Peter of England: He’s still F RE?

[afateworsethandeath]

To be more reflective of reality I think PoE should change the last sentence of his e mail from "we cannot do this without you" to "we cannot do this at all"

[TheNewSaint]

I know from my work dealings with the FOS that they have specialists in particular products or issues, so they may well have a FOTL ombudsman!

This ties into something I've been wondering about all this: why do banks and other large institutions seem to have no process for dealing with FMOTL arguments? From what I've read of their correspondence, such as on the Jimmywx thread, they're just general "your bill is due" type responses that don't address what the FOTLer is trying to do.

I would think they'd at least have a form letter, something along the lines of:

Dear Mr. Customer:

Your letter of [date] appears to advance arguments broadly known as OPCA (organized pseudolegal commercial arguments) or "Freeman" theories. These theories are often promoted on the internet by people with no legal training and no verifiable record of success. No such argument has ever succeeded in any court.

This institution takes very seriously any attempts to [get out of paying your mortgage/file a phony commercial lien against us/as appropriate] using these tactics.

You are hereby advised that continuing this path can result in significant penalties, fines, interest, legal fees, and possibly criminal charges against you. And they will not free you of your obligations to this institution.

If you are having difficulty making this payment, you are much better off working with us directly, or contacting a qualified [attorney/accountant/debt advisor/as appropriate].

If you would like to discuss this matter with us, or if we have misunderstood your intentions, please contact us immediately.

I think a lot of people would back away from the Freeman crap if they got a letter like that the first time they tried it.

[littleFred]

This ties into something I've been wondering about all this: why do banks and other large institutions seem to have no process for dealing with FMOTL arguments?

I see what you mean, but I think the answer is that banks etc don't want to waste time and resources refuting garbage. FOTL, WeRe cheques, GOOFy 3-letters etc are really just delaying tactics. A debtor wants to get paid. It's that simple. He doesn't want to get into arguments about why A4V or promissory note or Peter's LLTs aren't actual payments. Front-line staff won't be trained in such matters.

I suspect that FOTL form a very small proportion of bad/late payers. So they are treated just like the rest: "You haven't paid what you owe. Please do so."

[grixit]

For anyone not on Facebook, here's the WeRe Bank newsletter as a .pdf.

https://www.docdroid.net/CWzi4Hk/wereba ... r.pdf.html

Hey, Peter's got a shiny new Bridge for the elite membership. Doesn't Scientology already have one of those?

[Zeke_the_Meek]

Ah, Pete's in another one of his little moods. Even he can't suffer his own moronic followers sometimes:

Julie Dawn Stokes: i joined WeRe Bank in april last year ,paid the £25 and reieved my cheque book,now i have to rejoin,send another promissary note and another joinup fee,doesnt seem right as i have already joined,,so now i have to rejoin on something i have already joined and paid

Peter: Where does it say that you have to send another Promissory Note? We have NOT even asked for another JOIN up fee. The JOIN FEE is for new members. Please take the time to read and comprehend before you begin SMASHING YOUR BIRTHRIGHT PRESENTS ALL OVER THE FLOOR!!!

Except... she's got him bang to rights, because she goes on to quote from his own newsletter:

First of all, thank you all for JOINING or Re-REGISTERING with WeRe Bank.

This letter is being sent to you as your email was listed on the database of www.werebank.com. This means that sometime between March 2015 and the end of January 2016, you registered to JOIN WeRe Bank and ReMovement on that website.

As you may know, WeRe Bank now has changed its domain name to www.werebank.co.uk and so we are now inviting ALL PREVIOUS REGISTRANTS/MEMBERS to please now ReRegister so that we can confirm that you still wish to be a part of the most ReVolutionary financial and freedom inspiring movement perhaps ever.

For the sake of clarity and to confirm on-going interest in WeRe Bank would you please visit the link https://www.werebank.co.uk/join/and ReRegister.

Sigh.

[Hercule Parrot]

This ties into something I've been wondering about all this: why do banks and other large institutions seem to have no process for dealing with FMOTL arguments?

I see what you mean, but I think the answer is that banks etc don't want to waste time and resources refuting garbage. FOTL, WeRe cheques, GOOFy 3-letters etc are really just delaying tactics. A debtor wants to get paid. It's that simple. He doesn't want to get into arguments about why A4V or promissory note or Peter's LLTs aren't actual payments. Front-line staff won't be trained in such matters.

True enough, but they must be suffering a fair amount of delay, costs and hassle from dealing with these idiots. I think TNS makes a good point. It probably is about time that the financial institutions organised a more systematic response. Personally I think this should comprise two stages :

Stage 1 is a friendly letter, in the style suggested by TNS. I would probably also provide training funding for CAB and similar organisations, so that they can spot emergent FMOTL Sovcit nonsense and give plain, effective advice. Print some leaflets, publicise some of the home-losing disasters, get a counter-message out there.

Stage 2, if a particular idiot persisted with fantasy legal notices etc, would be to withdraw all credit options. Make them pay cash (in advance where possible) and don't allow any arrears to accumulate. Hit them with bank charges, late payment fees, coin-operated meters etc. This customer is actively seeking a way to cheat your company, so treat them accordingly.

[TheNewSaint]

@littleFred: My proposed letter doesn't refute the sovcit material, it only acknowledges it. It lets the sender know that the bank is aware of their plan. I believe this would have many benefits, which I will list below.

@Hercule Parrot: you put it perfectly when you said "counter-message." That's what's needed here: a counter-message appropriate to the severity of what these people are attempting. I think such a response would help the situation in three ways:

One, it provides information contrary to the sovcit crap they're being fed. Generic replies let the sovcits and their enablers have the floor. Also, sovcit material is often marketed as "secrets the bank don't know!" When the bank's first response is "yes, we certainly do know" it creates a difficult situation for the guru to explain away.

