NYGman wrote:Has anyone posted this discovery yet to PoEs facebook page? Wonder how he will explain the scam, or how long it takes to delete.
2) VERY quickly.
Given the risk the firm potentially poses to consumers I have forwarded the content [of your email] to the City of London Police so the fraudulent element can be considered.
Anady Abbey to Peter Of England Peter, if i write a promissory note to you and get a checque Book, why can't i Write a promissory note for myselfe? Thanks
Peter Of England Why not just create your own and us eit that way?
Anady Abbey Thanks Peter, if its work this way why I need then the cheque book from you??
Peter Of England You never write it to me - you always write it to yourself. What do you think happens at the bank on the HIgh Street when you take out a loan. They loan currency to you and you agree to pay yourself back the time/currency borrowed. You give it to YOU the bank has nothing to give you. Smoke and mirrors friend - and it is what the shills miss by a country mile. They have not the mental capacity to see the "deception" on the larger scale so simply ignore that and go for the personal.
Jeffrey wrote:Has anyone posted this discovery yet to PoEs facebook page?
I could crank it out to YouTube, it usually trickles down to him.
Waterloo wrote:WeRe Bank
Please exercise caution if you are contacted by, have had or are having dealings with WeRe Bank.
Waterloo Housing Group will not accept cheques issued by WeRe bank in payment of any sums due to us.
This organisation is not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority and numerous financial institutions, councils, utility companies and other businesses will not accept cheques issued by WeRe as legitimate payment.
In addition, if you have any dealings with WeRe Bank you will not have access to the Financial Ombudsmen Service or Financial Services Compensation Scheme should you encounter any problems.
We would recommend you read this article from the FCA prior to undertaking any transaction with WeRe Bank
Please note carefully the last line of the article: "We [The Financial Conduct Authority] believe that you are unlikely to be able to pay any of your debts using a cheque from WeRe Bank. Instead, you may end up with additional charges from your creditors for late payment. You could eventually be subject to other sanctions such as County Court Judgements or repossession proceedings."
Public and open letter of rebuttal to the NZ Banking Ombudswoman's - CORPORATE RANT on its website: I have told them to take down the defamatory remarks for "quoting the UK FCA as issuing a WARNING" about WeRe Bank, which it did NOT and also using the words SCAM and BOGUS in tha same sentence.
I'm surprised that they didn't claim WeRe Bank was responsible for 9/11 too, or did they?
The trolls print a statement about "what the Ombudsman says". How many of you out there believe that the Ombudsmen are anything other than "juiced in" Aldermen and Masonic mouth-pieces protecting the banks at all/any cost? But the troll brigade LOVE them and hang upon their every word - so that makes trolls what? ESTABLISHMENT FIGURES, too, does it not?
Anyone paying heed to one word of the infantile clap-trap coming forth from them is missing a rather big point here - and that point is: -
:They quote only "the official government line" and "argue abusively, violently, threateningly and dualistically that "THEIR MIGHT IS RIGHT" and anyone who disagrees get's trolled. Now is that the sort of evolved society we wish to move towards? I suggest not - theirs is the path of coercion, violence and intimidation and we have several people here in Newcastle under Lyme at our offices who will testify to this. They have all been on the "threat and intimidation" end of these creatures activities and are most displeased.
The Ombudsman - a totally independent and impartial mouth-peice for sure. All of you reading this ask yourself one question: "Why is it that these opponents of WeRe Bank are so full-on dedicated to maintaining the "status quo", supporting the City Institutions and the banking cartel, and debilitating a phenomenon found in 30 + countries with over 12,000 + registrants? The troll brigade says you are ALL wrong and they are going to make it so! Is anyone missing the point here? Does this not smack of tyranny? Is this not what the Puppet Master's preach?
Most of the NZ rebuttal material is adequately covered here.....
