Peter of England: He’s still F RE?

[mufc1959]

If I recall correctly, the 'offer' he made was for something like a fiver a month or something equally ridiculous. Maybe £25. Whatever, it was a tiny fraction of the actual rent. Now he's been advised by someone (Robswift? I think it might be him) that cashing the cheque means the offer's been accepted and he'll be able to live in his home forever for £25 a month.

[guilty]

If I recall correctly, the 'offer' he made was for something like a fiver a month or something equally ridiculous. Maybe £25. Whatever, it was a tiny fraction of the actual rent. Now he's been advised by someone (Robswift? I think it might be him) that cashing the cheque means the offer's been accepted and he'll be able to live in his home forever for £25 a month.

The question would be 'Did the HA accept the cheque as rent?' I think it is unlikely because the tenant was under notice to quit, so any funds received by the HA would be classed as 'mesne profits'. Precisely because if they accepted it as rent they are, by default, instigating a new tenancy. Even if they made an error and created a new tenancy, they can change the rent at any time.

[PeanutGallery]

The Housing Association would also be expected to take any payment from the tenant and place it towards the outstanding arrears. The tenant owes £5,000 if they send a cheque for £5 it only means the rent arrears are reduced by £5. If their were no arrears then the £5 would be considered to have been taken as part payment of the current rent. The landlord has a duty to mitigate their losses, this would include taking £5 when offered by the tenant.

This story, if true, will not have a happy ending. The tenant would be advised to start looking for somewhere they can move into and also might want to consider that their credit is going to be negatively affected. However this has the ring of something someone half heard one night in a pub.

[notorial dissent]

Doesn't work that way, and no US court would enforce that type of unilateral agreement, since the renter still obligated to the original and still owes them money under it. They just paid off part of their debt that is all.

[Bones]

From the WeRe Bank Forum

I refer to your email below which was passed to this division for review.

You have asked in your email below "...which regulated Authority is Goldman Sachs, BNP Paribas regulated by?" As you may be aware, both Goldman Sachs and BNP Paribas have numerous entities located around the world and the nature of the services provided by such entities, determines what authorisation, if any, they require. For example, one Goldman Sachs entity, namely, Goldman Sachs International Bank is authorised as a credit institution (i.e. a bank) in the United Kingdom and is permitted to provide services in Ireland pursuant to EEA passporting rules. The regulatory authorities responsible for the authorisation and supervision of Goldman Sachs International Bank are the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority in the United Kingdom. Details of Goldman Sachs International Bank's regulatory status can be found by accessing the following link to the Financial Conduct Authority's register
https://register.fca.org.uk/ShPo_FirmDe ... 00MfF0NAAV and details regarding its regulatory status in Ireland can be found by accessing the Central Bank of Ireland's ('Central Bank') register which can be found by clicking on the following link http://registers.centralbank.ie/DownloadsPage.aspx and by selecting "Register of Credit Institutions as at 28 Aug 2015".

You have asked a number of questions in your email below regarding AIB, Bank of Ireland and Ulster Bank which cannot be answered by the Central Bank due to confidentiality provisions as set out in section 33AK of the Central Bank Act, 1942, as amended.

With regard to your further questions regarding the legality of bank notes, promissory notes etc., please be advised that it is not the role of the Central Bank to provide legal advice and as such, you may wish to consult a solicitor in this regard.

With regard to your statement "If Irish Central Bank does not allow payment in the form of a WeRe cheque or WeRe bank draft, can you let me know why, is it because you are practicing financial apartheid?" please be advised that the Central Bank published a warning notice in relation to WeRe Bank on 19th October 2015 to advise members of the Irish public that WeRe Bank was not authorised to provide any financial services (banking or otherwise) to persons in Ireland.

