Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2549
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Postby Jeffrey » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:02 pm

So now all Peter has to do is find retailers and stores willing to give away their merchandise for free. :thinking:

littleFred
Stern Faced Schoolmaster of Serious Discussion
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:12 am
Location: England, UK

Re: Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Postby littleFred » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:06 pm

exiledscouser wrote:Why put all this time effort and resource into a doomed project?

From Peter's point of view, if it attracts new suckers, it isn't doomed. We all know it won't work, any more than cheques and LLTs, but he has to keep inventing new ideas to bring in new customers. And, as I've mentioned before, these cards supposedly carry the value of Res on them. Hence, it's a way for Peter to persuade suckers to "spend" some of their 150,000 Res.

It's a better idea than, say, motor insurance. It wouldn't take many suckers to be prosecuted for no insurance for the rest to be discouraged.

afateworsethandeath
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 12:59 am

Re: Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Postby afateworsethandeath » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:15 pm

I am surprised that POE is still here and still inventing new ways to screw monies from his customers. I thought that he would have taken all that he could early on and then disappeared off into the sunset. I suppose that by hanging around he can obviously make even more money from his scam but can also dispel any sort of rumours that he is a fraudster - " if I was committing fraud would I really hang about and continue to publicise the fraud ". We might have to give him some credit after all. He might just be a criminal genius!

littleFred
Stern Faced Schoolmaster of Serious Discussion
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:12 am
Location: England, UK

Re: Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Postby littleFred » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:46 pm

He hasn't made enough to fund a disappearance into the sunset. I don't think he's a genius of any kind.

afateworsethandeath
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 12:59 am

Re: Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Postby afateworsethandeath » Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:00 pm

I am giving him too much credit. I am just amazed that he hasn't been arrested

User avatar
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Laughing at Tuco

Re: Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Postby Bones » Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:46 pm

Isn't the new WeRe Bank card terminal just a mobile phone in a desk dock ?

My phone has a NFC reader and you get get NFC tags from Amazon - he just tries to make it look like more than it is by having the tag in a card rather than just a keyring.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/NFC-tags-NFC-K ... ywords=nfc

Can't wait for him to try to get the app on either the google or apple app stores

mufc1959
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 788
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:47 pm
Location: Manchester by day, Slaithwaite by night

Re: Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Postby mufc1959 » Tue Jun 21, 2016 6:03 pm

A question is asked about what will happen to the promissory note after ten years ...

Anady Abbey: Peter Of England quick question, what is with the amount of the promissory note After that 10 years?? Thanks

Peter Of England: Anady Abbey that's totally in your hands. If you pay nothing with it then it's as if you asked for a High St bank loan but never used it. It expires at par. If you have DRAWN down upon it then at maturity - if you had not attempted or made ANY CONTRIBUTION BACK INTO IT either via private work or PUBLIC WORK (ie your PAYE SIDE EARNINGS VIA TWINNING) then you would have to try to pay it off or if not then ask Peter of England to step in a Referee In Case of Need (see BOE Act 1882 Section 15)


Image

A moot point really, as the odds on Peter being banged up in 10 years' time are fairly strong.

mufc1959
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 788
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:47 pm
Location: Manchester by day, Slaithwaite by night

Re: Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Postby mufc1959 » Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:39 pm

Anady has a new question, as yet unanswered. I'm sure PoE's response will be as measured and patient as we've come to expect when he's dealing with people who don't understand how his scam works.

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


Image

Firthy2002
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 3:24 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Postby Firthy2002 » Tue Jun 21, 2016 8:12 pm

I'd sooner move all my money to Bitcoin. Despite the pitfalls, at least it's recognised as an actual currency.
-=Firthy2002=-

Watching idiots dig themselves into holes since 2016.

User avatar
guilty
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 605
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:26 pm
Location: The Gem of God's Earth

Re: Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Postby guilty » Tue Jun 21, 2016 8:17 pm

A moot point really, as the odds on Peter being banged up in 10 years' time are fairly strong


Even more moot than that - it is not the responsibility of the drawer to refer to the referee in case of need. If the drawer defaults then the holder of the bill refers to the referee. Once again POE has to talk to himself.