Here are the BBC Radio 4 questions i answered on the day. 25 minutes of talking of which they aired under 3' minutes
BBC RADIO 4 QUESTIONS WHICH WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ADDRESSED ON THE RADIO BUT WERE NEVER AIRED OR BROADCAST
"""" The day is """"""" = The questions posed to me in an email from the BBC the day before broadcast
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ QUESTIONS BEGIN ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
""""On Thursday 28th we’ll be discussing WeRe bank on our program. Particularly we’ll be discussing claims that the ‘Re’ cheques that you issue can’t be used by customers to pay debts.""""""
FIRST OF ALL ANYONE ARGUING FOR MORE OF THE SAME WHICH THE HIGH STREET BANKS OVERSEEN BY THE BANK OF ENGLAND AN UK TREASURY SPOON OUT TO THEM HAS NO PLACE IN A HUMANITARIAN SOCIETY OR EVOLVING PLANETARY SOCIETY. THE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT AND FAILING AND FOR THOSE TO PRONOUNCE MORE OF THE SAME BASED ON THE PREVIOUS TRACK RECORD ARE MORTAL ENEMIES OF MANKIND. That being said
WERE BANK UTILISES MONETARY UNIT OF ACCOUNT/CHEQUE BOOK MONEY OR BANK LEDGER MONEY IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE PAYMENTS SYSTEM OF DEBT ERADICATION. IN ADDITION IT HAS CREATED IT'S OWN MONETARY UNIT CALLED THE Re.
JUST LIKE THE HIGH STREET BANKS AND THE PRIVATELY INCORPORATED BANK OF ENGLAND
ONLY AROUNd 1% OF ALL “MONEY” ON THE PLANET IS AVAILABLE IN NOTES OR COIN. IN EFFECT IT IS NOT MONEY AT ALL - it is currency -
BANKS DO NOT LEND MONEY AND IT IS FRAUDULENT FOR THEM TO CLAIM THAT THEY DO
THEY ONLY FACILITATE CURRENCY PROVISION - NUMBERS ON A SCREEN
99% IS BANK LEDGER MONEY OR DIGITS UPON A COMPUTER SCREEN
""""""""We’ll be speaking to the Financial Ombudsman who have had a number of complaints brought to them of ‘Re’ cheques bouncing, they say:"""""
1 FIRST OF ALL THEY ARE NOT RE CHEQUES BUT BANKERS DRAFTS/CASHIERS CHEQUES OR TELLERS CHEQUES.
2THEY CANNOT BOUNCE AS THEY ARE PRE-CLEARED AND GUARANTEED.
CLEARED MEANS THAT THE FUNDS ARE APPORTIONED AND PLACED ON COLLECTION AWAITING CALL FORWARD BY THE PAYEES BANK – THE HIGH STREET BANKING CARTEL .
THEIR REFUSAL IS TO CALL THE CURRENCY FORWARD IS IN STRICT VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 101 ON THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION as well as UNIFORM RULES OF COLLECTION 522
THEY ARE ISSUED IN THE CURRENCY OF THE COUNTRY IN WHICH THEY ARE TENDERED AND NOT IN Re.
""""""""WeRe Bank cheques are not valid and is invented currency
INCORRECT – WERE BANK DEALS ON THE PUBLIC SIDE IN fractional reserve currencies AND ON THE private side in a currency called the Re. The two are anti-sympathetic to each other.""""
""""""""WeRE Bank hasn’t got the money to pay off the cheques, the sort code on the cheques is made up.""""
1.TWO POINTS HERE – NO BANK HAS MONEY THESE DAYS. THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE SHILL FSA MISTAKE CURRENCY FOR MONEY. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE AND THE BANK OF ENGLAND KNOWS IT. MONEY IS A STORE OF WEALTH OVER TIME AND FUNGIBLE
CURRENCY IS WORTHLESS FIAT PAPER RUN OFF A PRINTING PRESS – IT HAS NO BACKING AND IS BASED ON USURY
MAYBE THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE ENTIRE CITY OF LONDON KNOWS THIS TOO!