WeRe Bank uses the word "bank" in its title and the use of the word "bank" by a firm (other than an authorised credit institution or other entities that are exempt) is a criminal offence. It is also a criminal offence to carry on banking business in the State or from the State unless that frim/entity is holder of the appropriate authorisation. In this regard, please note that the Central Bank Act, 1971, as amended, provides:

"7.-(1) [Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person, other than the Bank, shall not, in or outside the State, carry on banking business or hold himself out or represent himself as a banker or as carrying on banking business or on behalf of any other person accept deposits or other repayable funds from the public, unless he is the holder of a licence.]
(2) For the purposes of this Act a person shall (save as is otherwise provided by this Act) be deemed to hold himself out as a banker-
(a) if, being a body corporate carrying on any business, the name of the body includes any of the words "bank", "banker" or "banking" or any word which is a variant, derivative or translation of or is analogous to any of those words, or
(b) if, being an individual, he carries on any business under a name or title (other than his own name without any addition thereto) which includes any of the words "bank", "banker" or "banking" or any word which is a variant, derivative or translation of or is analogous to any of those words, or
(c) if, being an unincorporated body of persons carrying on any business, the name under which the body carries on that business (not being in the case of a partnership the name or names of one or more of the partners without any addition thereto) includes any of the words "bank", "banker" or "banking" or any word which is a variant, derivative or translation of or is analogous to any of those words, or
(d) in any case, if by the use, in an advertisement, circular, business card or other document, of any of the words "bank", "banker" or "banking" or any word which is a variant, derivative or translation of any of those words or any word or phrase analogous thereto, he holds himself out or represents himself as conducting or being willing to conduct banking business".

“banking business” , in relation to a person, means any business that consists of or includes—
(a) receiving money on the person’s own account from members of the public either on deposit or as repayable funds (whether or not the issue of securities or any other form of financial obligation is involved), and
(b) any other business of a kind normally carried on by a bank (which may include the granting of credits on own account), and
(c) any other business of a kind prescribed under subsection (2) for the purpose of this paragraph, but does not include such a business in so far as the business consists of or includes—
(i) receiving money on deposit by a trader either from employees of the trader in relation to the trader’s business, or from customers of the trader in the normal course of the trader’s business, or
(ii) receiving money in respect of leasing or selling goods under a hire-purchase agreement, a leasing agreement or credit-sale agreement, or
(iii) receiving money as security or collateral or as a bond for the repayment of a debt or the performance of a contract related to goods or services, or
(iv) receiving money accepted by way of advance or part payment under a contract for the sale, hire or other provision of goods or services, and repayable only in the event that the goods or services are not in fact sold, hired or otherwise provided, or
(v) receiving money solely as a premium in respect of the issue or renewal of a life assurance policy issued by a holder of an authorisation under the European Communities (Life Assurance) Regulations 1984 (S.I. No. 57 of 1984), or
(vi) receiving money accepted as a contribution within the meaning of the Pensions Acts, or
(vii) receiving money where it can be shown that—
(I) no part of the business activities of the person receiving the money or of any other person is financed wholly or substantially out of those funds, and
(II) those funds are, in the normal course of business, accepted only on a casual or incidental basis, or
(viii) receiving money under financial contracts (within the meaning of the Netting of Financial Contracts Act 1995) (which may include the acceptance of collateral).

and "banking" and cognate words shall be construed accordingly.]

Finally, it should be noted that it is the responsibility of firms and individuals to ensure that they operate in compliance with the relevant legislation, where applicable and where a firm/person is unsure as to whether or not it may require an authorisation or licence from the Central Bank, it may wish to seek legal advice from a solicitor familiar with the applicable regime(s). It should be noted that it is not within the remit of the Central Bank to provide such advice.

In addition, where the Central Bank reasonably believes that a firm/person is providing financial services without the appropriate authorisation, it can and does issues warnings to notify members of the public that certain firms/persons do not enjoy authorisation from the Central Bank. In addition, the Central Bank can and does take further action with regard to such firms/persons where necessary and appropriate.

I hope the above answers your questions.

Yours sincerely,

Marie Townsend
Unauthorised Providers Unit
Anti-Money Laundering Division (‘AMLD’)
Central Bank of Ireland
Block D, Iveagh Court, Harcourt Road, Dublin 2

T: +353 (0) 1 224 5213
F: +353 (0) 1 478 9940
E: marie.townsend@centralbank.ie

Anti-Money Laundering | Countering the Financing of Terrorism | Financial Sanctions | Policy | Unauthorised Providers Unit

http://www.centralbank.ie

[exiledscouser]

210556JM (who I pray reads or is directed to this thread) is being told, in the nicest possible way to "feck off" as they are fond of saying on the Emerald Isle.

