Write Off Unaffordable Debts With A Legislated Debt Solution

Legislated Government Solution

Write Off Up To 70% Unsecured Debts

One Lower Affordable Monthly Payment

Apply Online Today…

How Much Can I Write Off?

Before After
Debt: £10,000 £3,000
Monthly: £189 £57
Figures are for illustration only.
Move the slider, see your savings:
Important Message : the content in these forums is user generated and archived here for the benefit of the community. Please make your own decisions on the validity of any information on these boards, as with all forums and life itself there's good advice and bad advice. If you have issues with debt then please contact us via any of the links on this site.

Peter of England

More from the lunatic asylum a.k.a "Quatloos".

Postby pigpot » Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:34 am

longdog wrote:I'm only busking here but I suspect the courts would find there are three types of cheques and bank notes... Real ones, fake ones and novelty ones. The first and the last are legal but the middle one is illegal to produce, sell, use or possess.
How will the "Court" workout logically what is and what isn't? One man's sh1te is another man's gold. You can't produce fertiliser if you've only got gold. Fertiliser man goes out of business.

longdog wrote:I guess if some want to stand at the margins cheering Peter on as he rakes in the cash from his marks then they are perfectly entitled to do so but I for one would have to seriously question their moral compass.

Agreed.[/quote]Absolutely it's called Bitcoin, BRICS and freedom. Oh! "Courts" don't bother with morality. Only logic from what I gather from others here but I (and they) may be wide of the mark on that one.
chronistra wrote:If

If my auntie had balls she be my uncle. Desperate times for desperate posters on desperate internet sites.

Just saying. :haha: Come on "Burnaby49" join der fun. :lol:
Dr. Caligari wrote:I agree with chronista. For our UK friends, let me explain: in the United States, the general power to punish crimes lies with the individual states, not the federal government. So murder, theft, rape and the like are state, not federal, crimes. The federal government does, however, have certain enumerated powers under the U.S. Constitution, including the powers to regulate "interstate commerce" and the postal service. So if the U.S. Congress wants to make something a crime, they need to find a jurisdictional hook to one of those federal powers. Thus, it is a federal crime to use the mails, or communications that cross state lines (via telephone, the internet, etc.), to perpetrate a "scheme or artifice to defraud." The U.S.'s extradition treaties with most foreign countries spell out that someone can be extradited to the U.S. for a fraud or theft that would be criminal in the foreign country, notwithstanding that U.S. law also includes such a "jurisdictional" element that wouldn't be needed under the foreign country's law.

Mixed up rubbish! Gravity and real laws are better.
Ronnie Wood is an excellent musician. Gotta agree with that... 8)
notorial dissent wrote:Using the US mails to commit fraud and aiding in tax fraud could get him in serious trouble. That being said I don't know what the likelihood of it actually happening is.[/color][/b]
But the same crime doesn't exist in the U.K. So no extradition for him... bad luck... Holidays in countries that also don't have the same laws as the U.S. :roll: Honestly becoming a laughing stock here.

I'm just duplicating all the valuable stuff here. You lot are priceless. Really you are. Muppets. :haha:
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:32 am

Re: Peter of England

Postby pigpot » Fri Nov 27, 2015 5:47 am

More for the dredgers on this forum. Get into it people. Dredge like it means something big. A huge gold find is there as there is something wrong in "The Force". "They" are very scared about future events and losing "control over resources and such. I do have access to a "youtube" "channel" but would like help on setting up video etc as I have a hilarious video of a "Police Officer" being sent from my property (and his companion) with their tail between their legs. So come on folks... Help me out...

Bones wrote:So is Peter Fraud of England, pretty much ignoring that he has been declared a con man in Canada and WeRe Bank has been confirmed as a scam ?

I am disappointed there has been no cash call to start a class action, after all the previous ones went so well :snicker:

Who cares what the "Canucks" think! Cold, desolate, despairing...No decent beaches and cr4p fizzy beer. Ask "Burnaby49". He likes his beer warm and sickly sweet in a variably English Pub in Manchester. And then moans about the laws not suiting his agenda and he hopes that PoE gets his comeuppance Canadian style.

Here's a tip "Burnaby49" don't rely on the "Police" sh1t outs. Go and find PoE and his mates and see how you fare. Video it and post it up. You'll get served North of England style I bet.
rumpelstilzchen wrote:
Joinder wrote:Unfortunately the hope that Peter's activities would ignite an intelligent discussion on our money system have failed too, a too narrow view being taken .

That is probably because that is not the purpose of this site. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with what the purpose of this site is. Then you would understand and would not be disappointed. If you are seeking discussions of the nature you describe then maybe you should find a site where that type of discussion takes place.