WERE BANK HAS BETTER “MONEY” IN ITS VAULTS THAN THE HIGH STREET BANKS AND UK TREASURY – THAT MONEY IS PROMISES TO PAY – PROMISES TO PERFORM ARE THE ONLY “MONEY”/CURRENCY THE BANKS HAVE – THESE TAKE THE FORM OF DEBT OBLIGATIONS/LOANS/MORTGAGES/CREDIT AGREEMENTS – ALL ROBBING PROSPERITY FROM THE FUTURE IN ORDER TO PAY FOR ACTIVITIES TODAY – THE DEFICIT IN BOTH THE UK AND USA IS PROOF THAT THE SYSTEM IS FRAUDULENT- THIS IS CALLED DEFICIT SPENDING AND IS UNLAWFUL. IF YOU OR I CONDUCTED OURSELVES LIKE THIS THEN WE WOULD BE DECLARED BANKRUPT IMMEDIATELY AND IMPRISONED FOR FRAUD AND CONTINUING TO DECEIVE CREDITORS. See BOE Money Creation in a Modern Economy
2. THE SORT CODE IS JUST AN ADDRESS TO POINT TO A LOCATION OF FACILITY WHERE THE “ARTICLE 3 UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT CAN BE PRESENTED.
THE FINGER MAY POINT TO THE MOON – BUT DO NOT CONFUSE THE FINGER WITH THE MOON
""""WeRe Bank isn’t a bank, and so has no authority to issue cheques""""
1.SEE THE BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1882
PART 1 (2) INTERPRETATION OF TERMS:
“BANKER” INCLUDES A BODY OF PERSONS INCORPORATED OR NOT WHO CARRY OUT THE BUSINESS OF BANKING. The Test for what constitutes BANKING HAS BEEN DEFINED BY LORD DENNING AND OTHERS:
see United Dominions Trust v Kirkwood(2)
The Court of Appeal defined 3 elements for determining whether or not a person is a banker:
1- The nature of the banking services provided.
2- The importance of these services in relation to the business as a whole.
3- The reputation of the institution.
Lord Denning also found that the following were characteristics usually found in the business of banking:
a- Accepting money from and collecting cheques for customers and placing these at the credit of the customers’ accounts.
b- Honouring cheques or orders drawn on bankers by the customers when presented for payment, and debiting their customers’ accounts.
c- Keeping running accounts for customers in which debits and credits were entered....
Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 133, defines a “Banker” as, “In general sense, person that engages in business of banking. In narrower meaning, a private person………; who is engaged in the business of banking without being incorporated.
Under some statutes, an individual banker, as distinguished from a “private banker”, is a person who, having complied with the statutory requirements, has received authority from the state to engage in the business of banking, while a private banker is a person engaged in banking without having any special privileges or authority from the state. “
2. BANKING IS POSSIBLY THE 2ND OLDEST PROFESSION IN THE WORLD
WAS THERE BANKING BEFORE THE FSA/FCA CAME INTO BEING? HAS BANKING BEEN AROUND SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME?
BANKING IS LIKE GARDENING, TEACHING, COOKING, BREATHING, PAINTING, SINGING, PARENTING – NO ONE HAS TO GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO DO IT – EVERY MAN AND WOMAN HAS THE DUTY AND OBLIGATION TO ARRANGE HIS/HER FINANCIAL AFFAIRS TO BEST SUIT HIS/HER NEEDS.