The cheques don't work. Repeat. The cheques won't work. Now or ever. No one receiving one will ever get paid. JM my friend, there's no fool like an old fool.

You Sir are a dickhead.

There.

[Burnaby49]

210556JM (who I pray reads or is directed to this thread) is being told, in the nicest possible way to "feck off" as they are fond of saying on the Emerald Isle.

The cheques don't work. Repeat. The cheques won't work. Now or ever. No one receiving one will ever get paid. JM my friend, there's no fool like an old fool.

You Sir are a dickhead.

There.

I've just made a post, actually a new discussion, that should end any possible justification for gullible suckers to believe in, or try and defend, the argument that the WeRe cheques just might be a legally valid method of payment. Your British authorities seems strangely reluctant to address the issue of the validity of the cheques even though they've spread like a virus throughout the UK. Well they've shown up here in Canada and a Canadian court has stepped up to do your heavy-lifting for you. You can read it here;

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10879

Although, thinking it over, it probably won't make the slightest difference to the suckers. Cults are immune to logic.

[Losleones]

210556JM (who I pray reads or is directed to this thread) is being told, in the nicest possible way to "feck off" as they are fond of saying on the Emerald Isle.

The cheques don't work. Repeat. The cheques won't work. Now or ever. No one receiving one will ever get paid. JM my friend, there's no fool like an old fool.

You Sir are a dickhead.

There.

Get off the fence ES! I'm disappointed there is no activity over on Goofy regarding the glowing successes that have somewhat ground to a halt, & where is PT with his latest ramblings & legal tender launch?

C'mon PT, we need some entertainment as we fast approach the pantomime season.

[Pox]

[quote="Losleones]

C'mon PT, we need some entertainment as we fast approach the pantomime season. [/quote]

You may have to wait for the next full moon.

[NYGman]

I've just made a post, actually a new discussion, that should end any possible justification for gullible suckers to believe in, or try and defend, the argument that the WeRe cheques just might be a legally valid method of payment. Your British authorities seems strangely reluctant to address the issue of the validity of the cheques even though they've spread like a virus throughout the UK. Well they've shown up here in Canada and a Canadian court has stepped up to do your heavy-lifting for you. You can read it here;

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10879

Although, thinking it over, it probably won't make the slightest difference to the suckers. Cults are immune to logic.

Just read this post, Wow, good stuff out of Canada, would love to see Peter's response. He got totally trashed.

The WeRe related highlowlights

2. The WeRe Bank

[54] After Servus commenced its foreclosure on the Parlee Lands, the Parlees attempted to pay off the outstanding Mortgage/Line of Credit debt with a “WeRe Cheque” (July 20, 2015 Affidavit, Exhibit “E”). This document and an accompanying item, a two-sided “allonge”, WeRe received by Servus on May 5, 2015, and are reproduced in Appendix D.

[55] The June 3 Boser, June 23 Kendrick, and July 20 Parlee affidavits provide more information about the WeRe Bank, WeRe Cheques, and their associated scheme. At first glance the WeRe Cheque appears to be a conventional cheque drawn from a bank for a customer, in this case Alfred Parlee. However, there are irregularities. WeRe Bank subtitles itself as “Universal Energy Transfer”. Comparison of the Parlees’ WeRe Cheque with other WeRe Cheques discloses they all have an identical “Branch Sort Code” and “Account Number”: “75-0181: 88888888”. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a list of UK banks compiled by the Bank of England (Kendrick Affidavit, Exhibit “F”) does not include “WeRe Bank” or any financial institution with a similar name.

[56] Another irregularity documented in the June 23 Kendrick Affidavit is that the WeRe Bank does not participate in the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication [“SWIFT”] system for inter-bank transfer of electronic funds. Instead, WeRe Bank has its own “highly secure format” protocols: “SWALLOW [Secure Waygate - Allow]” and “SPIT: [Secure Protocol Information Transaction]”. “Peter of England” instructs that banks are to send a scanned copy of the WeRe Cheque to his email account and then “Funds can be sent electronically Via “SWALLOW”. The WeRe Bank warns:

The Bank MUST present the cheque for clearing - no question, no debate, no wiggle room! It’s the LAW.