I wonder if petey thinks that a referee is someone on a football pitch with a whistle?
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10770
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Postby notorial dissent » Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:23 pm

Jeffrey wrote:So now all Peter has to do is find retailers and stores willing to give away their merchandise for free. :thinking:

And don't forget pay for the privilege by renting non-existent terminals from him. I'm sure that will work, just like his last two brain farts.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

exiledscouser
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:01 pm

Re: Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Postby exiledscouser » Tue Jun 21, 2016 10:14 pm

The fine fellows over on Goofy are discussing the payment card too.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 2mrLleMH8s

Like us they are intrigued as to how it will actually work. Unlike us though an initially rational discussion quickly descents into pathetic accusations of others being a paid shill etc etc predictably spouted by old One Cell himself. It amazes me how the various discussion threads on here cross over one another, like when Superman puts in an appearance in a Spider Man comic.

Actinglikeabanker displays a fairly detailed technical grasp of why PoE's POS dreams will remain just that. In jumps "teddy" with some SHOUTY STUFF IN ALL CAPS and the ever (un)reliable Billy Bankrupt weighs in with his usual nonsense ad hominem "you are a shill" attacks. 'teddy' insists that when PoE calls in his prom notes you should just write him an IOU. I can't work out if he is for or agin but I can't fault his approach.

It's not like the mods over there to tolerate PoE/Weary Bank discussions. I sense the heavy hand of censorship about to descend :?

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2549
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Postby Jeffrey » Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:19 am

I think it's a bad move for debunkers to push the promissory note issue. Peter keeps using the "validity of the promissory note" as evidence for why his bank should work. Peter obtained those promissory notes via fraud, that alone is enough to void them. Not only that but Peter never fulfilled his end of the bargain, he never provided them with any money or services other than an overpriced checkbook.

Attack the underlying argument instead. Someone promising Peter money ten years from now does not create money for Peter now. It does for a bank because the bank can borrow actual money to cover that ten year gap, but Peter is not doing that and lacks the mechanism for doing that.

Zeke_the_Meek
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:37 am

Re: Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Postby Zeke_the_Meek » Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:42 am

Jeffrey wrote:I think it's a bad move for debunkers to push the promissory note issue. Peter keeps using the "validity of the promissory note" as evidence for why his bank should work. Peter obtained those promissory notes via fraud, that alone is enough to void them. Not only that but Peter never fulfilled his end of the bargain, he never provided them with any money or services other than an overpriced checkbook.

Attack the underlying argument instead. Someone promising Peter money ten years from now does not create money for Peter now. It does for a bank because the bank can borrow actual money to cover that ten year gap, but Peter is not doing that and lacks the mechanism for doing that.


Playing :twisted: advocate, but surely he did fulfil his end of the bargain? He delivered a stupid chequebook. That was the deal.

That said, I absolutely agree that discussing the promissory note isn't the best way to debunk the WeRe argument. The best, and easiest, way to debunk it is by pointing out that it's EVERY OTHER aspect of the scam is fundamentally, mind-bendingly, wholesale and gold-plated stupid with logic that doesn't need refuting because it refutes its goddamn self.

However, the mechanics of the promissory note are interesting to discuss nonetheless because as far as I can tell (and someone please correct me on this) it's a fascinating, hypothetical grey-zone of legality which has never been created before. It's bizarre and interesting to think about.

At the very heart of it, this entire forum isn't about debunking this fraud per se, but how anyone with half a brain can buy into it in the first place (with a sideline of "why is it taking so long for Peter to get his rightful comeuppance?")

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2549
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Postby Jeffrey » Wed Jun 22, 2016 2:06 am

Zeke_the_Meek wrote: Playing :twisted: advocate, but surely he did fulfil his end of the bargain? He delivered a stupid chequebook. That was the deal.


Nah the deal was a checkbook that would allow them to pay off £150,000 worth of debts. He didn't deliver.

User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 4396
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker
Contact:

Re: Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Postby Gregg » Wed Jun 22, 2016 5:31 am

Zeke_the_Meek wrote:
However, the mechanics of the promissory note are interesting to discuss nonetheless because as far as I can tell (and someone please correct me on this) it's a fascinating, hypothetical grey-zone of legality which has never been created before. It's bizarre and interesting to think about.


Its not a grey zone at all, its just a perversion of one little phrase that appears in UCC statutes and accounting language, words to the effect "promissory notes shall be counted as cash or cash equivalents" that they have taken to mean "this piece of paper that I call a promissory note, and on its face might even be a real promissory note from a legal point of view".

A bank or other lending institution obviously needs a written and legally enforceable contract for the borrower to sign agreeing to pay back the money and interest. These special kind of contracts are called, you guessed it, promissory notes.
For accounting purposes, say when doing their taxes or filing reports, on their balance sheet these contracts, which are assets, are covered under the line "Cash and cash equivalents". They are valued at some dollar amount based upon how much has been paid back, payment history, if they're current etc... but the value determined somewhat by the person or institution that holds them and if they meet certain standards (the reason mortgage applications are so picky is to meet these standards, BTW). The important thing here is, they are worth whatever they may be worth based upon two things, their standardization so that they may be traded and the underlying promise of the borrower to pay it back.

I can write promissory notes all day long, I can even get the legal wording all correct and if someone has one they could probably take me to court and enforce it BUT no one is obliged to accept it, just as a bank is free to turn you down for a loan if they don't think you're going to pay it back.

The Nutters have simply, as they often do, taken a single phrase of a few words out of a thousand page document out of context, and while the actual phrase is telling the accountants where to put an asset on a balance sheet, they read it as "you have to accept my silly piece of papeer I made up myself just like a stack of tenners" and sad to say, that just ain't what it sez....

I hope that clears that up.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10770
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Postby notorial dissent » Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:32 am

What Gregg, the UCC and accounting, is saying, is that a promissory note, literally a promise to pay, is to be considered as a cash ASSET, not that it is cash, and as an asset it can have whatever value it has, down to and including NOTHING. Just because it has a value amount printed on it doesn't mean it really has any value, which is why people sometimes say, "it isn't worth the paper it is printed on". The laws about PN's are very clear and concise and long standing, and almost nothing PoE or Ceylon have claimed about them, or BOE's, is true.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Zeke_the_Meek
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:37 am

Re: Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Postby Zeke_the_Meek » Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:28 am

Sorry guys, totally misspoke there - I didn't mean to say that the promissory note itself was new ground, I meant the question of whether or not PoE has any legal basis to call them in.

TheNewSaint
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:35 am

Re: Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Postby TheNewSaint » Wed Jun 22, 2016 5:25 pm

I did some amateur analysis of the promissory note earlier. It seems to have many fatal defects. Mainly, it says "Tender under terms of Bills of Exchange Act 1882", which does not work the way Peter thinks it does. I suspect any real court would find these PNs void based on Peter's misapplication of that Act, and/or violation of the actual laws that govern PNs.

But the PN has a second, and much more hilarious, defect. It says "I, ________ promise to pay WeRe Bank [or Order] the sum of £150,000/Re148,000". So the debtor can fulfill the obligation by paying 148,000 units of Re, a worthless currency. Just from an arbitrage standpoint, this is the obvious solution. And it forces Peter to argue that he does not accept his own currency, to fulfill an obligation that explicitly defines it as acceptable payment. Or an even more untenable position.

SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1116
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

Postby SteveUK » Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:58 pm

Peters latest rant from his Facebook page.

Bridge zone project anyone?

There was QE1,2 and 3 for the Juiced in Corporatocracy with the FED pumping $30 billion per month into Wall Street, the same done by the ECB - Now WeRe Bank offers QE equivalent for The People. Any takers...?

THIS IS AN OFFER TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD TO NOW COLLAPSE THE GLOBALIST'S AGENDA FOR A ONE WORLD CURRENCY UNIT DELIVERED BY THEM TO YOU IN ORDER TO TOTALLY TRAP YOU IN AN ELECTRONIC AND CASHLESS NIGHTMARE WORLD OF POVERTY AND FEAR BASED CONTROL

Leave them stranded on the Rive gauche or left bank of the river while we all now cross to the right bank - WeRe Bank.

Yesterday, was the full Strawberry moon - today the Summer Solstice. The last time these two events coincided was in 1967.

Today, the 21st June 2016 The Summer Solstice, marks the Ceremonial Launch of the WeRe Bank PlanetRePayment Card.The Principal Trading Unit of Monetary Exchange is The Re. This is what the card is denominated in.

The card gives total anonymity and is a Stored Value Card - borderless, surveillance free and carries ReAL money NOT fiat currency.

This is part of "The Bridge Zone Project" which now begins "The People's Instigated Global Currency Collapse". This allows the people to walk free and clear from the traps and nets cast over them by the Globalist banking cartel, moneyed interests and their cronies.

Walk The Bridge......

Thanks for all your continued support.


Peter

https://youtu.be/hDooSmx-MJw
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????


Return to “United Kingdom”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brandwatch [Bot], Linkdex [Bot] and 1 guest