Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

[Zeke_the_Meek]

Go directly to jail.

Since this is the UK forum, wouldn't that be "gaol"?

It would be if we were in the 19th century.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Is it possible that £5800 includes interest, late fees, fines, etc.?

At a guess, no or very little. I don't think interest is chargeable, he hasn't said he's been fined, I don't think there are "late fees" on CT and so on. Hence my conclusion he is a serial CT dodger which has now caught up with him. I also suspect the £350 per month is to get it repaid in a reasonably short space of time because he will no doubt owe this year's CT to someone and need to pay that too. (5800 / 350 = 16 1/2 months). And don't forget friends - being in jail doesn't get you out of paying council tax arrears.

[TheNewSaint]

If they kept it then they ACCEPTED IT did they not? Where's the wriggle room there? If you give £100 note to your mechanic and he doesn't return it to you what does that say?

False equivocation, because you're comparing real cash with a useless piece of paper. And regardless of how long they kept the piece of paper, they did NOT accept it, and neither did the judge.

It's like arguing with an 8-year-old, isn't it? "Here's a cheque. You have to send it to the bank for payment. But you accepted it when I let go, so that means it's already paid." You can practically hear Nelson Muntz's laugh.

And yet, these idiots will never figure out that they've simply been scammed by Peter of England. Look at the Facebook post above his:

Is it time to make the WeRe Bank Debit card available????

[AndyPandy]

Looking on his Fb page, 1st September Garyk had said he's at the Magistrates and needed help, gave the guy his usual bad tempered, useless advise response:

Peter Of England Garyk Martin ----I can't possibly cover all requests.If they have been rejected have you submitted the Notarial Protest? Have you invoked Article 3-603 of the UCC? If not then why not? So now I become the "bogey man" for trying to hand you the remedy do I? Hmmm

[Gregg]

Article 3-603 of the UCC?

FFS, I want to see this, I really would like to see the reaction of a British Court to someone invoking the UCC that wouldn't make sense in the country that the UCC is actually valid law in.

Of all the people bragging about invoking the UCC its apparent to me that none of them are telling the truth, surely if people were trying this we'd have more evidence of epic fails to laugh at.

[TheNewSaint]

In addition to the UCC claim, I wonder if Garyk actually filed the Notarial Protest:

FIRST SCHEDULE

NOTICE of PROTEST

Form of protest which is being used when the services of a notary cannot be obtained.

Know all men that I, peter of england [householder/tenant/freeman], of 44 Laburnum Drive, Newcastle, ST8 2JT, in the county of Staffordshire, England, at the request of WeRe Bank and Self, there being no notary public available, did on the day of 14th October 2015, at BARCLAYS BANK/NATIONAL WESTMINSTER etc, registered place of business, demand acceptance of the bill of exchange hereunder written, from [eg: BARCLAYS BANK/NATIONAL WESTMINSTER etc,] to which demand he/it made answer [state answer, if any] wherefore now I, peter of england, now, in the presence of…

(witness signatures)­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

…do within the prescribed period, being within 3 days of being informed by PAYEE, do protest the said bill of exchange as per PART V SUPPLEMENTARY Sections 90 – 94 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 as well as the UN Convention 1988 on International Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.

Nice. A written demand that the council accept his phony check, full of sovcit gibberish and other irrelevant text. No wonder the court wasn't willing to cut him any slack.

By the way, the URL for that document http://www.werebank.co.uk/notarial-protest/ is no longer active on the WeRe Bank website. I had to find it in an archive search. Interesting that Peter instructed Garyk to use a document he no longer makes available on his the WeRe Bank website.

[rumpelstilzchen]

PoE wrote:

If you give £100 note to your mechanic and he doesn't return it to you what does that say?

It says that my mechanic has received £100.
If I give a WeRe cheque to my mechanic and he does not return it, it says that I am soon to receive a broken nose.
Always glad to be of assistance, Peter.

[grixit]

Ooh ooh, i know this one! It's just a variant of the folktale about the cookshop odor lawsuit. The cook demands recompense for the defendant enjoying the smell of the food. The judge says the cook is entitled to enjoy the sound of the defendant's coins jingling.

So: you give a were check to your mechanic, your mechanic gives you a picture of you car.

[Bones]

If they kept it then they ACCEPTED IT did they not? Where's the wriggle room there? If you give £100 note to your mechanic and he doesn't return it to you what does that say?

False equivocation, because you're comparing real cash with a useless piece of paper. And regardless of how long they kept the piece of paper, they did NOT accept it, and neither did the judge.

Irrelevant anyway; he won't get another chance to argue the veracity of the cheque. It's pay time.

£100 note ?

It says that the mechanic is as stupid as the average werebank customer for accepting a worthless payment

[littleFred]

When councils apply for liability orders, they also apply for costs, typically around £80. There might have been one liability order per year. There may have been a liability order for the 2016-7 tax year, so this year's tax could be included in the £5800.

If they have tried to enforce liability orders, there may also have been costs associated with that.

And don't forget friends - being in jail doesn't get you out of paying council tax arrears.

It wouldn't even get him out of this year's tax. According to my local council, if a property is empty because the taxpayer is in jail, the property is exempt unless the jail was for not paying council tax.

[Gregg]

If they kept it then they ACCEPTED IT did they not? Where's the wriggle room there? If you give £100 note to your mechanic and he doesn't return it to you what does that say?

False equivocation, because you're comparing real cash with a useless piece of paper. And regardless of how long they kept the piece of paper, they did NOT accept it, and neither did the judge.

Irrelevant anyway; he won't get another chance to argue the veracity of the cheque. It's pay time.

£100 note ?

It says that the mechanic is as stupid as the average werebank customer for accepting a worthless payment

In the US, if you give a bad check to a merchant, they only have to return it to you upon you paying the bill it was for, and usually a return check charge of anywhere from $30-$50. Even then they don't have to return it if they turn it instead over to authorities for prosecution.

[Dr. Caligari]

Go directly to jail.

Since this is the UK forum, wouldn't that be "gaol"?

It would be if we were in the 19th century.

Good to know our British cousins are finally catching up with Noah Webster.

[Zeke_the_Meek]

So Woehrle's court hearing was yesterday, and not a peep out of Pete...

[Zeke_the_Meek]

AND WE HAVE ANOTHER SUCCESS!!!1!!1

http://www.regio-tv.de/video/434390.html

My German is sketchy at best but the upshot is the court rejected Woerhle's 10,000 Euro WeRe cheque, as well as the appeal along with a warning to give Alan Smith's scam a wide berth.

There's also the possibility that Woerhle was charged with fraud, not just the non-payment of a bill, but again my German ain't so hot. I'm guessing sentencing will come later.

Good luck spinning this one, Peter me ol' son!

[JimUk1]

AND WE HAVE ANOTHER SUCCESS!!!1!!1

http://www.regio-tv.de/video/434390.html

My German is sketchy at best but the upshot is the court rejected Woerhle's 10,000 Euro WeRe cheque, as well as the appeal along with a warning to give Alan Smith's scam a wide berth.

There's also the possibility that Woerhle was charged with fraud, not just the non-payment of a bill, but again my German ain't so hot. I'm guessing sentencing will come later.

Good luck spinning this one, Peter me ol' son!

I'll ask my sister to take a look, she's fluent in German, and report back soon.

Look forward to the comments from Pete.

[Fearnchase]

I was looking the Great bankers facebook page the other day as you know his visitors page is empty. I think it was a fault with facebook but i could see the comments on that part but they were clearly shaded, with the message "unapproved" under each comment, i didnt get a chance to screen shot, but lots of people asking for him to get in touch. Unfortunately it is working again normally

[TheNewSaint]

Look forward to the comments from Pete.

I'm sure they will be along the lines of what he said to Garyk earlier in the thread:

If they have been rejected have you submitted the Notarial Protest? Have you invoked Article 3-603 of the UCC? If not then why not?

When WeRe checks are rejected, it's always the check writer's fault for not doing it correctly, even though Peter's instructions have varied over time.

And thanks for trying to get us a translation! That will be most interesting.

[TheNewSaint]

Found a local Ravensburg newspaper story about the case:

http://www.schwaebische.de/region_artik ... d,535.html

Google translate says:

The Ravensburger District Court on Monday rejected an appeal by a Ravensburger businessman. Thus Judge Axel Müller confirmed the judgment of Ravensburger District Court , which sentenced the man for attempted fraud in two cases to 50 daily payments of 30 euros. Judge Muller imposed the same penalty.

The man, born in 1959, had tried to settle tax liabilities with city and tax office totaling nearly 10,000 Euro with so-called "promissory notes". "Promissory Notes" are a kind of promissory note or bond. Issued this had a company based in England, which represents itself as the Internet banking and "Were Bank" lists, but does not have an official license for banking operations. For 25 pounds filing fee and £ 10 monthly membership fee, this company promises a guarantee amounting to 150,000 pounds, to demand without interest or collateral for it, and gives the customer a deposit period of ten years. Behind the "Were Bank" plugged obviously only one man: Alan Peter Michael Smith aka "Peter of England", investigating the two German prosecutors. Several financial supervisors warn of the "Were Bank" and their "Promissory Notes". In his ruling Judge Müller invited those present to try, but to pay the "Promissory Notes" times at the bakery and he asked the question open in the room, whether because the defender also accept a "Promissory Note" as a fee. The convict stated in financial matters to be understood as consumer protection and to act as financial advisor for 28 years.

Judge Muller was convinced that the man would have the warning about "WERE Bank" of his research must perceive and argued that it was he - as financial advisors - should have recognized that "Promissory Notes" of "Were Bank" not as cash are and that just have an indication of the surprise good conditions must be that the "were Bank" something was wrong.

See also the film post, in the prosecutor Christian Pfuhl strongly advises against the "Promissory Notes", under http://www.schwaebische.de/promissorynotes

[JimUk1]

You were spot on Zeke- outcome was just dismissed as a form of payment.


How is Peter going to spin this one?

Surely courts in another country can't be as corrupt of the ones the England, Peter?

[exiledscouser]

How completely & totally unexpected!

Of course Smith will just post some nonsense about the Talmudic masons being in league with Lucifer et al.

However his ever faithful though shrinking minions, if they think at all, won't be too impressed at their hero getting his arse handed to him - yet again - by the judiciary.

It seems, as they are fond of saying in Germany, that his papers WeRe not in order, after all.

Neither is he on his FB crowing about his total victory, there's a bit of radio silence over there and a feeling of general neglect on the Weary Bank site itself. Still, wait long enough and his last posting about some Easter Rising nonsense will be topical again.

It's all just running out of steam.

No Point of sale machines to rent, no useless cards through which to have pretend transactions, even if you could find some merchant to share your delusions.

Cheques all failed. No insurance products. No bank notes. Clients mad enough to see things through like Smith tells them To, the useful idiots, chancers or just plain thick are ending up jailed or fined.

After all this time there's nothing of any substance really to show at all, just the perverted energy of one very strange man. Unless you include the thick wad of promissory notes in Smith's sky-rocket which are now, in many cases just 7 years away from Petey being able to call in. Now THAT might be a heap of fun, particularly if he goes after Jimmy One Cell.

Are we finally witnessing the death of this enterprise? Thoughts?