[57] A printout of WeRe Bank website (June 23 Kendrick Affidavit, Exhibit “E”) could be a satire of modern conspiratorial motifs, but it instead seems to be marketed as the truth.

You can see this printout on page 13. Usual WeRe Bullshit.

[58] In this context, ‘conventional money’ is worthless:

You were convinced to accept worthless money, the PROMISSORY NOTE/SCAM, for the promise/lie of
further wealth somewhere and at some time in the future in return for going without in the moment of now.

[59] Presumably, that is why WeRe Bank does not even deal in money, but instead trades in “Re”, “units of time and space”:

WeRe Bank’s principal trading asset is called the Re. It is a unit of space and time and has Value as it is “exchangeable” or trade-able.” Units are created through expenditure of effort over time and we hold these units “on account” and pay them out to our customers. The units are (energy × expended time = REWARD) based upon exceptionally sound principles of Albert Einstein’s (e = mc²), where m = mass, c = speed/time, e=energy (General Theory of Relativity). This equation, upon reflection is the only SOUND premise for a unit of exchange/currency in this world. Units are denominated in 2 skill/time classes: [Emphasis in original.]

Then some blunt adult conversation;

[60] Still, if money is worthless, it seems strange that “Peter of England” requires that his customers first pay £35 up front as a “Joining Fee”, and then a £10 monthly subscription fee. You also need to complete and submit a £150,000.00 promissory note to WeRe Bank. Conveniently, the template can be downloaded from its website.

a. WeRe Bank is a Fraud

[61] The first basic reason why the WeRe Cheque was not a payment is simply because WeRe Bank is a fraud. It is not a regulated UK bank. The WeRe Bank never promises to make payments to recipients of WeRe Cheques. It only transfers “Re” energy units. It might as well promise to transfer magic beans. Imaginary energy units are not a form of currency and they do not pay debts.

[62] Our Court is not the first entity to reach that conclusion. On September 17, 2015 the UK Financial Conduct Authority issued a consumer notice that WeRe Bank’s payment scheme was false and that its users could face legal consequences. The Central Bank of Ireland on October 19, 2015 issued a press release that the WeRe Bank is not authorized to carry out banking or other financial services, and activities of that kind are a criminal offence.

Even if it worked in Britain it couldn't work here;

b. Non-Canadian Authorities are not Binding

[63] There are legal defects as well. Reviewing the “allonge” and “Peter of England’s” communication indicates that the recipient of a WeRe Cheque is supposedly bound by the procedures in the UK Bills of Exchange Act and the UN Convention on Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes. UK law no longer applies in Canada. International treaties only have any force and effect inside this country if the treaty’s provision are enacted as Canadian legislation or put in effect by government order: Capital Cities Communications Inc. v Canadian Radio-Television Commission, [1978] 2 SCR 141 at 188, 81 DLR (3d) 609. Canadian governments are free to ignore and act in conflict with its international treaty agreements: R v Hape, 2007 SCC 26 at paras 53-54, [2007] 2 SCR 292.

Or Britain for that matter;

[64] There is another reason why the treaty identified by “Peter of England” is irrelevant (at least if he is attempting to identify The United Nations Convention on International Bills of Exchange
and International Promissory Notes (New York, 1988)) - Canada has not ratified that treaty. As for its precursor, The Convention for the Settlement of Certain Conflicts of Laws in connection with Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (Geneva, 7 June 1930), Canada never signed it. What is perhaps even more ironic is that the home jurisdiction of “Peter of England”, the United Kingdom, which is not a participant in either treaty.

Then time to stomp on one of Peter's big selling points. The notorious Lord Denning quote about how creditors have to accept promissory notes tendered for debt;

c. No Obligation to Accept Non-Cash Payments

[65] Beyond that, Servus’s refusal to accept a particular form of payment is entirely legal. The WeRe Bank materials (see Appendix D(2)) rely on an obiter statement of Lord Denning in Fielding & Platt Ltd v Najjar, [1969] 2 All ER 150 at 152 (UK CA):

We have repeatedly said in this court that a Bill of Exchange or a Promissory Note is to be treated as cash. It is to be honored unless there is some good reason to the contrary.

