Were Bank – Peter of England and his fake bank scam. 

Peter of England Goodf Interview So it has been some time since I have written on the OPCA movement. Real legal work has taken up a lot of my time. But a new development has caught my eye which is worthy of attention.

Peter of England (aka Alan Peter Michael Smith and variants thereof) is a fairly long-standing OPCA guru. Unusually he [claims] to be legally qualified (LLB) and has a slightly vague background including military service and running an investment software company.

Peter has launched various endeavours and his Freeman Legal Services is probably deserving of a post on its own but today I’m going to touch on his “Bank” Were Bank.

Apparently going for some time as part of Peter’s Re Movement the Were Bank has recently hit its stride and now claims hundreds of members.

Joining is simple. Pay £10 per month via Paypal (selecting the family and friends option so there are no charges for the seller and no refunds) and pay £25 for your very own RE cheque book complete with Allonges. You also have to lodge a £150,000 promissory note as some sort of collateral. Although Peter also has other “assets” in the form of bonds and his own 1% transaction tax.

The cheque books are fairly convincing and obviously professional printed but appear to be identical, lacking an account holders name, unique account number or valid sort code. Indeed the sort code appears to be Smith’s date of birth in reverse.

The allonge is a curious idea borrowed misleadingly from Section 32(1) Bills of Exchange Act 1882. From the French allonger (to lengthen) an allonge is a slip of paper annexed to a negotiable bill of exchange if there is not room on the back to write all the indorsements and are then deemed to be written on the bill itself.  Peter’s use of the allonge seems to be to add a layer of confusion as to why the cheque should be accepted.

The Bank has been heavily promoted by Ceylon, Get out of debt free and Peter of England’s site and Facebook page and he has had numerous sign ups from the credulous and desperate.

Peter’s motto of “Don’t fight it, just pay it!” is obviously appealing to OPCA followers who have failed to discharge various debts using the myriad of other process on goodf and elsewhere.

Facebook and Goodf shows that various people have signed up and jumped in at the deep end “paying off” mortgages, council tax bill, credit cards, legal aid bills and utilities. Some have written cheques for £120,000 to clear a mortgage whereas others have started small with buying a TV Licence.

Peter’s bank and his cheques are, in my view, fundamentally flawed on a number of levels. Aside from the technical difficulties which mean they will be unable to clear in the standard electronic clearing system. Peter’s bank has a number of legal issues.

  1. Peter’s institution is not a bank in that it is not regulated by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. If Peter is carrying on business without regulation could constitute criminal offence under Section 23 carrying a 2 year prison sentence as well as possible civil remedies for those affected.
  2. The printing, possession and use of the cheques is, in my view, likely to constitute both Criminal and Civil fraud if my understanding of how the cheques work is correct. The Fraud Act 2006 contains various criminal offences including Section 6 Possession etc. of articles for use in frauds, Section 7 Making or supplying articles for use in frauds and of course Section 2 Fraud by false representation.  In cheque type cases the false representation is that the cheque is genuine and would be honoured by being paid by the bank.  Some of Peter’s customers might be able to escape fraud charges if they can show that they didn’t knows that the representation (eg paying with a Were Cheque) is, or might be, untrue or misleading. Actual knowledge that the representation might be untrue is required not awareness of a risk that it might be untrue. Incidentally Peter mentions the cheques were printed by Communisis. Especially interesting as Communisis are an accredited printer
  3. It appears the cheques will not be cleared. Even on Peter’s own case it is unclear if he intends or has the means of paying the cheques if and when payment is demanded. It is equally unclear if he intends to pay in pounds or in his own Re Unit currency.
  4. Payment by cheque could easily reset any possible statute barred debts as they would likely constitute acknowledging the existence of a debt in writing.
  5. Paying for something by cheque engages the “cheque rule” which means writing a cheque is an unconditional promise to pay irrespective of the underlying contract. If a cheque bounces the aggrieved party has two options, to sue under the contract for non-payment or to sue on the cheque for failing to pay on demand, often a swifter process and affording no real defence.

Unsurprisingly Peter’s scheme has already started to go awry.