THE MOMENT THE CENTRAL PRIVATE BANK OF ENGLAND WAS ALLOWED TO ISSUE THE CURRENCY THEN EVERYONE WAS FORCED INTO A CUL DE SAC CALLED DEBT SLAVERY. IRREBUTABLE FACT
INFLATION/INTEREST/TAXATION FOLLOW LIKE FIRST COUSINS AT A FUNERAL
"""""""Imaginary energy units are not a form of currency and they do not pay debts""""""
WERE BANKS MEMBERS PAY ALL THEIR DEBTS WITH A VALID AND LAWFUL FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT FULLY RECOGNISED THE WORLD OVER DENOMINATED IN THE CURRENCY OF THE COUNTRY WHERE THAT DEBT "WAS SUPPOSEDLY" INCURRED
ALL CORPORATIONS ARE ALLOWED AND EXPECTED AND OBLIGED TO ACCEPT PROMISSORY NOTES FOR SETTLEMENT AND PAYMENT – THIS IS A BASIC TENET OF THEIR MEMORANDA & ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION – THEY ARE STANDARD TERMS – WITHOUT THIS FUNCTIONALITY NO BUSINESS COULD OPERATE DUE TO THE SHORTAGE OF PHYSICAL CASH NOTES.
""""WeRe Bank is “potentially a scam” to get membership money in return for fake cheques”"""""
“POTENTIALLY A SCAM” CAN MEAN ALMOST ANYTHING CANNOT IT NOT?
AND WHO IS MAKING THIS ACCUSATION? NOT THE FCA – THEY MENTION NOTHING IN THIS MANNER IT IS MOST INTERESTING THAT WHEN THE FCA MADE ITS STATEMENT LAST YEAR IT ONLY ISSUED A CONSUMER NOTICE – NOT EVEN A WARNING- if we are all the things which the “press” claims as opposed to what the Regulatory Authorities state, then why are we still operational now into our 4th year?
ON THE SUBJECT OF MEMBERSHIP MONEY - IT IS SO SMALL AN AMOUNT THAT IT IS NOT EVEN WORTH THE MENTION AS A VEILED ACCUSATION OF IMPROPRIETY – IN ADDITION IT IS A MEMBERSHIP FEE TO A POLITICAL ORGANISATION
WeRe Bank IS A HUMANITARIAN RELIEF PROJECT
WE HAVE OUR INSTRUMENTS IN OVER 30 COUNTRIES WITH OVER 12,000 + REGISTRATIONS.
WHEN WAS THE LAST REPORTED CASE THAT ANYONE LOOKED TO SCAM A PLANET? WITH THE FEDERAL RESERVE, BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS AND THE BANK OF ENGLAND CASE EXCLUDED OF COURSE!
THE CHEQUES CANNOT BE FAKE AS IT IS ONLY WeRe BANK WHO CAN DECLARE THEM SO AND IT WILL NEVER DO THAT – UNLESS THEY ARE COPIED OR DUPLICATED. IF THAT WAS THE CASE IT WOULD ONLY SERVE BETTER THE STATEMENT THAT MANY WANT CHANGE.
IF ANY STATEMENT ABOUT FAKE/COUNTERFEIT OR FRAUD IS MADE THEN IS OBVIOUS TO ALL THAT THE ONLY AGENCY OR ASSOCIATION WHICH CAN VERIFY THAT IS THE CREATING INSTITUTON OR HUMAN BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION OR MANUFACTURE. LOOK (for example) AT ROLEX/CARTIER/BENETON/RAY BAN/SONY/LOUIS VUITTON – IF THERE IS AN ALLEGATION OF FAKERY THEN IT IS ONLY THE HOUSE OF THOSE PRODUCTS “EXCLUSIVELY” WHICH CAN PRONOUNCE THEM FAKE OR NOT.
"""""We’ll be talking about this particular case and the decision made by the Ombudsmen which can be found here - http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... eID=104875""""""
THE OMBUDSMAN GETS IT AS WRONG AS IT IS POSSIBLE FOR ONE MAN TO GET IT WRONG. HE MAKES ERRORS OF FACT AS WELL AS LAW AND IS THE PARAGON OF INCOMPETENCE BY DELIBERATELY CONFUSING THE PEOPLE WITH MORE “MONEY JARGON”.
NOT A MEMBER OF SWIFT? WHAT IS SWIFT?
A private Belgian telecoms company - virtually extinct
WHAT IS LEGAL TENDER – PROMISSORY NOTES ISSUED FROM A BANK
BOE NOTES ARE PROMISSORY NOTES
THE SURETY ON THE NOTES IS WHOM?