[66] This exact quote and its potential relevance in Canada was recently considered by Rooke ACJ in Re Boisjoli at paras 30-36, where an analogous argument was made by a vexatious OPCA litigant who claimed to have forced payment of a debt with a promissory note and the Bills of Exchange Act. Rooke ACJ adopted the Scottish Court of Sessions (Scotland’s highest civil court) reasoning and conclusion in Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission v Wilson, 2014 SLR 46 at paras 10-11, [2013] CSIH 95, where that Court came to a number of conclusions, including that a bill of exchange, such as a cheque, may only extinguish an existing debt if the creditor agrees with that mechanism of payment. The ‘near cash’ theory has no application to these facts. A creditor may always insist on payment in legal tender.

[67] WeRe Bank documents proclaim that any alleged dispute over the WeRe Cheque would not be addressed in a Canadian court, but instead “ultimately arbitrated” via trial by jury before the “International Common Law Court of Record 750181”. This institution is purportedly the high court of the jurisdiction: “There is NO COURT WITHIN ENGLAND SUPERIOR TO A COMMON LAW COURT DULY CONVENED”. I will simply observe the International Common Law Court is unknown to either myself or, apparently, the UK courts. It is never mentioned even once in any of the jurisprudence archived on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BaiLII) website.

[68] Even if Lord Denning’s dicta WeRe binding on me, these facts are all “good reasons” to refuse Mr. Parlee and “Peter of England’s” so-called bill of exchange.

Paragraphs 69 to 72 tell how the WeRe Three/Five letter scheme is an abject failure too.

This case has one unique feature I've not seen before. As I understand it Peter of England has had a pretty firm policy of quickly abandoning his followers when they run into trouble. They go crying to Peter for help when their cheques bounce but all they get is silence. However he actually made the (admittedly minimal) effort to help the Parlees by giving them totally worthless advice on how to beat the bank through the use of his scam. So Alberta Queen's Bench decided to thrash Peter personally!

e. “Peter of England”

[72] A disturbing window into the OPCA world and the WeRe Bank fraud is provided by email correspondence between Alfred Parlee and “Peter of England” found in the Affidavits. On May 20, 2015 Mr. Parlee writes “Peter of England” requesting advise, he needs support “... because these lawyers can rattle my chain.” “Peter of England” replies:

Tell them that you want a firm statement on why they are "perverting the course of justice" and ask them why a cheque drawn on a bank does NOT equate to "money"?

Send this to him again and ask him to affirm that he can rebut this Allonge in a court of law and if he cannot he should IMMEDIATELY take legal advice from the City of London.
...
Stand firm with him - tell him you'll see him in court and you will personally be looking at liens being placed upon him and his business - ask him "under full commercial liability and penalty of perjury" why he claims the cheque is not good?

These cheques are clearing in the UK- we have had Chyrsler and ClBC on the phone to us.

We have become the Bankers Prayer - we are their life-line, without us their is no more liquidity in the market

This is NOT freeman mumbo jumbo but international banking practice - tell peter@werebank.com then we'll assure his sorry ass that if he goes to court he's going to get hammered!
...
He/they has/have to realize, eventually, these arrogant hyenas, that their are bigger creatures in the jungle than they!

He should step very carefully this one!

Peter

[73] Mr. Parlee writes “Peter of England” once more on June 17, 2015 asking for advice “... as the hearing is next week. I am worried.” Peter responds with:

Please send him this and tell him the days of ReTribution are upon him. His time is passed his number has been called.

More than this Alf I cannot do

[74] These communications are a discomforting glimpse into how OPCA gurus work: making false promises and callously goading their customers into ill-advised action. The evidence I received makes it obvious that “Peter of England” is entirely willing to ruin the finances of his customers, and even put them at risk of criminal prosecution for passing bad cheques. His reward is a paltry £35.00.

My favorite line in the entire decision is this one;

We have become the Bankers Prayer - we are their life-line, without us their is no more liquidity in the market

[exiledscouser]

Burnaby, I tip my hat to your dissection of this case. The wheels of justice turn that much faster in Canada, that's for sure.

This surely puts the UK response to shame; Canadian judges use everyday phrases which m'learned friends here would blanch at. It's all the more refreshing.