Initial excitement developed when balances were zeroed on some accounts, although any user of cheques will know that until the 6 day clearing period is up it is common for cheques to be credited only for the balance to be reversed later down the line.


Soon the negative reports started coming in:

“Emily Love-Light D
30 April 13:05
Hi Peter, Barclaycard have called again and said I’ve been issues with fraudulent cheques from their intelligence. He won’t say what it is. And he said he’s called were bank. I asked what makes him think it’s fraudulent and does her know where Barclays funds originate from! He early doesn’t know it’s the federal reserve. But they’re saying they will dishonour the cheque”

“Benjamin L
1 May 09:30
Morning again. It looks like natwest are not accepting them. Had a look this morning at my credit card online and the payment is showing but the balance has changed back to what it was, unlike yesterday when it was showing a zero balance. What do u think is happening?”

“Cindy H
2 May at 00:15
 Benjamin this is similar to my experience. I got a message in my account (and a letter) saying the account was now paid in full. Then I noticed another message this morning saying ‘unpaid cheque’. I think the bank accepts the cheque and then it gets stopped at clearing cos of the sort code. They don’t seem to be using the clearing hotline”

 


Peter has become increasingly angry:

 “TROLLS – SHILLS – IDIOTS – THE DOWNRIGHT STUPIDLY MISCHIEVIOUS, ignoramuses AND THOSE NEGATIVELY PRE-DISPOSED TOWARDS THAT WHICH WE ARE DOING, WILL BE BANNED FROM THE PAGE. IF THEY DON’T AGREE THEN THEY STAY AWAY AND SHOULD FIND SOME INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGED PAGE COMMENSURATE WITH THEIR PRONOUNCED PREDISPOSITION TOWARDS THEIR MASTERS OF THE NWO WHICH THEY SERVE WITH BLIND BLANKED MIND IGNORANCE”

4 May at 12:59 · 

SEVERAL MEMBERS HAVE “COMPLAINED” saying they have been accused of FRAUD or have been told the cheque is “fraudulent”. This is nonsense and can easily be disproved, but look at it from the bankers POV. This word is inappropriately used. 

They [our ReMembers] are NOT helping their own cause or case as they ReFuse to follow the BIBLE = Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth and they have & continue to make errors, which aren’t too serious BUT cause confusion in the minds of the bank clerks and clearers.
Upon speaking to them [ReMembers] and asking the following questions they reply often as follows and some have MADE EVERY SINGLE MISTAKE BELOW ON THE SAME PRESENTMENT!!

  1. Did you sign the cheque on the back = YES = MISTAKE

2.Did you make it payable to the entity asking for the money? NO= MISTAKE

  1. Did you make it payable to the POST OFFICE? YES= MISTAKE
  2. Have you tried to pay it into your own account or an account in your name? YES= MISTAKE

5.Did you attach an allonge to your cheque or enclose one? NO = MISTAKE

 7 May at 19:19 · 

OH…How they winge!!! FIRST THE WINGE AND THEN MY REPLY BELOW…

Hi Peter,

I know you’re busy and under pressure and I’m not being rude but I am being asked questions all the time. Get out of Debt Free members are also getting restless too.

Unfortunately a lot of people are concerned as they are not seeing any results at the moment and don’t know if cheques have been honoured, as there is no way of checking what is going on. How long is it going to be before the site has access to internet banking?

If you need help this weekend I can make myself available to you for a few hours to help with the back log. I know you have the meeting on the 23rd but that is a long way off and then there is going to be the period of set up too.

Can you let me know what is going on so I can let the others know?

Many thanks 
Much is happening I don’t have time to comment on it all.Several people have confirmed that their accounts have been CONFIRMED TO ZERO.

Others have said accounts were zeroed and then a week later re-adjusted back.You must decide the legality of that – if you acted upon it…they have a fiduciary liability to provide “accurate accounting!”

Others say that their bank has said that they phoned WeRe Bank and “we” refused to clear the cheque. Utter rubbish! And common sense says there could be no truth in this and we would gain nothing!

Others (bank operatives) say it’s FRAUD and there is no money to clear the cheques and they(the DRAWER , er you) have therefore been duped!

Now, Let’s get a few things straight for the ReCord, should we!

