When do actions taken by a Gov't regulatory and enforcement agency lose the protection rendered by 'good faith' clauses and become crimes? Are public officials immune from prosecution for any crime committed during their course of duty by invoking a 'Good Faith' clause?

Tuesday, 23 February 2016

When do actions taken by a Gov't regulatory and enforcement agency lose the protection rendered by 'good faith' clauses and become crimes? Are public officials immune from prosecution for any crime committed during their course of duty by invoking a 'Good Faith' clause? If the allegations facing British Columbian public officials are true can they really be protected from Perjury, Tampering, Fraudulent Concealment, Entrapment, etc. by invoking 'Good Faith'?

 It's time for an in-depth look at the practices and operations of the BC Securities Commission. The BCSC is a regulatory and enforcement agency in British Columbia responsible for maintaining the integrity of the financial markets, as well as protecting British

Questions regarding the BC Securities Commission:

• How can a Regulatory Agency mandated with ensuring fair and ethical actions in the marketplace maintain any legal credibility when it operates in the following manner,
• Holds hearings without records, according to the BCSC rules its the master of its own domain in legal proceedings. How can a legal ruling be made with unbiased integrity when as they themselves said they only sometimes record said hearing? 
• What do the Securities Act say about this? What about Supreme court law and our Constitutional rights? Do they not exist in the world of Finance? Why not?
• How can an agency be trusted to make a fair and impartial decision in a case when it knowingly uses the testimony of an investigator who has perjured herself multiple times?
• Why would a Regulatory and Enforcement agency in charge of maintaining the integrity of the financial markets mislead citizens who went to them for help for seven months in regards to the reporting of Fraud?
• Why would the BCSC lie to U-GO Brands directors in regards to Klaus Glusings fraudulent activities?
• Why would a BCSC investigator tell the lawyer for U-Brands that he is going to let us proceed with issuing shares in U-GO Brands although he knows we may be in contravention of the Act by doing so?
• Why would the lawyer and the BCSC lead us on to think its all legally ok when they know they are entrapping us into committing an offense against the Act?
• Why would an agency tasked with protecting shareholders in BC actively work to destroy a legitamate company and in doing so lose 400 shareholders money?
• How can the BCSC justify posting private banking info online on its website TWICE contrary to the privacy act?
• -Why would the BCSC illegally Cease trade trust accounts then lie to cover it up?
• How can the BCSC justify attempting to prosecute us for fraud well after they know we are innocent of fraud?
• Would the BC Securities Commission break into someones hotel illegally and hack their laptop if they are desperate to pin a crime on someone and cant?
• Would the BCSC hire surveillance teams and choppers to intimidate citizens into silence if it cant scare them into silence with the threat of a lawsuit?
• Would the BCSC attempt to force citizens to settle for all the allegations facing them including fraud even if they know the fraud charges are not true?
• Is entrapment and collusion standard protocol for the BCSC?
• Do the rule of law and due process not apply to the financial markets?
• What about the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?
• the right to a fair and impartial trial (Hearing) in any legal proceeding?
• Can the BCSC really just make declarations about someone that are not true and operate as though its the law? Can they prosecute someone based on these declarations without evidence presented?

Mr. Christopher Burke statements for the press below..
"We have never been trying to evade responsibility for any violations of the Securities Act. Our goal the entire time has been one that is the same as one of the mandates set out for the BC Securities Commission, protect our investors. We went to them for help in order to do just that and report fraud, the BC Securities Commission was aware from the beginning that we did not commit fraud yet continued to try to prosecute us for said fraud long after they knew we were innocent. All we have wanted was a fair and unbiased proceeding against us yet we have been denied every basic civil right that we have come to value as a nation. The BCSC has lied continually throughout this process, including perjury committed by the only investigator to tender any evidence against us, how is this brushed off as simply  a 'Securities Issue' as many lawyers and public officials maintain? If the BC Securities can just make up stories and lie to prosecute someone are they still covered under the 'Good Faith' clause?  As the lawyers and public officials suggest because the issue is a 'Securities Issue' the normal application of due process and adherence to the rule of law do not apply. If the financial markets fall outside the rule of law, the right to due process and a fair trial or 'hearing' as the BCSC holds true by its actions whats to stop me from robbing a bank? After all the rule of law, according to officials doesn't apply to the Financial Markets any more."