I get the picture that the Canadian couple at the heart of this had run the gamut of every Sovrun, FOTL and associated debt avoidance and money for nothing schemes, it's merely our good fortune that they tried their hand at WeRe bank too.

Peter has had his wish, a court case featuring his scam and fraud (as was accurately described in the judgement) and had his arse handed to him.

Someone has posted a link to the Judgement on Goofy. I wonder how long it will last.

Now if only I could get this to the fifty nine year old JM and show him proof positive that he's on the road to disaster.

[Zeke_the_Meek]

Masterful work, Burnaby. That was absolutely crushing, but as you say, even a black and white demonstration of a massive failure and a dissection thereof probably won't be enough for the Goofers to get it through their thick skulls.

Case in point: over on FB, this idiot has it explained in great detail that WeRe cheques won't ever work and that he's skating on extremely thin ice. Does he take this on board like any rational person? Nope, he forwards it to Peter and suggests it can be used as evidence to sue Toyota. Oy vey.

(I'm guessing this is the same numpty that tried to buy a car on finance to prove to others that WeRe Bank works?)

Ivan Taylor EL: Someone posted this in the Werebank fourm: You can use this info to sue Toyota Financial. C

ontact: Contact 110860JW Toyota Financial Postby 110860JW » Tue Nov 10, 2015 3:04 pm

Hi All, Just received in the mail from Toyota Financial Legal department a letter denying my payment and the reasons why with the threat of legal action against me. Furthermore, my check was not returned. No response to my ticket and probably will not be. If anyone has any suggestions, please let me know ASAP.

"I am writing in response to your documents and Security Agreement you signed and entered in agreement with Toyota Financial Services (TFS) on May 22, 2013. Please be advised that the document, such as, 'Notice to Payee-Legal Departments and Accounting/Book-Keeping Departments", WeRe Bank Email Clearance System "SWALLOW" and WeRE Bank check#65353 dated 9/10/2015 for $16,728.42 claiming to pay off your car loan that was submitted to TFS are not valid form of payments to TFS/LFS, do not create any obligation on the part of TFS and are not recognized by any bank and court of law in the United States.

TFS is thoroughly familiar with the legal theory set forth in your document to TFS. In fact similar schemes are exposed in a variety of internet websites purporting to advise consumers about a method to relieve themselves of valid legal obligations. We consider these schemes to be fraudulent, as does the Federal Trade Commission. Furthermore, such arguments have been discredited in the Courts and these documents are recognized by any court of law in the United States. Moreover, several courts have specifically found such instruments to be meaningless (see, McElroy et al.v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. et al., 134 Cal. App 4th 388, 36 Cal. Rptr.3d 176 (Cal.App.4Dist.)

In fact, the court in McElroy described similar documents as follow: "A worthless piece of paper, consisting of nothing more than a string of words that sound as though they belong in a legal document, but which, in reality, are incomprehensible, signifying nothing". Failure to continue to remit payment and keeping account in current status pursuant to the contract terms can result in further collection or legal action. If we do not hear from you with ten (10) days of the date of this letter, TMCC is forced to take legal action to protect its interests, it will seek collection costs and attorney's fees to the extent permitted by law and by therms of the contract.

Sincerely, Joe Kalbo Fraud Control Department Toyota/Lexus Financial Services."

Nice to see finance companies and courts starting to use plain English to slam this nonsense down. I wish UK authorities would follow suit.

[longdog]

From some Goof...

It will be interesting to see the response from PoE on this....Hopefully this will clear it up one way or the other as to if were bank is a scam or not....time will surely tell...

Time IS telling and it's telling the world what everybody except the morons and the crooks have known from the beginning... It's a scam.

[mufc1959]

Masterful work, Burnaby. That was absolutely crushing, but as you say, even a black and white demonstration of a massive failure and a dissection thereof probably won't be enough for the Goofers to get it through their thick skulls.

Case in point: over on FB, this idiot has it explained in great detail that WeRe cheques won't ever work and that he's skating on extremely thin ice. Does he take this on board like any rational person? Nope, he forwards it to Peter and suggests it can be used as evidence to sue Toyota. Oy vey.

(I'm guessing this is the same numpty that tried to buy a car on finance to prove to others that WeRe Bank works?)