So you wish to limit discussion. Facist /communist call it what you like. People like you hate stuff like the 1st Amendment. You hate society. Screw you. Even your avatar shows your intent.
And there is their act of war (reason for doing so) "Russia's Defence Ministry said in a statement that they are looking into the circumstances of the crash of the Russian jet.

"The Ministry of Defence would like to stress that the plane was over the Syrian territory throughout the flight."

Job done. Welcome Russia into the Battle arena. The Freemasonic leaders have done well with their Bilderberger, CFR, Skull and Bones plans. Stupid people voting for demonic agents of the NWO / Illuminati. When will you learn? David Icke told you this long ago. You played and you lost.
Joinder wrote:
Bones wrote:All the posts quoted from here and do I get a mention...... not even one (I might be wrong, I could not be bothered to read it all)

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... lSwdOJ3YqI

Stupendous and quiet wonderful effort from Pigpot.

Thanks "Joinder". Just to let you know why the posting was a mess is that it wouldn't me post so many quotes or something in one post or something like that. I've got more to do with my time than somebody like "Burnaby49" and arrange everything all colour coded and stuff so that's why I did what. I don't claim to have an income tax left brain. I left instructions as to how to deal with the quotations and stuff.

Thanks for your support. :wink:
rumpelstilzchen wrote:
Bones wrote:All the posts quoted from here and do I get a mention...... not even one (I might be wrong, I could not be bothered to read it all)

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... lSwdOJ3YqI

I love threads where posters like pigpot talk to themselves. They are hilarious.
pigpot, you should always bear in mind that the thickos over on GOOFs can only just manage to make their way through one paragraph. After that they tend to drift off. Short and sweet is best. Unless you enjoy talking to yourself?

More than 3 pages for me. From all of you. Little me creating havoc amongst all of you. Dear dear. That didn't take much did it. You'll probably never read this though. Due to "Moderation". Seriously pathetic. Don't worry you all served the system that kept an ELITE in power. Mere intellectual babies.

Burnaby49 wrote:If the new federal government made marijuana totally legal tomorrow it wouldn't affect Dean's conviction, that would still stand. It might influence sentencing but maybe not.

So you start with it might and then it might not. Similar to
The legal concept of res judicata arose as a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps mostly to avoid unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments, and confusion.

You obviously think I'm a complete ass. But I'm smacking you all across the mouth, backhanded as well with my schlong. Who the f()ck do you think you are? Honestly the arrogance of some people. It's not going to apply to just one but all as any defendant should apply logic to all cases involved within this context.

Once the appeals process is exhausted or waived, res judicata will apply even to a judgment that is contrary to law. In states that permit a judgment to be renewed, a lawsuit to renew the judgment would not be barred by res judicata, however in states that do not permit renewal by action (as opposed to renewal by scire facias or by motion), such an action would be rejected by the courts as vexatious.
So be more specific. Civil or otherwise?

Now about issue preclusion:
Issue preclusion bars the relitigation of issues of fact or law that have already been necessarily determined by a judge or jury as part of an earlier case.

And then this:
"Judicial economy" most commonly refers to the refusal of a court to decide one or more claims raised in a case, on the grounds that it has decided other claims in the case and that its decision on those claims should satisfy the parties. For example, the plaintiff may claim that the defendant's actions violated three distinct laws. Having found for the plaintiff for a violation of the first law, the court then has the discretion to exercise judicial economy and refuse to make a decision on the remaining two claims, on the grounds that the finding of one violation should be sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff.

Yawn... how much more do you want to be told. I given you all in around ten minutes off the top of my head.

Yawn. All may apply, some may apply, one may apply etc. They can all be worked upon by a competent advocate for the defense. 8) You lot will OBVIOUSLY disagree because you ALWAYS do. I expect that. :roll:
notorial dissent wrote:Well, well, the idiot currently known as joinder has either admitted to being piggy and/or Green Hat, or simply that he is over fond of his own mouth noises, or simply can't read. I'll settle for any and/or all of the above, and add him to the list.

"Arthur Asky" was "Yozhik" so said "Jargon Buster" on the "JREF". :shrug: Oh! Dear Another fail by the EGO's. :haha:
Joinder wrote:
Pox wrote:
Bones wrote:
I would not be surprised if you are and we already know your significant other pigpot is

Joinder, I really don't care who your significant other is, or even if you have one - it is none of my business.

But, why are you so angry (seemingly)?
Is it other people making you angry? If so, just ignore them - its really easy if you try!

I have asked before but please, can you give it a rest now?

These petty spats are getting a bit tiresome.

And the latest red rag above is a case in point because that is all it is.