""""""We’ll also hear from the Financial Conduct Authority who say:
-WeRe bank are not authorised and therefore are not a bank""""""""
WERE BANK OPERATES UNDER COMMON LAW AND ON LAND – DO HUMAN BEINGS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE “STATE” WHICH IS NOTHING MORE THAN A FICTIONAL NON-FINDABLE PHENOMENON?
WERE BANK OPERATES OUTSIDE THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AS IT IS
(a) NOT SELLING FINANCIAL PRODUCTS AND
(b) IS NOT LOOKING TO JOIN THE JUICED IN CLUB/CARTEL WHICH RELIES ON GOVERNMENTAL/STATE SPONSORED BACK-HANDERS IN ORDER TO MAKE OBSCENE PROFIT OFF THE PUBLIC VIA EXCESSIVE AND IMMORAL DEBT CREATION USING CURRENCY INSTEAD OF MONEY
THE FCA HAS NO AUTHORITY IN THESE MATTERS WITH WHICH WERE BANK AND ITS MEMBERS PARTICIPATE. IT IS A MERE LEGAL FICTION AND IS JUST A BOUGHT AND PAID FOR MOUTH-PIECE OF THE BANKING CARTEL
IT IS A PRIVATE COMPANY
IT IS NOT IMPARTIAL
IT SERVES VESTED INTEREST
IT OVERSEES AN IMMENSITY OF WRONG-DOING DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND
IT IS A PORTAL FOR APACS –The Association of Payment Clearing Services (Now the UK Payments Admin) which includes BACS/CHAPS and THE CHEQUE AND CREDIT CLEARING COMPANY
THESE ARE ALL PRIVATE CORPORATIONS – TRYING TO TELL A HUMAN BEINGS WHAT TO DO
"""""""WeRe bank is a danger to vulnerable people by promising to pay debts it can’t pay"""""""
ACCORDING TO THE BRITISH MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION OVER 4 MILLION HOMES HAVE BEEN REPOSSESSED OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS IN THE UK – THE FIGURE IS PROBABLY A LOT HIGHER.
THE FCA AND OMBUDSMAN HAVE AIDED NONE OF THEM AND THE PROBLEMS CONTINUE.
WHO'S AT CAUSE HERE FOR THE p<p+i% dilemma WeRe Bank or the cartel?
BANK AFTER BANK HAS BEEN FINED FOR CRIMINAL CONDUCT BUT NO BANKERS IMPRISONED
WERE BANK HAS NOT BEEN FINED AND NEVER WILL BE!
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-05- ... 4-million/
WELLS FARGO FINED
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/01/2 ... C020150122
BANK OF IRELAND FINED
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/fsa-slap ... 74645.html
DEUTSCHE BANK FINED
https://www.fca.org.uk/news/deutsche-ba ... r-failings
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ing-claims
NAT WEST FINED
https://www.fca.org.uk/news/fca-fines-r ... iceprocess
https://www.fca.org.uk/news/santander-u ... tment-fine
http://news.sky.com/story/1487632/banks ... nge-abuses
NOTHERN ROCK FINED
GOLDMAN SACHS FINED
http://www.housingwire.com/articles/354 ... serve-leak
JP MORGAN FINED
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... legal-fees
BANK OF AMERICA FINED
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... tmortgages
WeRe Bank: NOT FINED !
FOR “”VULNERABLE PEOPLE”” READ PEOPLE WHO ARE AT THEIR WITS END AND ARE ABOUT TO LOSE ALL THEY HAVE. WHO HAS CREATED THIS VULNERABILITY? WERE BANK OR THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM PROTECTED BY THE TROLLS AND ENEMIES OF WeRe Bank?
THIS IS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE INHERENT FLAWS IN THE BANKING AND FINANCIAL SYSTEM AND THE OVER-RIDING DESIRE FOR ONE THING AND ONE THING ONLY – PROFIT AT ANY COST!