I have led you towards the “”Promissory Note Land”” but you too have got to get a grip of yourselves and fight for what YOU CLAIM THE CHEQUES TO BE nothing short of your inheritance:

Post this on GOODF:
1. If you have stapled an Allonge to the cheque…
2. If you have NOT signed it on the back….
3. If you have NOT made it payable to SELF/CASH or your own company or a friend…
4. If they have zeroed your account and then re-adjusted it
5. If they say WeRe Bank refused to clear it or that you have been duped etc….
6. If they claim fraud etc…..
7. And you have made Notarial Protest….

THEN YOU CONTACT THEM BY LETTER, RECORDED DELIVERY, AND STATE THAT YOU NEED THEM TO CONFIRM IN WRITING THE TIME AND DATE AT WHICH THEY CONTACTED US [WeRe Bank] under full commercial liability and penalty of perjury] AND TO STATE IN A FEW LINES WHO MADE THE CALL OR WHO WILL CONFIRM IT IN COURT & WHY THEY CLAIM THERE ARE NO FUNDS AVAILABLE AS YOU ARE CONSIDERING BRING LEGAL ACTION……not against THEM but against:……

WeRe Bank…and you are calling them as a witness for the PROSECUTION….Ok?

So, now off with the wingeing and on with the battle – what did you expect? For the enemy just to roll over and play dead – after thousands of years of domination?

Man up – all of you, get some steel in your spines and on with the task

Peter

 


Paypal and Peter’s personal building society Nationwide have not taken matters lying down either.

Peter Of England
Just to let everyone know that I’m still alive, well and getting on with the decision for change….
1. PayPal have taken down the account and won’t communicate with me.
2. Nationwide B/Soc have disappeared my account and I can’t, as of 10am this morning, tell me why.
3. The website has been taken off line by someone transferring the site to elsewhere it has NOT been hacked
4. Much rumour travels faster than the speed of light – I’m not going anywhere and am pushing ahead with clearing your cheques and helping you towards a more free and equitable existence which all the critics wold with-hold from you. So if you find out who they are, if they ever dare show, then you’ll know what their intentions towards you are. Peter


Like many other OPCA schemes the only person benefiting in the medium to long term is going to be Peter who has no doubt made some serious money from this. As for his customers they are going to put themselves deeper in debt and at risk of criminal prosecution. Time will tell if the justice system will catch up with Mr Smith too, but like most failed schemes I have no doubt this will quietly slip from the radar in the next few weeks as things continue to unravel for Were Bank and its unfortunate victims / customers.


I’m grateful to members of Quatloos anti-fraud forum who drew my attention to Peter’s Bank and have written many wise and interesting things in the increasingly large thread dedicated to Peter here 

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Were Bank – Peter of England and his fake bank scam. 

  1. Chaotys

    Hi. I am not a member of WeRe bank, but I have had a little look into it.
    It is my understanding that unde English law and legislaton, every person is considered a “banker” albeit most people prefer to employ another to facilitate that on their behalf, such as by a high Street bank.
    However I’ve found it strange that when opening a bank account the bank will often request a Tax ID number, thus annexing the account to a incorporeal herediment created for tax purposes. To me this act in itself tells me that the account which I am to believe is mine is in fact not, and that I am merely being used as a transmitting utility and trustee on behalf of another. Identification being a doctrine at law holds that an individual who acts s a company is treated s a company, and thus giving a tax ID code (which the bank states you must have) means one is stating that they are acting as a company. This system removes the possibility of any man or woman having a “private” bank account and they also end up acting as a secret trustee.
    Pretty deceptive really, and that’s main stream.