More from Mr. Burke..
"How can we be prosecuted for such a crime as Ms Mitchell-Banks insisted in Oct 2014 when both parties are aware of our innocence?  Why did the BC Securities Commission illegally cease trade trust accounts of one of the Directors when it knew that it contained no proceeds of crime or ill-gotten gains? The accounts had not received money in almost twenty years, the BCSC has access to all the banking records they knew the accounts were not related and their was no reason to believe they were. Despite this fact they issued the cease trade anyway, then they lied to cover it up. The BCSC has more then one story about the CTO including blaming the bank, their lead investigator on the case lied under oath and numerous officials on behalf of the BCSC have given multiple different stories about what happened. How can we trust that a fair judgment will be rendered against us when it is clear the BCSC has an aversion to the truth and has operated with deception since day one? What happened to our Constitutional Rights?"

See what another person who reported fraud to the BCSC has to say about the Commission;
"BC’s reputation as the global securities fraud capital hasn’t changed yet. Still, to this day, people are losing their life savings to BC based frauds- and, the BCSC is no less toothless and no more competent than it was back then. British Columbia is a ponzi scheme, and the BCSC is a core part of it."
 
See what another person who reported fraud to the BCSC has to say about the Commission
http://www.genuinewitty.com/2012/06/25/the-bc-securities-commission-is-a-bad-joke/
"It was only earlier this year that the CEO got arrested- but, that was two scams later… 
So, who cares? We’re talking about bankers ripping off bankers- right? Not quite, it isn’t as much the bankers who are getting ripped off in BC as it is the 99%. It’s mom, and pop, grandma & grandpa who lose their investments- banks have resources to investigate the claims of who they invest in.
The BCSC is a wart on BC’s economy, they are ineffective and dangerous"

http://www.genuinewitty.com/2012/11/22/why-is-this-con-artist-dancing-because-the-bc-securities-commission-sucks/
 Flag Resources is a 100 year old mining company rich in history with thousands of investors throughout the US and Canada. A Flag Resource official Mr. Rodney Snyder claims the BCSC is attempting to prosecute him for a crime that an outside accounting firm hired by Flag has already plead guilty to. The BCSC knows he is innocent yet proceeds anyways and is in the middle of destroying a perfectly good mining operation as a result. Mr, Snyders concerns can be seen here on the following link.

http://www.castanet.net/news/Letters/157110/Bureaucratic-domination

 The preceding has been just a small part of the complaints and allegations against the BC Securities Commission. The Directors of U-GO Brands insist that their company should never have been destroyed, the worst that should have happened was a fine and the stepping down of the offending parties who did not commit any crimes but instead had the integrity to tell the truth in front of the BCSC. The Directors point to the complete absence of due process, a fair and impartial hearing, and the truth in the matter as evidence to back their position. The BCSC was intent on making a case against the U-GO Brands directors from the start regardless of whether or not the Directors were guilty.
 According to the BCSC it is simply doing its job and ensuring the integrity of the marketplace.  What does the evidence say in this regard? We let you the reader decide for yourself. Should any one wish to examine the details further the BCSC's rulings and findings against the U-GO Brands Directors are available on-line at www.bcsc.bc.ca

 For more evidence on the claims of the U-GO Brands Directors you can visit their blogs as well as the attached links to Press releases from U-GO Brands Inc.  pertaining to their position.

 With questions like the ones asked by the U-GO Brands directors one would have to ask, is there a fire behind all this smoke? And if so who is responsible for it?

HOW CAN THE BCSC OPERATE IN A FAIR AND UNBIASED MANNER WHEN DECEPTION IS ITS MODUS OPERANDI?

HOW CAN THE BCSC OPERATE IN A FAIR AND UNBIASED MANNER WHEN DECEPTION IS ITS MODUS OPERANDI?

Peter D. Harris <p.harris@telus.net>

Today at 9:59 AM

To

• Peter Brady, Director of Enforcement - BCSC

Hide

CC

• Christopher Burke, UGO Brands Nutritional Products Inc.
• Rodney J. Snider
• Brenda M. Leong, BCSC, Chair and CEO
• Judith Downes, Commissioner
• David Thompson, General Counsel, BCSC
• and 8 more...

Hide

Photos

• Untitled1.2.2.png

Download All

Attachments

• Why are you not replying to my email messages - Peter Brady.pdf

Download All

Message body

 

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

 

British Columbia Securities Commission

Peter Brady, Director of Enforcement

701 West Georgia Street

P.O. Box 10142, Pacific Centre

Vancouver, BC V7Y 1L2

 

FIRST REMINDER FOR REPLY

Why are you not replying to my email messages?

