Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

[TheNewSaint]

They fly their flag and posture against the Jesus Injunction: “Be kind to and forgive and offer help to all who come to you asking!” which makes them anti Christs does it not?

Peter, if there's one Biblical standard you should not be inviting judgment on, it's "offer help to all who come to you asking."

[Zeke_the_Meek]

While I would like for this to be the end of Peter's adventures with his Were bank, one thing we must be wary of is the ability of these guru's to spin every certain failure into proof that the nonsense works. Peter is already going down that road and putting the blame on a corrupt system that doesn't let honest men like him win. It is a time trodden road that these guru's will keep repeating.

In the latest post, there's even an overtone of "Woerhle didn't present the PN note correctly/didn't say the right things in court/you people aren't doing it right", as had been predicted. A time-old guru trope that has a lot of parallels with 'faith-based' practices: you just ain't believing enough or following the nebulous, ever-changing criteria properly.

I still firmly believe that Peter is done here. I see a smattering of people rallying behind him in the comments, but I suspect they're just anti-establishment fruitloops who aren't invested in his scam and haven't given him a single dime - those that have would be asking "WTF has this got to do with me and my cheque book? Where's my debit card? Why aren't you responding to XYX?"

Those people have long since given up, or been blocked, or both.

[notorial dissent]

Must have been an awfully big courtroom if they got all the people PoE claims were there there.

So WeReNot a Bank is now "the Word of God, Good and Truth" I think I missed something, and it wasn't in the translation. So WeReNot a Checks are now "the Ultimate Commercially Recognised Financial Instrument on this Planet – the Promissory Note (futures contract)", I think the legal and financial communities need to be immediately apprised of this startling new development.

What a load of utter hooey.

The Staatsanwalt is FWIW Christian Pfuhl.

[rumpelstilzchen]

The notes for example you give to the check-out girl in Morrisons or Tesco to pay for your goods are promises to pay, are they not?

BUT how many of you ever return to HONOUR THAT PROMISE, THE NEXT DAY OR THE DAYS AFTER?

This demonstrates perfectly that Peter has not got an effin' clue what he is talking about.

Peter, you thick doughnut, I would suggest that you take one of the banknotes one of your victims has sent you and read what is actually printed on it.
Have you done that?
Good boy.
Now, who is making the promise? Who is it? Is it the Tesco customer or is it the Chief Cashier?
It isn't a difficult question, you will find the answer written on the banknote.
Once you have found the answer you will understand why you have made yourself look a complete and utter idiot by suggesting the Tesco customer should fulfil the promise made by somebody else.

Let us look at it another way. Let us imagine that you could actually find a mug who will purchase one of the promissory notes that a victim of yours has sent you. It is a promise to pay. You have handed that promise to pay to a third party in exchange for goods or for cash. Whose promise is it? Is it yours? Do you return the next day to honour that promise or would you say it is the responsibility of the maker of the promissory note to honour that promise?
Once you have answered that question you will see why you are a laughing stock.

[rumpelstilzchen]

More smoke and mirrors from Peter.

It didn't matter if Woehrle promised to give Peter anything in ten years' time. It wouldn't even matter if Woehrle had actually given Peter £150,000 in cold hard cash.

What mattered to the court was: did Woehrle pay his tax bill? No. Did Peter pay the tax bill? No.

What matters to other suckers is: would Peter ever honour cheques, LLTs, bank cards or anything else? No.

It is just a pathetic diversion attempt by Peter. I have said it before in this thread. The validity of the promissory note is irrelevant. Let us assume the promissory notes are valid and are legally enforceable. It would make no difference. The only thing that matters is: if a WeRe bank customer writes out a cheque for10 GBP does the WeRe bank transfer 10 GBP into the payee's bank account?
The answer is obvious: No.

[longdog]

Unfortunately Peter's (rapidly diminishing) band of followers will continue to believe a promissory note IS payment rather than spotting the obvious answer-in-the-question that it's a promise to pay. As long as they continue to believe that it's rather academic what the legal status of a promissory note is.

[Zeke_the_Meek]

Dear Peter: I'll buy your crappy campervan off you with a promissory note for £80 billion.

If you do not accept this offer, you either don't want £80 billion or you're admitting that your rhetoric is a crock of shit.

[Zeke_the_Meek]

I still don't think Peter was at the Sept. 19th court hearing.

Franz Zittel: thank you Peter o.E. for this report.......I meet you at 29. August in Ravensburg........do you remember?.....

To me that suggests people saw him on the 29th, but no mention of meeting him again on the 19th. Not exactly concrete evidence, but I would have expected a video from him crowing outside the court room if he was there.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Unfortunately Peter's (rapidly diminishing) band of followers will continue to believe a promissory note IS payment rather than spotting the obvious answer-in-the-question that it's a promise to pay. As long as they continue to believe that it's rather academic what the legal status of a promissory note is.

All correct but promissory notes have got nothing to do with the validity of a WeRe cheque. A cheque is not a promissory note, it is a written instruction instructing your bank to pay the payee. Peter is focusing on the promissory notes because he believes that if he can prove the promissory notes are valid it will fool his victims into believing that WeRe cheques are valid. But it would not prove that at all. If the promissory notes are valid or invalid it would have no effect on the validity of the WeRe cheques.

[TheNewSaint]

In addition to all of the above: entities are not obligated to accept promissory notes as payment. In many jurisdictions, they are not obligated to accept cheques either. Even if both were somehow valid, the recipients can legally refuse to accept them.

Though most entities will gladly accept cheques, so long as funds are transferred as the cheque orders, and aren't part of a cockamamie FMOTL scheme of an unlicensed bank operating out of a rub-and-tug parlor.

[notorial dissent]

That, and checks and promissory notes, ARE NOT legal tender and never have been, and the only one who gets to say something is the gov't of the jurisdiction they are written in. PoE's junk paper isn't and NEVER will be legal tender.

[longdog]

That, and checks and promissory notes, ARE NOT legal tender and never have been, and the only one who gets to say something is the gov't of the jurisdiction they are written in. PoE's junk paper isn't and NEVER will be legal tender.

Are you seriously suggesting Poe's LLT's are NOT legal and lawful tender?

[Zeke_the_Meek]

Jay Brad Bradley: So Peter this brings me onto why can I only pay debts with my £150,000 promissory note as my bank doesn't regulate what I spend my promissory notes on could u EXPLAIN this please why I cannnot in real terms spend my £150,000 thanks Peter May read this above from the court

Peter Of England: It's debt due to the nature of the equitable lien you have attached to you by The King. A DEBT is an existing problem and it behoves you to act in HONOUR to try to mitigate it. That can be done on the PUBLIC SIDE VIA £ but it cannot be seen to be done on the private by allowing you to use it to buy a pair of Nike trainers. Private side v PUBLIC. A private contract always overrides and STATUTORY ENACTMENT and even the US Constitution...as long as it not a contract to break the law ie cause harm, damage or perhaps a Tort

Ah, of course. That clears it up.

Is Peter just using an auto-text generator loaded with Freeman terms at this point?

[Burnaby49]

Jay Brad Bradley: So Peter this brings me onto why can I only pay debts with my £150,000 promissory note as my bank doesn't regulate what I spend my promissory notes on could u EXPLAIN this please why I cannnot in real terms spend my £150,000 thanks Peter May read this above from the court

Peter Of England: It's debt due to the nature of the equitable lien you have attached to you by The King. A DEBT is an existing problem and it behoves you to act in HONOUR to try to mitigate it. That can be done on the PUBLIC SIDE VIA £ but it cannot be seen to be done on the private by allowing you to use it to buy a pair of Nike trainers. Private side v PUBLIC. A private contract always overrides and STATUTORY ENACTMENT and even the US Constitution...as long as it not a contract to break the law ie cause harm, damage or perhaps a Tort

Ah, of course. That clears it up.

Is Peter just using an auto-text generator loaded with Freeman terms at this point?

A recent Canadian Federal Court of Appeal decision explained this sort of thing in literary terms;

[3] The legal propositions which Mr. Dove puts forward are incoherent and devoid of any legal meaning. They are the legal equivalent of Noam Chomsky’s famous phrase: “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” Each word in the sentence can be given a discrete meaning but the sentence constructed from those words is devoid of intelligible content. So it is with Mr. Dove’s claim. Mr. Dove has assembled words, phrases, and concepts which have some meaning in the context in which they are originally found but have none whatsoever in the use which he has made of them.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9418&start=40#p234553

[NYGman]

You mean like This



in case you don't want the just the punchline, here is the full version

[notorial dissent]

WOW, just WOW, 106 words of near total gibberish and at least 7 outright lies. Quite an effort at obfuscation and BS for our dear PoE.

I think Judge Pelletier may be vying for standing next to ACJ Rooke.

[hucknallred]

You mean like This

in case you don't want the just the punchline, here is the full version

For the benefit of UK readers, here it is without the copyright block.

https://youtu.be/JQNYUJIW4sw?t=2m37s

[Zeke_the_Meek]

More bloviating from Peters FB page this week, and as usual, nothing of substance. As noted above, it is quite the skill to write so many words of twaddle without a single ounce of sense to them.

The soup of the month is that everyone is a Satanist. He's really doubling down on that line of 'thinking'. Otherwise, he's suspicious of the currency market being in flux in the aftermath of Brexit (because he doesn't understand that socio-political uncertainty effects markets.)

The Devil is Slick.

Now if I was a gambling man I'd like to place a bet on someone, maybe in a few months time, or weeks for that matter, bringing a CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT against the likes of Soros, Rothschilds and the Vatican Bank, to show that along with LIFFE and the FX Exchanges, they have deliberately colluded in manipulating the currency markets, as they have been doing for many years now, to the financial detriment of everyone!

Would that someone be you, Peter? How's the class action law suit going with the UK press? Was that one in all capitals too?

And no, it's not to the financial detriment of everyone. While some traders are taking a hit over the £ crash, others are profiting from it. And we're not just talking about the big, city-types - I'm self-employed and a third of my modest income is paid to me in USD. I've got more money in my pocket as long as this continues.

EDIT: Don't use this as a springboard to argue about Brexit. I was just pointing out the flaws in Peter's latest word salad.

[AndyPandy]

Peter Alan Smith is a washed up has been, no one's taking any notice of his rubbish or cares what he thinks.

Now the Weary Bank has stuttered to a halt and faded without a whimper, no doubt he'll be back in his camper van soon parking up in various supermarket car parks across the realm, maybe making a living flogging burgers out of the back window, but make sure you pay in sterling as I don't think he takes any other CurREncy !

[rumpelstilzchen]

PoE wrote:

Now if I was a gambling man I'd like to place a bet on someone, maybe in a few months time, or weeks for that matter, bringing a CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT against the likes of Soros, Rothschilds and the Vatican Bank, to show that along with LIFFE and the FX Exchanges, they have deliberately colluded in manipulating the currency markets, as they have been doing for many years now, to the financial detriment of everyone!

Peter, I am willing to offer you odds that even you could not resist.
Wanna place that bet Petey?