorial dissent wrote:Perhaps, but I'd like to know for sure.
That's exactly what I meant. I really don't know how I could be any more clear.
The notion that bank notes are promissory notes is extremely common in sovcit and freeman mythology. I was merely adding to the sarcastic remarks of SteveUK, whom I quoted. I don't see how my post made any less sense than his, which did not even include the sarcasm icons. Even without them, I don't think anyone failed to recognize his comments as sarcasm.
If I confused anyone, I apologize. If I violated any forum rules, I apologize.
notorial dissent wrote:The POINT being, that it would be nice to know where the comment came from. When something is just flung out in the middle of a comment with no quote marker or anything, it is assumed it is the poster making the stupid statement. That is why the quote function is there in the first place, so that readers can tell the difference between something someone else said and something the poster said.
I quoted SteveUK's sarcastic remarks and replied with my own sarcastic remarks. I even included the sarcasm icons, to make sure that it was clear that I was speaking in the fictitious voice of the typical freeman.
The funny thing is, the "Cardholder Agreement" that you sign when you apply for or receive a credit card is a promissory note. The twits don't know they already have one ...oh feck, you get it....
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Gregg wrote:The funny thing is, the "Cardholder Agreement" that you sign when you apply for or receive a credit card is a promissory note.
Well, no, it isn't, not in the UK. It's an agreement, which we can also call a contract, or perhaps a conditional promise to the effect that "If I use this credit card I promise to pay the sum back to the card company."
But "promissory note" has a specific meaning within the Bills of Exchange Act.
(If it matters, I entirely understood noblepa's comment to be sarcasm. Perhaps Gregg is also being sarcastic in claiming the "Cardholder Agreements" is a promissory note.)
Another win for WeRe Bank! Someone on PoE's FB page reports LPA Receivers appointed over his property. But ... but ... but his mortgage is VOID!! And he must be right, because he's quoting that historic FOTL court victory - Bank of Scotland plc vs Waugh & Ors.
Andrew Cope Yes Peter Villany is at my doors, Nram have appointed recievers in breach of the power of attourney act 1972 and also the fact that on the day we signed the mortgage deed, the deed was not dated this means that the mortgage deed is void at law for failing to comply with section 52(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925; and/or for breaching section 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. You are also advised of the fact that any conveyance solicitor who illegally amended the deed by adding the date, is in breach of section 1(3) of the 1989 Act, in accordance with Bank of Scotland plc v Waugh & Others [2014]
"A mortgagor is not estopped from relying on the defects in the mortgage deed, which will be void if it does not comply with the provisions of section 1(3) of the LPMPA 1989; and the Powers of Attorney clause in the Standard Mortgage Conditions is unenforceable without a stand-alone Powers of Attorney deed, which must be signed by the mortgagor and comply with the Powers of Attorney Act 1971."
Andrew Cope ps can you Pm me for a chat on this fight ? Cheers
Did he try to pay his mortgage off with a WeRe check? Because I can't imagine why else this guy thinks Peter of England is going to help him with his foreclosure. (Not that he'd even help with the WeRe check.) Peter seems an odd choice for freedman guru, when so many others practically specialize in this sort of thing.
Peter of England wrote:LEGAL TENDER IS LAWFUL MONEY WHEN PRESENTED IN A COURT OF LAW IN ORDER TO SETTLE A DEBT IS IT NOT?
LEGAL TENDER BOTH AS DEFINED ON THE US DOLLAR FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES AND THE BANK OF ENGLAND’S NOTES ARE PROMISES TO PAY ALL DEBTS ARE THEY NOT?
AND IN THE CASE OF THE US$ NOTES STATED AS “GOOD TO PAY ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE” ARE THEY NOT?
LEGAL TENDER IS THE OFFERING OF “PROMSSORY NOTES” IS IT NOT?
LEGAL TENDER IS THEREFORE A “PROMISE TO PAY” IS IT NOT?
Which was discussed at length in one of the previous WeRe Bank threads.
Yes, it makes no sense, and, yes, it looks like a parody of freeman arguments. But this ridiculous string of logic is the foundation upon which WeRe Bank is built.
I think you could stage a hellenistic play and replace one of the sophists with Peter.
notorial dissent wrote:Perhaps, but I'd like to know for sure.
That's exactly what I meant. I really don't know how I could be any more clear.
The notion that bank notes are promissory notes is extremely common in sovcit and freeman mythology. I was merely adding to the sarcastic remarks of SteveUK, whom I quoted. I don't see how my post made any less sense than his, which did not even include the sarcasm icons. Even without them, I don't think anyone failed to recognize his comments as sarcasm.
If I confused anyone, I apologize. If I violated any forum rules, I apologize.
It is for consideration of the readers, and mostly for clarity as much as anything else. Not everyone reads these pages assiduously and when you post something like, that to someone not familiar with the topic you come across looking like a prize prat.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Gregg wrote:The funny thing is, the "Cardholder Agreement" that you sign when you apply for or receive a credit card is a promissory note.
Well, no, it isn't, not in the UK. It's an agreement, which we can also call a contract, or perhaps a conditional promise to the effect that "If I use this credit card I promise to pay the sum back to the card company."
But "promissory note" has a specific meaning within the Bills of Exchange Act.
(If it matters, I entirely understood noblepa's comment to be sarcasm. Perhaps Gregg is also being sarcastic in claiming the "Cardholder Agreements" is a promissory note.)
II wasn't, but I have never looked at the specifics of UK law and I'm wrong on that apparently.
In the USA, most credit card debt is securitized nowadays and I believe, but IANAL so I could be wrong again, that US Credit Card Agreements meet the specific legal definition of Promissory Notes. I know that car loans do, and am thinking that perhaps the difference between secured and unsecured debts are important in drawing the line.
Nevertheless, my original point is blown because I was wrong in the first place. My apologies and anyone who wishes is free to pimp-slap me on my upcoming UK Tour, coming soon to an island nation near you.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
TheNewSaint wrote:Did he try to pay his mortgage off with a WeRe check? Because I can't imagine why else this guy thinks Peter of England is going to help him with his foreclosure. (Not that he'd even help with the WeRe check.) Peter seems an odd choice for freedman guru, when so many others practically specialize in this sort of thing.
He's posted fairly regularly over the months on PoE's FB page about using WeRe Bank cheques, and asking PoE for help. (PoE has now deleted all visitor posts, so I can't go back and check.)
As LPA Receivers have been put in, I think this is a BTL or commercial property that he's about to lose.