ONCE THE WERE BANK CHEQUE HAS BEEN DRAWN UP BY THE DRAWER THE DEED IS DONE. THE LIABILITY HAS EITHER BEEN PAID OFF OR IT HAS NOT. IF IT HAS NOT THEN EVERY SINGLE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT UPON WHICH THE ENTIRE COMMERCIAL BANKING AN NDFINANCIAL SERVICE IS PREDICATED IS VOID
The Touchstone question is: “Is the promissory note that the member signs valid? Yes or no? ReMember it is his/her promissory note and NOT WeRe Bank’s, something which the shills and trolls choose to singularly ignore. They know that they cannot go there – ask why and they drift into a maniacal diatribe about “personal wrong doing” by Peter of England.
"""""""Customers are unlikely to be able to use the Re cheques and instead may receive additional charges from creditors as a result of late payments""""""""
ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY IN SERIOUS TROUBLE BEFORE THEY ENGAGE WITH THE SOLUTION OF LAST RESORT – AND UNLIKELY DOES NOT MEAN IMPOSSIBLE.
We have numerous examples of DEBT (so called) being cleared with WeRe Bank Article 3 UCC instruments
The people are offered a choice and a way to change the system – any one opposing this is a firm friend of the NOW, The banking cartels, big government and NO friend of the people. They should be treated accordingly.
"""""""And we’ll also be discussing a court case in Canada brought against Servus Credit Ltd by a WeRe bank user, Mr Parlee.""""""" The conclusions were:
MR PARLEE WAS IN THE FINAL STAGES OF HIS FIGHT WHEN HE CONTACTED WERE BANK – MUCH HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE IN ERROR BY MR PARLEE AS HE HAD HAD A HOTCH-POTCH OF LEGAL ADVICE AND THE FACT HE HAD USED A WERE BANK “NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT” WAS THE REASON HE WAS RIDICULED AS MUCH AS HE WAS AS THERE IS A VERY FIERCE ASSAULT UPON ANY CHALLENGE TO THE STATUS QUO IN CANADA – THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE BEEN EXTENSIVELY REBUTTED BY MYSELF IN THE DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO YOU NOW AND JUDGE SCHLOSSER IS GUILTY OF MANY CRIMES WHICH DO NOT STOP AT STUPIDITY AND BEING UNFIT TO HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE, SPREADING MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD AND NEGLIGENT MISSTATEMENT AND PRACTISING LAW FROM THE BENCH.........but the trolls love the judges as they are paid lackey's of same.
A WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO WAS ASKED FOR TO UNSEAT HIM
HE IS PART OF A MASONIC OVERSIGHT MECHANISM IN THE CANADIAN COURTS – NOTHING NEW THERE FOR SURE.
""""""WeRe bank is a fraud and the cheques are as worthless as magic beans""""""
Herr Schlosser FAILED AT EVERY STAGE TO STATE HOW IT COULD BE A FRAUD. HE USED BANAL BAR ROOM RHETORIC.
HE ADDRESSES THE ISSUE OF THE UNIT CALLED Re AND CONFUSES IT PURPOSEFULLY/IGNORANTLY WITH THE CANADIAN DOLLAR, IN WHICH THE CHEQUE WAS PRESENTED.
HE FAILS TO EXPLAIN THE CONUNDRUM/ THE CONTRADICTION OF HOW THE PROMISSORY NOTE, AS A LAWFUL AND ENFORCEABLE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT IS COMPLETELY VALID AND SHOULD BE AVOIDED LEST IT GET MR PARLEE IN DEEPER DEBT – YET AT THE SAME TIME STATES THAT THE INSTRUMENT WITH WHICH MR PARLEE ATTEMPTS TO PAY SERVUS CREDIT UNION –THE CHEQUE - IN EFFECT THAT WHICH SUBTENDS THE PROMISSORY NOTE – IS TOTALLY INVALID AND WORTHLESS!!