No it's a different numpty. It was Chong (whose initials are GO) who tried to buy a Toyota to prove WeRe cheques work. There's also a guy in Finland who's been having trouble with Toyota Finance Finalnd. The guy in the email you posted is in the USA, as the case quoted by the guy at Toyota is an American decision.

[littleFred]

The guy in the email you posted...

Her name is "Julie".

[FN75]

If courts are all, like, made up and stuff, how do they expect to be able to sue?

[Burnaby49]

If courts are all, like, made up and stuff, how do they expect to be able to sue?

As I just posted in the Peter of England discussion;

The problem with this comment is that, even if true, they are still screwed. If the courts are going to support the banks then the idiots still owe the debt. Saying that the courts are doing their jobs by protecting the banks is an admission that they can't win regardless of whether Peter is right or not.

This is the first reported decision but I suspect the courts are going to continue their mission of hammering WeRe members just trying to pay off their debts in an honest and responsible manner. Since I don't see the Parlees, in their demented world, having any reason to give up I anticipate another decision from the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in due course. Then the Court of Appeal of Alberta then the Supreme Court of Canada which will obey its bankster overlords by denying the Parlees leave to appeal. It's like it is pre-ordained.

[exiledscouser]

C'mon PT, we need some entertainment as we fast approach the pantomime season.

Oh no we don't!

[mufc1959]

C'mon PT, we need some entertainment as we fast approach the pantomime season.

Oh no we don't!

He's behind you!

[Bones]

However horrible this looks and however dramatic it may be for the Parlees, I dare say it is good news -- and we should rejoice !!! Indeed, such a vicious attack is the sign that WeRe Bank is on the right track (which gives me more confidence in it... not 100% but...), and is felt as a threat to the ailing banking system. We all know that the judiciary's mission is to protect the banks, so no surprise here : it is doing its job.

This reminds me of Kiri Campbell of New Zealand who launched a new financial system earlier this year (February) and soon after, she "disappeared": no news of her whereabouts. She has not been seen or heard of since. At least Peter is still around.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-n ... us-cheques

A political protester who fraudulently paid $15 million into her bank account has been sentenced to 200 hours' community work.

Hawera woman Kiri Campbell, 32, ripped off Taranaki businesses by almost $65,000 by using cheques from closed bank accounts to pay for cars, furniture and groceries.

She also used a TSB Bank deposit slip for $15m to show she had the funds to honour the cheques.

In the New Plymouth District Court in August, Campbell admitted the four counts of using documents to obtain a pecuniary advantage.

When Campbell first appeared in the Hawera District Court in July she had about 60 supporters, including one who waved an alternative Maori flag and refused to leave the courtroom.

The police summary of facts said in July Campbell wrote a cheque worth $15m from her National Bank account, which had been closed two years earlier.

She took the cheque to the TSB Bank in Hawera where the teller accepted the cheque and stamped and dated her deposit book.

The TSB later realised the cheque was fraudulent and closed her bank accounts.

Yesterday TSB Bank chief executive Kevin Murphy said the bank had not been affected in any material sense and was not involved in the court proceedings.

It is understood Campbell's $15m cheque deposit was backed up by a large amount of paperwork.

Among the victims Campbell gave bad cheques were Egmont Autos in Hawera ($14,990), Pak'n Save in Hawera ($421.85), Colton's Motor Vehicle Company in Hawera ($32,990), Dimocks 100% Electrical Store ($3019.96) and R J Eagar in Stratford, $22,338.

The owner of Egmont Autos had been selling a car on behalf of another person and deposited the full amount into their bank account from his own personal account.

Some of the items were recovered, or delivery was cancelled when her cheques bounced, but some were damaged and others were not found.

Lawyer Paul Keegan said Campbell had "very strong political and social beliefs" which she had been addressing through her actions.

Campbell is part of the One Peoples' Public Trust who see themselves as "Freemen on the land", and believe individuals have to agree to be subject to government and statute law and are otherwise only held to their own version of common law. They see the banking system as corrupt.

The movement began in the United States in the 1970s and spread to Europe.

The FBI's website shows "Freemen" or "sovereign citizens" are considered a domestic terrorist movement in the US.

Following her cheque spree, Campbell has a burgeoning social media following and and has gained significant international attention online.