tipline

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Hi Dennis. Glad to hear that the articles about Peter Vandever will stand. There is one primary motive behind his desire for them to be removed: they’ve been harming his con game. All the more reason for them to stand intact. His attempt at trying to portray the situation as if it were just two guys of equal character who published some trash about each other is cute.

    Recent case study #1: You may have heard about his encounter with police in the Philippines. If not, search for “peter vandever police” on youtube and you will see part of the story. In short, a young employee of an internet cafe got to keep his job because of content revealing the real Peter Vandever online. Peter is in fact a regular thief in the Philippines. He will use the computers and have some food at internet cafes, which typically only ask a very small fee for computer time, and then sneak out several hours later without paying. We have caught him doing the same thing at hostels. Still, I’m sure we’ve only scratched the surface of his thievery. The employee of this particular net cafe shown in the video noticed that Peter left himself logged in to one of his websites after he left. He used the information he found and did a search about him, ultimately finding me by way of the articles I post about Peter on facebook. Thanks to the articles, and I would gather, thanks to yours as well, he was able to get an idea of the person he was about to deal with. This net cafe employee was able to keep his job and the world now has a bit more on the record to go by. His deception has been further exposed because of this stunt of his.

    Recent case study #2: I haven’t looked at this incident in depth, but I saw that Peter was having some trouble with the pentecostal community on facebook. He was doing his usual shock jock shtick – saying something outrageous about a well-known person in the community in order to create “controversy” and ultimately drive traffic to his website. This hoax ended prematurely when facebook users began sharing articles about Peter on the “controversial” posts, including several articles from this website.

    As you probably already know, Peter solicits “donations” for missionary projects that don’t even exist. He is in fact the complete opposite of what an actual Christian strives to be. I have literally over a hundred examples of this from facebook. While I have knowledge that he is still able to do this to a degree, I am certain that having the truth about him online eats into this con of his as well.

    Peter has been “lucky”, shall I say, due to there being quiet a lax and often sloppy judicial system in the Philippines. How long will he be able to push his luck is anyones guess, I suppose. He is an extremely dark character that needs to be locked up, to say the least. What I’ve shared here, and even what you have posted about him on this site, is still just a sampling that barely scratches the surface. The things that this guy has done over the course of his life and some of what he continues to do to this day are appalling. We’re in the early phases of uncovering even more details about his past as well. While we have yet to gather the complete picture for some of these incidents we’re learning about, suffice to say are disgusting, yet they will be of little surprise to those who know his true nature.

    Your articles are a helpful service to Peter’s victims and potential victims. I can confidently say that I speak on behalf of many when I say “thank you” for publishing them.

    Cat Balina

    • This is the second time Peter has approached me in the same manner – same result. Your discourse is encouraging, and appreciated. Thank you too. Yes I knew there was more, and some of it I knew but didn’t couldn’t publish but great that you have taken up the cause to get the truth out there. Deception is obnoxious to me – his twisting of reality is psychiatric.

  2. Once again (no surprise) Hobo Peter Vandever makes up his own fake-facts to support his guilt. He is WRONG about his claim that with “15% changes” he can use another photographer’s photograph. First, he has to get permission from the original photographer to display or exhibit the revised version. Peter Vandever NEVER did that.

    Second, no amount of changes give him any rights to display and certainly not to sell his revised version of someone else’s work. I quote the following and will provide the link proving Peter Vandever is simply a THIEF and a Liar.

    “How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else’s work?

    “Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another’s work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner’s consent. See Circular 14, Copyright Registration for Derivative Works.”

    This information (above) is straight from the copyright.gov website the USA, which is what Peter Vandever totally got wrong; https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html

    • The comments are only those that he wishes to address. The substantive theft and misconduct I proved is unaddressed. Now this is the psychiatric thing – again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *