Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

[ArthurWankspittle]

Garyk Martin But Peter, every one of my cheques have been rejected or returned to me, I'm in court for commital proceedings next week because my local council will not and Barclays will not accept my chq, I ring you and leave messages for your help and you never reply!!!!! I am a believer and believe me I have fought back against them to process the chq .

Dear Garyk Martin. Peter is away in Germany pretending that the local equivalent of someone not paying their council tax is going to change world banking. The suckers in Germany haven't got as far as the British in realising Peter won't be doing anything for them. You appear to be late on the uptake. If you really want to do something worthwhile present your whole story to the Police. Irrespective of that, say goodbye to the £10+ you sent Peter and find a way to pay your bills with real money.

[exiledscouser]

Then that Smith sycophant June Clark tells him he's not worthy! You have to do your own research! You can't rely on PoE to dig you out! Well, on that last point at least she is entirely right.

If Garyk had "done his own research" maybe he would have steered well clear and not dropped himself in the shite.

[Zeke_the_Meek]

On Part II, there's an annotation that reads 'Please contact Andreas Woehrle if you are interested in joining "ReMovementGermania", a new political party for Austria, Germany and Switzerland.' I have no idea how one can form a tri-country political party, but despite never getting a single scheme off the ground Peter has founded more ReMovements than I've had bowel movements.

Anyway, Andreas is the person in the dock for trying to pass off a WeRe cheque to pay a tax bill to the tune of 10,000 Euros.

The funniest/scariest part? The man about to go down for cheque fraud and tax evasion is - get this - in the business of GIVING OUT FINANCIAL ADVICE:
https://translate.google.co.uk/translat ... rev=search

When he's not being an 'honorary financial advisor', I suspect he's busy tying maidens to railroad tracks and twirling that moustache of his.

More info on the court proceedings via the link below (Google translate does a pretty good job of it.) It's written by a freeman so far from impartial, but the parts that are subjective are obvious and otherwise it gives more context to Peter's rambling:

https://translate.google.co.uk/translat ... rev=search

[notorial dissent]

I can't remember at this remove, but wasn't Woehrle one of the German faithful looking at some serious jail time for trying to pass PoE's useless paper? I thought he'd been discussed by out Austrian member, but I could be having a memory lapse.

[Jeffrey]

What's the ETA on that trial?

And it's definitely annoying that the suckers get prosecuted but Peter is still unscathed.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Peter must be some kind of retard. Even if it is proven that the promissory notes are valid it would not alter the fact that the recipient of a WeRe cheque does not receive the funds when the cheque is presented. The validity of the promissory note is irrelevant. It's the "not getting paid" part which is to blame for this freetard being prosecuted.

[Zeke_the_Meek]

I can't remember at this remove, but wasn't Woehrle one of the German faithful looking at some serious jail time for trying to pass PoE's useless paper? I thought he'd been discussed by out Austrian member, but I could be having a memory lapse.

You're not wrong. Our good friend Seelenblut did a fine job covering the case back in May:
viewtopic.php?t=10846&start=1720

And oddly enough, this isn't the first Ravensburg court case involving our Weary chums (ctrl+f for Ravensburg):
viewtopic.php?t=10846&start=940

In retrospect, I'm assuming this is Andreas' appeal hearing? No idea what the original sentence was, but judging from Seelenblut's prior post it looks like a massive fine as opposed to jail time, but who knows if things have escalated since then. WeRe customers do have the propensity to take a bad situation and make it worse.

What's the ETA on that trial?

I think the next hearing is September 19th.

[notorial dissent]

I thought I remembered he got smacked down and smacked down hard, and was still too stupid to figure it out.

[TheNewSaint]

Even if it is proven that the promissory notes are valid it would not alter the fact that the recipient of a WeRe cheque does not receive the funds when the cheque is presented.

If is proven that the promissory notes are valid, Peter of England is suddenly a very wealthy man. Because he's got hundreds of them, with a nominal value of 150,000 GBP each.

[Pox]

Even if it is proven that the promissory notes are valid it would not alter the fact that the recipient of a WeRe cheque does not receive the funds when the cheque is presented.