Dear Mr. Brady,

As we are vigorously engaged and being wrongfully prosecuted by the Commission since June 2013, logic and professional common courtesy tells me that as a public servant and being an Independent Government Agency you are mandated to communicate with me without prejudice.

 

Let me quote the Commission’s website in regards to working with market participants.

Open Quote

 

Industry Education

Our goal is to develop and deliver relevant, engaging and timely information to help market participants understand and comply with their regulatory requirements more effectively and efficiently. It is also important for us to receive feedback and comments from market participants about proposed changes to securities rules.

Close Quote

 

Mr. Brady, why did the Commission not attempt to help Harris and Cire when in June of 2013, Harris contacted the Commission to report an off-shore fraud perpetrated by Klaus Glusing of SPYru Inc. located in Providencials, TCI?

 

In addition, why did the Commission not confirm to Harris that the Commission had prior dealings with Klaus Glusing? I’m of the opinion that since the Commission had disciplined Klaus Glusing in 2011 for misleading the investors and Harris declaring to the Commission investigators that Harris had a 40-year relationship with Klaus Glusing and that Harris considered Glusing to be his mentor as a result and based on this information the investigators wrongfully assumed that Harris and Cire were guilty by association.

  

Moreover, why did the Commission wait seven months to advise Harris that the Commission never had any intention to help Harris and Cire salvage the SPYru investors? Why did the Commission investigators make Harris and Cire believe for seven months that The Commission had SPYru’s best interest at hand?

 

Since we are the first Corporate Directors in Canada to ever report an off-shore fraud to a Provincial Securities Commission, you would think that the BC Securities Commission would have excepted Harris and Cire’s suggestion to travel to Vancouver at their own expense and sit-down with the investigators to work out the best possible options to insure the SPYru investors are protected as mandated by the Securities Act. 

 

Mr. Brady, when is the Commission going to do the honorable thing by admitting that some of its employees are directly responsible for the demise of SPYru Inc. and the unwarranted demise of a viable start-up company U-GO Brands. We all know the Commission has destroyed many new stat-up companies in BC over the years, the Commission has become a dictatorial agency and it is misusing its powers. The Commission does not follow or respect the stated protocols and rules set on its website.

 

How can we have any respect for the Commission and its employees when the Commission has never been honest with us? It works both ways, but unfortunately I strongly believe that some of the Commission employees have become disconnected with the Commission’s code of ethics and in their beliefs. As a result, these employees are not preforming their duties legally and ethically.

 

One major flaw with the Commission employees, is that you are all missing COMMON SENSE and EMPATHY, the Commission employees are bullies, you are not above the law and think you can take any one down that dares stand up to the Commission employees, this can and has been proven by the Commission retaliatory actions in our case file…

 

We respectfully away your reply.

 

Sincerely,
Peter Harris

BCSC FINAL RULING .. HOW CAN SUCH PAYMENT ORDER BE JUSTIFIED WHEN CLEARLY NO FRAUD WAS COMMITED?

BCSC FINAL RULING .. HOW CAN SUCH PAYMENT ORDER BE JUSTIFIED WHEN CLEARLY NO FRAUD WAS COMMITED?

On 22/02/2016 10:45 AM, Peter D. Harris wrote:

(Hard Copy Attached)

Monday, February 22, 2016

 

British Columbia Securities Commission

Peter Brady, Director of Enforcement

701 West Georgia Street

P.O. Box 10142, Pacific Centre

Vancouver, BC V7Y 1L2

 

Subject: BCSC Final Panel Ruling (Decision) Dated December 15, 2015

Reference: Filed copy with the BC Supreme Court December 18,2015

 

Dear Mr. Brady,

 

This is to confirm that I have received the Commission’s copy of the BC Supreme Court filling, why is it that Commission filed December 18, 2015 and the Commission only sent me the registered copy this pasted Sunday February 21, 2016, it’s a good thing I asked the question last week, if you had filed with the BC Courts. Why did the Commission not notify us December 18, 2015 of the Court Filing?

 

I reviewed the Commission’s court document and it is somewhat confusing, in order to prevent any misunderstanding, we need the Commission to confirm the below information. Is the Commission seeking $8,749,000 or $3,360,000? This demonstrates the typical abuse we have been experiencing from the Commission. Why did the Commission originally seek $8M and now it appears the Commission is seeking $3M? Please confirm! What formula did the Commission use to arrive at these ridicules numbers that make no sense and are totally and legally unjustified?