    From what I’ve gathered, WeRE bank is not a bank. It is in effect (or is trying to be) a sot of umbrella agency for men and women to act as their own Bankers, as permitted under UK law, where no education on the matter is taught in schools (at least the regular ones). As we all posses inherent value via the labour we can perform, one can never be truly “bankrupt”. As discussed above, what is bankrupted is the legal entity/incorporeal herediment, a split title trust into which ppl have been duped into placing their property. Both corporeal and incorporeal.
    The WeRe bank appear to be trying to get ppl to realise that under the law they can create a promissory note, which instead of ” gifting” to a high Street bank, without realising one is doing so, in order for the bank to monetize and then charge you the full amount plus interest in exchange for this service (is giving you say ten years worth of fruits of your future labour, but charging you all of that labour and more, in effect working for the bank for ten years +); WeRE bank appear to be trying to ensure regular people with a right to act as their own banker, have a means of accessing the future produce of their labour, without signing it ALL over.
    So instead of me creating a promissory note, GIVING it to a bank like a numpty, for them to then to add additional terms saying I will give it all and more back to them; I instead am provided with a facility to whom I give prom note (like when the high street bank deposits the newly created funds into the tax ID/current account), a promise to pay being an accepted form of currency, thus the same foundation for the newly created money high street banks “lend”, thus funds can then be used, just like those arising from a ” loan” , to pay, or at least promise to pay, any liabilities. A £10 note is not £10 payment, but a promise TO pay £10.

    Obv you can’t “pay” a debt with a debt. -10 + -10 does not = 0. But since the MP’s can’t seem to figure that out whilst thousands of others can, why should we be compelled to go along with such insanity. WeRE bank appear to be using the ” if you can’t beat them, join them” tactic.

    I would appreciate a response if you have time, as a layman I’d be curious to hear if my understanding are incorrect.

    Reply
    1. tm169 Post author

      I’ve replied to your comment below with quotes to ease reading:

      It is my understanding that under English law and legislation, every person is considered a “banker” albeit most people prefer to employ another to facilitate that on their behalf, such as by a high Street bank.

      To quote from Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary Banker is defined in the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 as including “a body of persons whether incorporated or not who carry on the business of banking” (s.2). In practice a banker receives the money of its customers on deposit and pays it out again in accordance with the customers’ instructions. The relation between banker and customer is that of debtor (banker) and creditor, not of trustee and cestui que trust.

      However I’ve found it strange that when opening a bank account the bank will often request a Tax ID number, thus annexing the account to a incorporeal herediment created for tax purposes.

      Not sure what you mean by Tax ID number. Banks have obligations to arrange for payment of income tax so if there are any tax arrangements that would be why. A incorporeal herediment is a right attached to real property so not the right terminology here.

      To me this act in itself tells me that the account which I am to believe is mine is in fact not, and that I am merely being used as a transmitting utility and trustee on behalf of another. Identification being a doctrine at law holds that an individual who acts s a company is treated s a company, and thus giving a tax ID code (which the bank states you must have) means one is stating that they are acting as a company. This system removes the possibility of any man or woman having a “private” bank account and they also end up acting as a secret trustee.
      Pretty deceptive really, and that’s main stream.

      I don’t think any trust relationship arises here. So not sure what you mean. The relationship with a bank is you pay money in to them. They use that money to make more money and when you want your money back you can demand it from them as a contractual debt. Debts and mortgages are all slightly different but all of them are contractual relationships not trusts, secret or otherwise.

      From what I’ve gathered, WeRE bank is not a bank. It is in effect (or is trying to be) a sot of umbrella agency for men and women to act as their own Bankers, as permitted under UK law, where no education on the matter is taught in schools (at least the regular ones).

      I agree its not a bank but I think that’s for different reasons. How are customers of peter acting as their own bankers if they are “depositing” a “promissory note” and paying money for the privilege. Also it appears the cheques do not work.

      As we all posses inherent value via the labour we can perform, one can never be truly “bankrupt”.

      That seems like more of a philosophical point.

      As discussed above, what is bankrupted is the legal entity/incorporeal herediment, a split title trust into which ppl have been duped into placing their property. Both corporeal and incorporeal. The WeRe bank appear to be trying to get ppl to realise that under the law they can create a promissory note, which instead of ” gifting” to a high Street bank, without realising one is doing so, in order for the bank to monetize and then charge you the full amount plus interest in exchange for this service (is giving you say ten years worth of fruits of your future labour, but charging you all of that labour and more, in effect working for the bank for ten years +); WeRE bank appear to be trying to ensure regular people with a right to act as their own banker, have a means of accessing the future produce of their labour, without signing it ALL over.