If is proven that the promissory notes are valid, Peter of England is suddenly a very wealthy man. Because he's got hundreds of them, with a nominal value of 150,000 GBP each.

Yes, I wondered if the defendant in this case realises that if the court.
rules that 'promissory notes are valid he is effectively signing his own death warrant.

Heads you lose, tails you lose.

[Skeleton]

Even if it is proven that the promissory notes are valid it would not alter the fact that the recipient of a WeRe cheque does not receive the funds when the cheque is presented.

If is proven that the promissory notes are valid, Peter of England is suddenly a very wealthy man. Because he's got hundreds of them, with a nominal value of 150,000 GBP each.

Yes, I wondered if the defendant in this case realises that if the court.
rules that 'promissory notes are valid he is effectively signing his own death warrant.

Heads you lose, tails you lose.

That is actually a very good point, he knows he can't stick his head above the parapet in the the UK, because he knows their is a good chance now someone will take it clean off, but if he can get a Judge, any Judge, to publicly state and rule promissory note are valid he could be a very rich man. He certainly is not in Germany on the defendants behalf, the narcissistic prick is on manoeuvres and I think you may be right as to what he is up to.

[TheNewSaint]

rumpelstilzchen is also correct that the validity of the promissory notes is irrelevant to the case. Whether they are valid or invalid, you cannot write checks against them in this fashion. I would think the court will rule only on the matter of the checks, and not the validity of the promissory notes.

And because the promissory notes ostensibly rely on U.K. legislation (Bills of Exchange Act 1882), does a German court even have jurisdiction to rule on their validity?

It's also possible that Peter is arguing what he wants to argue, rather than what the case is actually about.

[Zeke_the_Meek]

It's also possible that Peter is arguing what he wants to argue, rather than what the case is actually about.

That's exactly what he's doing, and I cannot believe the brazeness of this guy. Turning up to the court case of the 'customer' you screwed over and acting like a messiah? If I were Andreas, PoE would be swallowing his own teeth by now.

[littleFred]

Peter, like Tom Crawford, goes to court then tells us about it on a video without bothering to say what the case is about. This is smoke and mirrors, so Peter can pretend the case is about whatever he desires.

If the case is about whether Andreas Woehrle paid his tax bill, or is an appeal against that decided case, then that's all it's about. Any relationship between Woehrle and WeRe-not-a-bank isn't relevant. Any promises he may have made to WeRe or to Peter aren't relevant.

[notorial dissent]

I think Woerhle is too dumpf to have figured it out. He still thinks he is going to argue the authorities into accepting the paper, and all they are going to do is confirm the lower court decision. The German courts don't care anything at all about WeRNotaBank except that it's useless paper was used to attempt to defraud their Treasury.

[Zeke_the_Meek]

Hayles Owen, one of Peter's early customers and a self-professed "law school graduate", has varied along the way from vehement support of WeRe Bank to being livid with PoE and wanting to sue him. She's been quiet for a long time now so I assumed she'd given up, but nope, she's back and completely unhinged - see if you can decipher this comment on the FB page:

easier to prove evidence of life, CFO 206 from the CFO in now Glasgow and not Londres... one side A4 and send bk to chancery div of high court et voila.. no faffing with PN's etc... not dead after age 7 Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 simples I have 6 of these cfo 206 forms from Glasgow... many FOrward LooKerS in these fb groups are now following suit as they believed me and put my wor'ds where my mouth is... derivatives/trading ie options I a VERY AU FAIT with Peter... bulls and bears are my forte PN's are so not vogue any more... CFO 206 ends all this debt on the wom(bed)ans head after the age of 7 and law of the SEA/UCC (yes I SEE SEE alright lol) 1-308 ... oh and on and for the re-cord, I have studied all branches of law, so don't wish to be ROLLED IN THE FLEUR as we true FRENCH say

And after months of chasing for an acknowledgement for all the cash she'd sent him, she still hasn't had any response. That's not going to stop her trying though!