Really... you believe "Joinder" and "pigpot" are the problems here. Neither of us have insulted anyone or have been discourteous yet we have been constantly abused here. Pathetic.

Joinder wrote:There is no anger at all in my comments, I am unfailingly polite and courteous, despite the insults and unseemly remarks made toward me.
What I wrote above is my opinion, on a site that Quatloos decided to set up to try to vilify a man..

So who is the angry one ?

Thank you for your concern , however misplaced.

Well said "Joinder".
Pox wrote:
Joinder wrote:There is no anger at all in my comments, I am unfailingly polite and courteous, despite the insults and unseemly remarks made toward me.
What I wrote above is my opinion, on a site that Quatloos decided to set up to try to vilify a man..

So who is the angry one ?

Thank you for your concern , however misplaced.

I beg to differ, I feel that you are angry about something, or many things but this is just my opinion and I am entitled to it (as you are entitled to yours).

If the man that you refer to as being 'vilified' by this site is Haining then all I can say is that he and his like has caused untold misery to me and my family.

So, vilify him - yes, I will because frankly, he and his like deserve it.

You have no idea (or I hope you have no idea) how much damage he and his like can cause.

More than you and your family, do you realise how debt slavery and the system you promote, through usury, has f()cked up millions.

You and your little me syndrome. Screw you. Pre-1948 there was no Bretton Woods agreement and money was at least semi-real. So what now?
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:32 am


Postby pigpot » Mon Nov 30, 2015 11:15 am

Burnaby49 wrote:To quote from Arayder's link;

There is a very interesting legal case that is playing out in Canada at the moment. William Krehm, Anne Emmett, and Comer (The Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform: http://www.comer.org/) filed a lawsuit on December 12th, 2011, in Federal Court to try to force a restoration of the Bank of Canada to its mandated purposes. In essence, they want the Bank of Canada to provide interest-free loans to the federal, provincial, and municipal governments, as provided for in the Bank of Canada Act. This money would be used to finance public expenditures whenever there is a budgetary deficit. Apparently, the federal government used to borrow interest-free (to at least some extent) from the Bank of Canada up until 1974. At present, governments borrow all of the necessary money (apart from any bonds they may sell to the public) from private banks at the going rate of interest. Canadians are economically burdened with the resultant debt-servicing charges because the Bank of Canada does not make use of its prerogatives in the interests of the Canadian public. The case is being prosecuted by Rocco Galati, who is widely considered to be Canada's top constitutional lawyer.

Rocco Galati is "widely considered" to be Canada's top constitutional lawyer? I'd bet that's news to the members of Canada's legal community who don't see Galati's face peering back out of the bathroom mirror at them every morning. Keep in mind that Galati is the lawyer handling this case and yet the Statement of Claim, the critical document that tell the court what the lawsuit is all about and why the plaintiff is deserving of relief, was so badly drafted, so botched up, that both a prothonotary and a judge of the Federal court of Canada threw it out because it was just incomprehensible gibberish. Does this sound like the work of even a marginally competent lawyer? I'm curious about how bad a train wreck that Statement of Claim actually was so I think I'll head down to the Federal Court registry next week and see if I can pick up a copy.

The factual part of this quote seems correct. Galati and reverendjim are obsessed about their claimed "requirement" that is imposed on the Bank of Canada (BOC) to provide interest free loans to any level of government in Canada that asks for them. We've seen how unlimited freely available funds worked for Greece. Printing money because governments want it is a recipe for disaster. However Canada's top constitutional lawyer apparently thinks this will give unlimited prosperity for all. The legislation that Galati claims supports his position reads (from the prothonotary's decision);

Statutory claims

Bank Act Claims

[9] The causes of action claimed are chiefly concerned with three subsections of the Bank Act:

18. The Bank may

(i) make loans or advances for periods not exceeding six months to the Government of Canada or the government of a province on taking security in readily marketable securities issued or guaranteed by Canada or any province;

(j) make loans to the Government of Canada or the government of any province, but such loans outstanding at any one time shall not, in the case of the Government of Canada, exceed one-third of the estimated revenue of the Government of Canada for its fiscal year, and shall not, in the case of a provincial government, exceed one-fourth of that government’s estimated revenue for its fiscal year, and such loans shall be repaid before the end of the first quarter after the end of the fiscal year of the government that has contracted the loan;

. . .