      Anyone can write a promissory note. That’s always been the case. The issue with promissory notes is they are only as good as the solvency of the person writing it. A promissory note of £1000 from someone with a good job is probably worth £900 but a promissory note for £100000 from someone unemployed who will never be able to work again is worth next to nothing.

      So instead of me creating a promissory note, GIVING it to a bank like a numpty, for them to then to add additional terms saying I will give it all and more back to them;

      If a promissory note has terms by definition it is not a promissory note.

      I instead am provided with a facility to whom I give prom note (like when the high street bank deposits the newly created funds into the tax ID/current account), a promise to pay being an accepted form of currency, thus the same foundation for the newly created money high street banks “lend”, thus funds can then be used, just like those arising from a ” loan” , to pay, or at least promise to pay, any liabilities. A £10 note is not £10 payment, but a promise TO pay £10. Obv you can’t “pay” a debt with a debt. -10 + -10 does not = 0. But since the MP’s can’t seem to figure that out whilst thousands of others can, why should we be compelled to go along with such insanity.

      Fiat money does appear not to make sense to the layperson, but as long as fiat money is accepted for goods and services and to pay taxes then it will always have value. Hence why Peter only accepts payment in fiat bank notes.

      WeRE bank appear to be using the ” if you can’t beat them, join them” tactic.

      I think he is taking advantage of vulnerable people and its essentially a big scam/fraud. I think there is value in alternative banking / bartering etc. but to make this work we would need a revolution.

      Reply
      1. Chaotys

        Thank you for your reply, and your patience. I don’t think there would be as much confusion on these matters if legal advice was more affordable.

        You mentioned the relationship between trustee and cestui que trust, and as much as I’d like to discuss a few things on that subject, specifically with respect to finding a legal professional willing (or able) to assist me in a process of equitable restoration would be greatly appreciated, I will concentrate on your reply.

        You say not to confuse the banker/customer relationship with that of trustee/cestu que. In which case my question is why can’t I open a bank account in MY name, as say John Smith?

        The bank will request tax info and out the account in the name of MR JOHN SMITH. The word mister, derived etymologically from the word “mystery” which at law means a business or a thing (such as a trust). This act prejudices my account as an account pertaing to a “trade profession or mystery” and denies me the right to act as a non corporate entity prejudicing my firmly held religious beliefs. “Mr” “Dr” “Prof”. Are all trades and professions. This concerns me as a man or woman blessed with a mind now’s right from wrong or are criminally insane. A corporation by definition is dead and has no mind, meaning such ” entities” must be regulated. To deem men and women corporate entities is to regulate the lives of said men and women. This does make me uncomfortable. This also leads me to believe that there is some crossover between the cestui que and the accounts held by the bank, as though the legal title to the account is held by anothr, the same party holding legal title to my personal estate.

        With respect to the banker/customer relationship. If I deposit funds I’ve received for my my labour, and deposit that into my bank, I am the creditor and bank the debtor. In this scenario the funds are paid to me by another do I am taking funds currently existing in circulation and depositing into the account.

        Bare with me…….

        When I ask my bank for a loan, the relationship switches to my being the debtor and the bank the creditor. Funds appear in my account, purportedly coming from the bank. But the question is “Where do these funds come from?”.

        They are not the banks funds, nor are they other depositors funds as they must be available to the depositor.
        The funds the bank ” loans” are newly created funds created on the back of a “promise to pay”.

        Eg – I ask the bank for a £10000 loan. I fil out a loan agreement/prom note containing a promise to pay £10000 plus an extra £2000 in interest. The agreement is signed ( yet only by me, making it single party contract??) And the funds are entered into my account as Newly created funds leading to inflation for all in society. Now when I pay back that £12000, if the banks were playing fair they would return to me the financial instrument which created the loan so I can retire it, which would pull that £12000 of NEW money back out of society returning the pound to the value it was before the inflation occurred. The bank would still have made £2000 profit from the interest charged on this transaction.

        However the banks haven’t been playing fair. Rather than return ppl’s agreements/instruments they have sold and resold them, driving up inflation crippling countries all over the world with debt, which incidentally is one of the reasons I think ppl are taking an interest in such ventures as WeRe bank.

