Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

[Fearnchase]

Backer is actually Linda baker works for city addresses and nothing to do with the con bank.

She just signs for all incoming mail

[Pox]

Backer is actually Linda baker works for city addresses and nothing to do with the con bank.

She just signs for all incoming mail

Oh dear, so she may be found liable for the missing money. Either she pocketed it herself or she is another one of POE's victims.

Gut instinct is the latter but can Linda prove otherwise? It could be her word against a (insert any description you like ....).

[TheNewSaint]

Linda Baker needn't worry. I doubt the local constabulary will need much time to solve the mystery of "I sent cash to 83 Ducie Street and it disappeared."

[notorial dissent]

If the writing in the msg is any example of Owen’s mental state, I would say the only school she ever graduated from is the one for the confused and bewildered. That msg is largely un unparsable and incomprehensible. The only thing I’m sure of is that she’s not dealing with even a partial deck, and she and presumably her family got taken for £111, that she’ll never ever see again. I would also say from the jibbar jabber I was able to parse out of all that nonsense. The rest sounds suspiciously like sovcit footle dribblings. Any time I hear ANYONE say “Cestui Que Vie” I know they are dealing in purest bovine effluent and don’t have clue one as to what they are going on about and all the rest can be totally ignored.

I quite agree with TheNewSaint, she needs help, and really should be under care, is I think the term, we call it Conservatorship here.

[Gregg]

I think Woerhle is too dumpf to have figured it out. He still thinks he is going to argue the authorities into accepting the paper, and all they are going to do is confirm the lower court decision. The German courts don't care anything at all about WeRNotaBank except that it's useless paper was used to attempt to defraud their Treasury.

A very interesting possibility is the court asking PofE "Are you here on behalf of We'reNotABank?" "If so, are you ready to redeem the draft made out on an account purportedly held at your institution?"

Doing so would, under force of prosecution, make PofE either part with real live fiat currency or admit its all just a scam.

[notorial dissent]

Would make entertaining drama, but I doubt it will ever play out, but we can dream.

[littleFred]

"If so, are you ready to redeem the draft made out on an account purportedly held at your institution?"

Peter has developed the politician's art of not giving straight answers to simple questions. Instead, he would drone for hours on the nature of money and banking. If the court insisted he answer the question, he would insist that they define what they meant by money, and so on.

[TheNewSaint]

A very interesting possibility is the court asking PofE "Are you here on behalf of We'reNotABank?" "If so, are you ready to redeem the draft made out on an account purportedly held at your institution?"

Doing so would, under force of prosecution, make PofE either part with real live fiat currency or admit its all just a scam.

I agree. This would be an admirably direct way of dealing with the WeRe Bank issue. Give Peter until the next court date to transfer the funds as the cheque orders, or move forward on the assumption that the cheque is worthless.

[notorial dissent]

Which would be well and wonderful, but well outside this court's jurisdiction if I correctly understand its an appellate hearing and the ONLY thing they will be hearing is about him not having paid his taxes, they really don't care about how he was trying to do so, only that he didn't in an acceptable fashion.

[TheNewSaint]

If Woehrle's argument is that the WeRe check fulfilled his tax obligations, I would think the appeals court would have to investigate that to some extent.

[littleFred]

If Woehrle's argument is that the WeRe check fulfilled his tax obligations, I would think the appeals court would have to investigate that to some extent.

I don't know German law. In the UK, that argument wouldn't survive long because a cheque doesn't pay anything, and wouldn't itself fulfil any tax obligations. Even if it was an ordinary cheque drawn on an ordinary bank, it could bounce for any number of reasons, and the tax wouldn't get paid.

The prosecution might stipulate that Woehrle tried to pay or thought he was paying, but that wasn't relevant. The only relevant question would be whether he did actually pay.

[notorial dissent]

I don't think it matters what jurisdiction you're in, if you pay by a check the acct isn't considered paid until the check actually clears and the payee gets the funds in their account. If you pay with an unclearable check then the acct isn't paid, or considered paid except maybe by the party attempting to may by bad check.

[Zeke_the_Meek]

If Woehrle's argument is that the WeRe check fulfilled his tax obligations, I would think the appeals court would have to investigate that to some extent.

I don't know German law. In the UK, that argument wouldn't survive long because a cheque doesn't pay anything, and wouldn't itself fulfil any tax obligations. Even if it was an ordinary cheque drawn on an ordinary bank, it could bounce for any number of reasons, and the tax wouldn't get paid.

The prosecution might stipulate that Woehrle tried to pay or thought he was paying, but that wasn't relevant. The only relevant question would be whether he did actually pay.

Makes sense, but if the answer to the question "did you pay your tax?" is "Yes, I did," then wouldn't that by proxy lead into a discussion of how the method of payment was made and why it didn't work?

Though if that did happen - and I'm not sure if it works like that - the conversation would be over in two seconds flat when it becomes obvious it was a rubber cheque designed to confuse and defraud. I can't imagine the judge will care about the workings of WeRe Bank and the freeman theories of money beyond "you sent a dodgy cheque, it didn't fool anyone, you have NOT paid your tax bill. That is the charge brought against you."

Best case scenario: Andreas has an epiphany, realises he's in the wrong (or even just up shit creek), and throws Peter under the bus. He's standing right there in court with a smug grin on his face - perfect opportunity to say "I believe I've been scammed, and that man there did it. Arrest him."