THIS IS ALICE IN WORDERLAND II
HE FAILED ALSO TO ADDRESS THE MECHANICS OF BANKING AND THE NATURE OF THE PROMISE . HE ATTEMPTS TO INTRODUCE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF COURT ROOM HISTRIONICS THE NATURE OF A TWIN TRACK OF PROMISES/ DEGREES OF PROMISE GIVING IN EFFECT!
PROMISES TO WEREBANK ARE INVALID BUT TO ANYONE ELSE ARE VALID!
HE ALSO USED “SELECTIVE CONCLUSIONING” TO DERIDE THE PURPOSE AND ETHICS OF WERE BANK
EVERY ESTABLISHMENT WHICH HAS USED WORDS LIKE FAKE OR SCAM ABOUT WERE BANK WITHIN THE LAST 12 MONTHS INCLUDING THE FCA IN JERSEY HAS RETRACTED THESE CLAIMS FROM THEIR WEBSITES WHEN CHALLENGED – This should now be so for the troll sites too.
""""Servus’ refusal to accept a particular form of payment is legal"""""
THERE EXISTS A VERY GREAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL AND LAWFUL
THE LAWFUL THING TO DO WAS NOT TO ALLOW MR PARLEE'S HOME TO BE TAKEN FROM HIM UNTIL A JURY TRIAL, CONCLUDED IN A COURT OF EQUITY IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT DECIDED IT SHOULD BE TAKEN – THAT WAS THE TRAVESTY AS THERE WAS A TRUST IN EXISTENCE PROVEN BY THE FACT THAT TWO PEOPLE WERE CLAIMING THE SAME PROPERTY. TWO TITLES WERE ON ISSUE – THE LEGAL AND THE EQUITABLE. THE ISSUES OF LEGAL TITLE AND MR PARLEES EQUITABLE TITLE WERE NEVER TOUCHED UPON. A GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – FREEMAN OR NOT
-The cheques were rejected by Servus because Servus insisted on payment by certified cheque or bank draft and would not discuss Mr Parlee’s ‘freeman theories of money and banking’
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT MR PARLEE DID PAY WITH A FULLY CERTIFIED INSTRUMENT – See UCC Article 3
"""""""We air between 12:15 and 13:00 on Thursday, would you be interested in recording an interview with us on the afternoon of the 27th? If not can you please provide us a statement addressing the complaints by noon on the 27th. """"""
ON THE SUBJECT OF MEMBERSHIP MONEY - IT IS SO SMALL AN AMOUNT THAT IT IS NOT EVEN WORTH THE MENTION AS A VEILED ACCUSATION OF IMPROPRIETY – IN ADDITION IT IS A MEMBERSHIP FEE TO A POLITICAL ORGANISATION
Funny, if I go to my bank and ask for money, I walk out with money.1.TWO POINTS HERE – NO BANK HAS MONEY THESE DAYS.
So why does he only accept his fees in worthless paper?CURRENCY IS WORTHLESS FIAT PAPER RUN OFF A PRINTING PRESS – IT HAS NO BACKING AND IS BASED ON USURY
Fearnchase wrote:This is Peters rant after the the ombudsman decision was posted on his web site, he says he has several people there in newcastle under lyme who have been threatened, yet Peter hasnt actually physically moved into the offices......Peter Of England
12 mins ·
waaaaaaaah I've been exposed again
Fearnchase wrote:Peter has made demands to the New Zealand Banking OmbudsmanPublic and open letter of rebuttal to the NZ Banking Ombudsman - CORPORATE RANT on it's website: I have told them to take down the defamatory remarks for "quoting the UK FCA as issuing a WARNING" about WeRe Bank, which they did NOT and also using the words SCAM and BOGUS.
I'm surprised that they didn't claim WeRe Bank was responsible for 9/11 too.
afateworsethandeath wrote:I remember someone much earlier in this thread posting that when you call POE on his mobile he answers using a different name. That is not the actions of a truthful, honest man
Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl [Bot] and 2 guests