        All bookkeeping requires debit and credit entries. One account is credited, such as an employee’s, whilst the employee is debited with an equal amount. In the above examples the money I earn from my labour is credited to my bank account. When I pay a bill I creditor the account I’m paying into, and a debit is taken from mine. When a bank “credits” my account with funds from a “loan”who’s account is debited if the funds are newly created?

        To try to represent this in a visual way I will use ” →” to signify the transfer of funds or value:

        Bank account:
        Work done → Me as creditor→ current account (bank becomes debtor)→ bills paid with funds originating from my labour paid to me from monies already in existence.

        Loan:
        Agreement/prom note signed by me → given to bank staff (surely I am creditor here too?) → bank creates new money on the back of the promise to pay and credits it to my account. Once the funds are in I am said to be the debtor, but I fail to see what value the bank had put into the transaction other than the processing of some paperwork.

        It was my promise to pay what I am likely to earn in the future which created the new money, so I can access say the funds to buy a house when I’m 20 instead of when I’m 65. If I save my whole life that £200 000 can buy me a house at 65. Those funds are earned from labour. If I “borrow” £200 000 when I’m 20, but promise to pay £300 000 then the bank gets to create that money, and ask for it all back plus interest whilst I’m the one working to actually earn it.

        From what I can see WeRe bank appear to be trying to act in place of say SWIFT than a bank. Trying to create and provide a system for people to be able to act as their own bankers and obtain value for their own promissory notes, instead of being compelled to fight over Bank of England promissory notes.

        Were bank:
        Prom note signed by me → given to were bank who act as a trustee, not as a debtor/creditor, but merely hold it and account for it for another to enjoy “beneficial entitlement” as they should be doing in the present system.

        I acting as a banker in my own right draw funds from the private ( ie it’s my prom note/valuable instrument and I haven’t signed an agreement to pay it back to anyone). Rather than “cash” the prom note as a bank would do and deposit loan funds to my current account, the prom note to WeRe bank sits in an escrow style account, funds existing in potential but not yet monetized.

        You stated “How are customers of peter acting as their own bankers if they are “depositing” a “promissory note” and paying money for the privilege”.

        If I deposit a prom note with a bank,do they not then charge me when I then draw upon those funds/loan? From what I can see the cost to me of borrowing £100 from my future self is £150, a lot more than a service fee or the £30 charged by Peter.

        With respect to the solvency of an individual. An individual who will never work again means that their promise to pay isn’t worth anything. As an interesting point the bank notes we pass around every day are not worth anything and have no value, as confirmed by the treasury themselves. (What do they know).

        Interesting if not somewhat philosophical. The treasury confirms that in return for my valuable labour I get paid in something of no value. I deposit this something of no value in a bank account and when I receive demands from providers of services demanding payment in something of no value I am obliged to transfer something of no value promising to pay those who have given value. I could be made homeless and destitute because I do not possess enough paper of “no value”.

        It is pretty absud and truth is often stranger than fiction.

        If the currency we use is truly backed by the “confidence and belief”of those using it, that is all that gives it value. If enough people were to have confidence and belief in Peters methods, would he not be standing on the same foundation as the Bank of England?

        What’s more, mostvpeople never agreed to use a monopolized private banking system, politicians purportedly did that on everyones behalf. It’s not that I am confused by fiat currency, more that a lot of complexity is used to obscure a simplicity that most people’s minds recoil in horror at, upon realising they work hard their whole lives for what they have, whilst banks get to create funds out of thin air, taking no risk in doing so ( not lending their own money),loan them out at interest and then even take peoples homes if they don’t pay the bank back the money it didn’t have to start with. Lol

        I also take a little bit of an issue when people are told they are using “pseudo legal arguments” when the modern day legal system and most practitioners use “pseudo lawful arguments”. The legal world re-presents law, with additions and corrections and in some cases actually violate law……but via agreement between the parties involved making the unlawful actions ” legal by agreement”. Soldiers killing ppl for instance, then rationalising that legally it’s okay because the leaders of both nations agreed it was OK on their countryman’s behalf.

        Sorry for rambling. It would be nice to speak to someone face to face about these matters.

        Anyway sorry to go on. It’s interesting exploring these issues and I hope you don’t view any of my rambling as contentious.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s