[littleFred]

Makes sense, but if the answer to the question "did you pay your tax?" is "Yes, I did," then wouldn't that by proxy lead into a discussion of how the method of payment was made and why it didn't work?

Indeed, many discussions are possible. Hypothetically:

1. Alice has told her bank to pay money to Bob's bank.
2. Bob's bank says it hasn't received the money.
3. Alice's bank says it did send the money.
4. Bob sues Alice for the money.
5. Alice and Bob both call their banks as witnesses.
Who wins the court case?

In my opinion, this won't happen because Peter won't say that he paid the tax bill. But my predictions are usually wrong. It could get interesting.

[#six]

I think this could lead to an interesting scenario

Judge: so mr England. Are these cheques valid
PoE: yes your honour
J: and are the prom notes valid
PoE: again, yes your honour
J: so you have available funds to pay on cheques drawn
PoE: yes
J: in that case I shall make an order that you pay off this cheque
PoE: but I am not on trial here
J: if you do not pay then I shall assume you have perjured this court. Officer, arrest this man
PoE: oh bugger

[AndyPandy]

I wonder if he's paying him (presumably in Euro's) to attend?

I honestly can't think of any other reason for him to be there, he's not attended any other Court case despite desperate pleadings for him to do so!

[Hercule Parrot]

I honestly can't think of any other reason for him to be there, he's not attended any other Court case despite desperate pleadings for him to do so!

Self- interest of course. Smith thinks he can rake in a fresh batch of paying members from Germany if he puts on good show in this heating. £€$ is the reason for everything he does.

[Zeke_the_Meek]

I honestly can't think of any other reason for him to be there, he's not attended any other Court case despite desperate pleadings for him to do so!

Self- interest of course. Smith thinks he can rake in a fresh batch of paying members from Germany if he puts on good show in this heating. £€$ is the reason for everything he does.

Undoubtedly. But I think Andy's asking why this particular court case? He's had plenty of other opportunities to do this - I know he keeps hedging his bets with the German crowd, so maybe he's just giving that another crack (despite having randomly abandoned them and returning to England just as he was building up steam with those seminars.)

Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that this is just an appeal hearing. Does that afford him some kind of extra protection?

[Zeke_the_Meek]

As an aside, you'd think PoE going to great lengths to attend this trial would be a bit egregious to the many people who can't even get a simple response from him on Facebook. But nope, most of the remaining suckers are all "Look at our hero go! What a man of the people!"

But not all of them...

Roger Bezuidenhout: Would be nice if peter responded to people to build trust in a system that is entirely reliant on

Peter Of England: It would also be good if you kept your divisive,sniping comments to yourself unless you can claim you TOO have failed to contact him. It has been said that: "God's delays are not God's denials!"

Yes, you read that right. Peter of England just equated himself to God.

Roger Bezuidenhout: Thank you for responding. I have asked you questions many times and not got a response.

June Clarke Roger: ....there are many on here that can help....why do you direct your questions only at Peter....he received hunreds of emails etc....impossible task.

Good ol' June, Peter's main (only?) cheerleader. HOW DARE YOU EXPECT A RESPONSE FROM THE GREAT LEADER! I wonder how many cheques she's managed to successfully cash.

Roger Bezuidenhout: Im not having a go, im saying i want clarity and understanding but never get an answer. Anyone can respond if they can give qualified answers

Roger Bezuidenhout If the work is too much pay someone to keep us all up to date. The Financial slavery is a desperate situation. People are stressed

[/quote]

Naturally, no response to any of this since the comment thread was left last Thursday (five days ago.)

[notorial dissent]

With regard to Woehrle, he seems to be of a particularly thick and impermeable nature, I really doubt if he is every going to catch on, since he has a whole great lot of other stupid in the pot as well and doesn't seem predisposed to catching on. I think he and hte authorities are goign to get to know each other VERY WELL.

Makes sense, but if the answer to the question "did you pay your tax?" is "Yes, I did," then wouldn't that by proxy lead into a discussion of how the method of payment was made and why it didn't work?

Indeed, many discussions are possible. Hypothetically:

1. Alice has told her bank to pay money to Bob's bank.
2. Bob's bank says it hasn't received the money.
3. Alice's bank says it did send the money.
4. Bob sues Alice for the money.
5. Alice and Bob both call their banks as witnesses.
Who wins the court case?

In my opinion, this won't happen because Peter won't say that he paid the tax bill. But my predictions are usually wrong. It could get interesting.

What would happen, assuming Alice did in fact give the payment instruction, in this case is that Alice would go to her bank and say that "Bob's bank says they never got payment" and Alice's bank, providing it was a real bank, would go oh yes he did and here is the routing and confirmation transaction showing it was processed and paid, and they'd provide a photocopy of the processed check/transfer showing its perambulations through the system and that the money is lost somewhere in Bob's bank's accounting system. In the real world it would never get past 3. Now if Alice paid her taxes with a WeReNotaCheck and tried this she'd be SOl since the check NEVER went through the system, and in fact couldn't go through the system, and there is no record of it and all they would have is PoE's bare word that he'd paid it, and Alice would lose.

As to the WeReNotaChecks coming up in court, all the person or entity would have to tell the court is that they could not be cleared because WeReNotaBank isn't a real licensed bank, which is easily verifiable. One of the tenants of any check in modern commerce, is that IT HAS TO BE CLEARABLE THROUGH THE BANK CLEARING SYSTEM. PoE's paper simply isn't.