Two, they show that the bank is paying attention to what they're attempting. A non-specific response to a specific demand can easily be interpreted as "they know you know the truth and are afraid of you" and so forth.

Third, the best opportunity to stop the sovcit problem is when people are just beginning with it. The longer people stay in that world, the harder it is to get them out, and the more damage they will do to themselves and others. An immediate, on-point reply could nip the problem in the bud in many cases.

Yes, it's debatable whether this is cost-effective, given the likely small number of such customers, and the time and effort required. But if WeRe Bank is troublesome enough to generate warnings from various government bodies, then redemption schemes as a whole should be a big enough problem to warrant a defense plan.

[SteveUK]

I quite like the idea, if anything to see the hilarious posts on goodf when they get their 'this is garbage' letter.

The problem I see, is that the front line staff probably won't know it's FMOTL nonsense. We here love the stuff, but most will just throw it in the bin and say you pay....

[GlimDropper]

Welcome to Quatloos TheNewSaint.

One issue here might be potential liability. In August 2012 an employee of the North Carolina State Employees Credit Union warned a customer against investing in a scheme called Zeek Rewards, that scheme was based in North Carolina and was raided and shuttered by the authorities less than two weeks later. But in that time the operators of the scheme issued a nasty response and indications were that threats of legal action were being considered. All this became moot on the 17th of that month when the scheme was shut down but it does highlight a problem.

It is not the job of a bank to combat most types of fraud and sending letters that say "don't give X your money, it's a scam" can get them sued. Even if the suit was without merit or the allegation proved to be true the bank might end up paying legal fees to defend themselves.

Now as far as A4V and other sovcit foolishness I doubt an average bank sees enough of it to make it worth their while to program a set of responses. If I try to deposit a bonded promissory note from the US Treasury for a trillion dollars (in pure silver) they should treat it like I walked in trying to cash a check drawn on a cocktail napkin, laugh at me and tell me to leave before security drags me out by my ear. They wont waste time listening to cockamamie legal giberish and why should they?

[littleFred]

To a certain extent, creditors do write the type of letter TNS sugests. For example, http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 30#p433402 has a letter from Halifax:

... Given the contents of your correspondence, we are concerned you may be obtaining advice from a third party or internet website which is incorrect. If followed, it is entirely possible that this will cause you to incur a substantial amount in costs.

I don't know whether this discourages anyone from following garbage arguments. I think people are (rightly) discouraged by news from their peers that, for example, GOOFy members have tried action ABC which led to bad result XYZ.

If someone is in a frame of mind that everything a banks says is lies and fraud, why would they take notice of anything that bank says?

[notorial dissent]

I think it is a sensible idea, although I really suspect the crowd that is prone to this wouldn't pay any more attention to it than they do the other letters.

[PeanutGallery]

I think it is a sensible idea, although I really suspect the crowd that is prone to this wouldn't pay any more attention to it than they do the other letters.

I would agree, these people have become so mired in their rabbit holes that they won't listen to anyone who doesn't tell them what they want to hear. They will dismiss the banks letters, in much the same way that they will any letter from any authority, scrawl on it ADNRRTS and bury their heads in the sand.

Then complain when their house gets repossessed and the courts make them bankrupt. At no point in this process will they try to listen to or work with the banks, because they don't want to do that.

[notorial dissent]

If they fall for the footl nonsense and follow through on it to begin with, they are either too clueless, too stupid, or too desperate to grasp a last bit of reality before they self sink themselves.

[Arthur Rubin]

This is getting a little off topic for this thread; suppose, however, that a bank receiving "3 letters" treatment send 3 accurate letters back which say something similar.....

[rumpelstilzchen]

A non-specific response to a specific demand can easily be interpreted as "they know you know the truth and are afraid of you" and so forth.

We do see that kind of reaction very often.

[mufc1959]

From PoE's Facebook page:

‎
Paulette Hansen‎ to Peter Of England
Can I write a note for cash and deposit it in my bank once a month to cover my phone bill?

Peter Of England
Er, why would you want to do that?

Paulette Hansen
Because I can't pay my monthly mobile plan account any other way than online using my bank card and now I back to being a poor student I need every dollar of fiat currency from my student allowance to live

If, as PoE suggests, the LLT notes are as good as cash, then there's no reason why she can't do it, is there now?

[IDIOT]

Part way through viewing the painful Easter Rising video by pisstake.

Notable moments so far are :

Chav spoils the video by walking onto the set Pisstake gatecrashed to shoot the video.
His camera person keeps sniffing.
Blames the database.
Refers to Were bank as a 'phenomena'.
Blames the Germans/marks for high tailing it a the first sign of trouble.
Talks complete bollocks as per usual.

[IDIOT]

basically continues to say that when the cheques don't clear take it up with the bank and don't come crying to me about it.

Way to go Pisstake, some great customer (mark) service you have there sir.

[longdog]

basically continues to say that when the cheques don't clear take it up with the bank and don't come crying to me about it.

Way to go Pisstake, some great customer (mark) service you have there sir.

Either senile dementia is kicking in early or I seem to remember Poe was at one point clamouring to get into court to prove his complete con wasn't a complete con... Or did I imagine that?

[littleFred]

The WeRe address has changed to: 4 Kingsyard, Rope Street, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, ST4 6DJ. The pages at https://www.werebank.co.uk/ have been changed, though the Promissory Note still has the Ducie Street address.