(m) open accounts in a central bank in any other country or in the Bank for International Settlements, accept deposits from central banks in other countries, the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and any other official international financial organization, act as agent or mandatory, or depository or correspondent for any of those banks or organizations, and pay interest on any of those deposits;

[10] COMER claims that the Bank and other Crown actors have failed to comply with the requirements of subsections 18(i) and (j), which they interpret as requiring the Bank and the Minister of Finance to make interest-free loans for the purpose of municipal, provincial and federal “human capital expenditures”.[4] The only individual case of a rejected loan appears to be the August 18, 2004, decision of the Minister of Finance to refuse a loan to the Town of Lakeshore, Ontario.[5]

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/dec ... ZXIAAAAAAQ

Note the word "may" in the legislation. This was a deliberate choice by the Parliament of Canada when drafting the legislation. The Bank of Canada was founded in 1934 as a reaction to the financial disaster of the great depression. The Canadian government was trying to find a way out and thought a central bank, given discretion to run monetary policy outside of government meddling, might be able to do something, anything, to relieve the crisis. This of course required that the BOC have the discretion to run monetary policy as it saw fit without being hemmed in by straightjacket legislation. So Parliament gave the BOC the discretion to chose whether or not to make loans under this section by using "may". Had Parliament wanted to require the BOC to make these loans it would have used the word "shall". Using "may" turns this section into an implement of policy and the Federal Court will not rule on policy. So, even if Galati can cough up a Statement of Claim that makes sense the Federal Court will still not hear it because ruling on policy is outside of its jurisdiction.

In short there has been no abuse of the legislation. "May" gives the BOC the legal right to allow or deny these loans and they have chosen to deny. I'm not even sure if deny is the right word. This might be a dead issue outside of Galati's legal theories because it seems that no level of government has asked for one except for the single example cited by the prothonotary. Apart from COMER's lawsuit I'm not aware that this is in any way a live issue.

It seems you will go to any lengths to justify the current system. You will meet opposition. The opposition don't wear uniforms. You won't alter them. They'll keep on coming. You won't defeat them, they'll beat you and beat you badly.

Stop running and being a coward and allow this post as I'll stick over on "GOODF" anyway.

I'm through with your wanting me to beg to post. I've never been abusive, I have complied with all the rules and you wish to leave me here, in limbo, the thing is though that ain't me. I don't apologise for any of my posts, work or anything else. I've helped people all over the globe with contractual "law" and general employment issues and I've always beat the MAN.

Most lawyers are idiots and you lot don't fall short of the mark... Indeed you meet it.

Thanks for playing. If not here... Read this over on "GOODF".
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:32 am

Re: Peter of England

Postby pigpot » Mon Nov 30, 2015 11:34 am

Well "Burnaby49" I'd like to say that due to your love of statism you have no place going there. Stay in "your" cold "Kanata", "Canada" or "Turtle Island" call it what you will.

Leave the free willing people who live there, their time, to be without the corrupt politicians that people like you advocate them vote for.

I vote (say) that you can't enter the land (that you are a foreigner and also a warmonger). I'm one on my own (if needs must) and can make my decision and be cause and effect just like governments do. I can be a government of one and do what I wish.

You should stay out of there "Burnaby49". Go and keep you pub tours to "Kanata".

Response please...

Published as a public question over on "GOODF".

Be a man and own up as I'm mocking the heck out of you...
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:32 am

Re: Peter of England

Postby pigpot » Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:08 am

Wake Up! Productions wrote:Here you go Deaner:

Man recants oath to Queen after citizenship http://www.thespec.com/news-story/61420 ... tizenship/

A Toronto man has recanted what he calls the "royalty part" of the mandatory Oath of Allegiance to the Queen after becoming a Canadian citizen this morning.

Dror Bar-Natan, a 49-year-old math professor from Israel, was one of three permanent residents who challenged the constitutionality of making citizenship conditional on the pledge to the Queen, her heirs and successors.

When you find out that coercion and fraud took a massive part in the whole thing you get the whole idea. I spoke to a "Maori" person the other day and "they" came back with this... To paraphrase: "Just because the colonials agree to get on with the natives now, it doesn't mean we are all going to turn around and agree that we are all friends and can agree on a new starting point."

Part English, Scottish, Welsh and possibly Irish / French. How do I PICK one. F()CK that one choice. Answer that Quatloos.

You can't because you are not logical.
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:32 am

Re: Peter of England

Postby pigpot » Tue Dec 08, 2015 12:42 pm

arayder wrote:I challenge Menard (who we know is reading this) to make regular public financial and project status reports on the Association of Canadian Purchasers (ACCP).

Subscribers, potential subscribers and the Canadian people have a right to know how the ACCP effort is progressing.

Failure to so report will put into question the honesty of Menard's actions.

I challenge you "arayder" to SHOW on video how many time you cut your toe nails each week. Remember this will go up on another forum. Within seconds... And if you don't you look like a f()ck wit!

Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:32 am


Return to WeRe Bank

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
Hello! It looks like you're in the USA - this website only provides solutions for the UK at present so please visit our USA site here where they can provide solutions available in your country.