Peter Of England I need to call in to stoke at J15 approx, i am J12 so not too far to pop in the HQ and show you realtime, the receipt the RM gave me to de liver by regd post as u request all new members to do.. it was signed for apparently/according to tracking number by the name of BAKER.... yet u have never received a silver envelope of recorded delivery at a cost of over £6 containing 3 PN's and 105 GBP we have until mid oct this yr to stake a claim for this missing en ve lope Peter.. I require your support with this, hence this plea here on fb xx

I'm guessing she didn't get the memo that Peter has long since been kicked out of the Stoke office and is now in a different country. I would have paid good money to have seen her reaction when she turned up at WeRe Bank HQ this morning.

[TheNewSaint]

it was signed for apparently/according to tracking number by the name of BAKER.... yet u have never received a silver envelope of recorded delivery at a cost of over £6 containing 3 PN's and 105 GBP we have until mid oct this yr to stake a claim for this missing en ve lope Peter..

That's just sad.

[mufc1959]

CFO 206 means Court Funds Office Form 206. It's a form called 'Evidence of Life'.

From Wikipedia:

The Court Funds Office (CFO) provides a banking and investment service for the courts throughout England and Wales, including the High Court. It accounts for money being paid into and out of court and, as directed by the court, look after any investments made with that money. The Accountant General of the Supreme Court is responsible for the proper control of all money paid into court.

The Court Funds Office is also responsible for money held on behalf of clients who are deemed mentally incapacitated. Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a Deputy (usually a relative) is appointed to look after their financial affairs and draw money from the CFO as and when necessary to ensure the continued care of the Protected Party.

Children who have been involved in an accident or obtained an award through civil litigation also have money held by the CFO. The money is invested in either a high paying interest account or part is invested on an interest account and part into the Equity Index Tracker fund (on the stock market). The CFO hold on to the funds until the child reaches 18 years of age, when they can apply to have the money and investments paid to them.

The Court Funds Office also deals with a large unclaimed balance fund (£35m). This is where money has been paid into a CFO account and lain dormant for a period of 10 years. Money can be left through a case collapsing, companies going into liquidation during trial; the result of house repossessions (the bank makes more than the debt from the sale but can’t trace the original owner) and by the parties failing to progress or complete the action.

The office used to be on Kingsway in Holborn, and when I was an articled clerk, many moons ago, I remember toddling along there to lodge forms for Court of Protection clients.

Form 206 is the declaration that someone has to make in order to access their funds. But FOTL believe that, if they make this declaration, they can access their 'birth bond' money. Bollocks, obviously. But probably for the reason that it was being abused by FOTL, Form 206 is no longer available to the general public via legal stationers such as Oyez - it's now sent out by the Court Funds Office to parties requesting access to a specific fund the CFO is holding. Copies are available online but they seem to be the old ones with the Kingsway address. The office is now in Glasgow.

[rumpelstilzchen]

it was signed for apparently/according to tracking number by the name of BAKER.... yet u have never received a silver envelope of recorded delivery at a cost of over £6 containing 3 PN's and 105 GBP we have until mid oct this yr to stake a claim for this missing en ve lope Peter..

That's just sad.

It is probably the cheaper option. I suppose that three promissory notes and £105 means three members of the same family have signed up to WeRe bank. They would have probably lost a lot more than £105 if they had got their hands on the three cheque books. I know that doesn't make it right. Peter has conned them out of their money, but they have probably had a lucky escape even though they don't know it.

[TheNewSaint]

It is probably the cheaper option. I suppose that three promissory notes and £105 means three members of the same family have signed up to WeRe bank. They would have probably lost a lot more than £105 if they had got their hands on the three cheque books. I know that doesn't make it right. Peter has conned them out of their money, but they have probably had a lucky escape even though they don't know it.

True; any WeRe Bank customer who gets taken for only the signup fees should count their blessings. But especially in this case. The little bit that I quoted reveals so much about this woman:

• She sent £105 cash in the mail;
• the £6 mailing cost is enough money to be noteworthy;
• she apparently expects to get this money back by filing a missing-letter claim;
• she doesn't realize the letter isn't missing, because it has a delivery signature;
• she doesn't realize that either Peter or "Baker" has long since absconded with the cash;
• she has the incredible naivete to still think Peter will help her after all these months.

This woman is obviously incompetent to manage her own finances. And yet, as you note, she apparently signed herself and two other people up for WeRe Bank. She needs help, and I hope she gets it.