 

Mr. Brady, as we have not been successful in establishing an open dialog with the Commission to reach a fair and amicable resolve and as stated to Mr. Leong in a previous message, Christopher Burke and myself have no intent to pay the Commission any fines what so ever.

 

For this reason, we request that the Commission file a lawsuit for collection of fines with the BC Supreme Court no later than this coming Friday February 26, 2016. If the Commission does not file by the prescribe date with the BC Supreme Court, the U-GO Directors will consider this case terminated and no future action will be taken by the Commission.

AMENDED RENDERING By the Executive Director seeks the following orders against:
Respondent	December 15, 2015                          BCSC Panel Rendering	Pay to Commission	Administrative Penalty	Total	Market  Prohibitions
Lorne Cire	Page 22 (4) (5)	$636,000	$50,000	$686,000	10 years
Peter Harris	Page 23 (9) (10)	$636,000	$50,000	$686,000	Life Time
John Thibert	Page 23 (13)	$20,000	$0	$20,000	20 years
Michael Kwasnek	Page 24 (17) (18)	$636,000	$35,000	$671,000	20 years
Christopher Burke	Page 25 (21) (22)	$636,000	$20,000	$656,000	Life Time
SPYru Inc.	Page 25 (23) (C)	$0	$0	$0	Life Time
U-GO Brands	Page 25 (25)	$636,000	$0	$636,000	Life Time
Paradox	Page 25 (26)	$0	$0	$0	Life Time
Echo Partners	Page 26 (29)	$0	$5,000	$5,000	5 years
Total		$3,200,000	$160,000	$3,360,000
ORIGINAL RENDERING The Executive Director seeks the following orders against:
Respondent	December 15, 2015                          BCSC Panel Rendering	Pay to Commission	Administrative Penalty	Total	Market  Prohibitions
Lorne Cire	Page 3 (4) (B and C)	$1,983,000	$100,000	$2,083,000	Life Time
Peter Harris	Page 3 (5) (B and C)	$1,983,000	$100,000	$2,083,000	Life Time
John Thibert	Page 3 (6) (B and C)	$1,028,000	$100,000	$1,128,000	20 years
Michael Kwasnek	Page 3 (7) (B and C)	$874,000	$100,000	$974,000	20 years
Christopher Burke	Page 4 (8) (B and C)	$701,000	$60,000	$761,000	Life Time
SPYru Inc.	Page 4 (9) (B and C)	$0	$0	$0	Life Time
U-GO Brands	Page 4 (10) (B and C)	$636,000	$100,000	$736,000	Life Time
Paradox	Page 4 (11) (B and C)	$834,000	$100,000	$934,000	Life Time
Echo Partners	Page 4 (12) (A and B)	$0	$50,000	$50,000	5 years
Total		$8,039,000	$710,000	$8,749,000

Mr. Brady, it is imperative that we receive a reply from the Commission in regards to this message.

 

These abuses have to stop and the Commission needs to be forward and advise its intent, our lives have been on hold for the last three years and our Civil Rights have definitely been violated by the Commission employees and I assure you we are not about to walk away from this injustice, someone has to take responsibility for these illegal actions taken by the Commission investigators, litigators and executives.

 

We respectfully away your reply.

 

Sincerely,

-- 
Peter D. Harris
Director
U-GO Brands Nutritional Products Inc.

HELICOPTER GAMES

This afternoon Wednesday the 17th I posted a Blog
http://www.reportingfraudinbc.blogspot.ca/2016/02/dear-bc-securities-commission-ceo.html

and mentioned I missed my helicopter shadows, since we started posting pics and making them public they have been very shy. Until today right after I posted my blog, I was in the house as the neighbor took this shot, you can hear him tell me it came directly to my house and circled..

 

 I was able to get this shot as I ran outside. It is the same little red one with a black bulb under it, there is a good possibility it also appears as completely black sometimes. They do have fancy spray on peel off paint now days. The model is the exact same.

 

 

 

It was nice of them to let me know they still care anyways..

One of my favorite games as a kid? Connect the dots!

 

Brenda maybe next time you should actually get on the chopper and come talk to us!

 

Peter Harris

Christopher Burke

 

 

 

 

 

 

THIS IS NOT ABOUT SECURITIES - ITS ABOUT DUE PROCESS AND THE RULE OF LAW

THIS IS NOT ABOUT SECURITIES - ITS ABOUT DUE PROCESS AND THE RULE OF LAW

   

 What happened to due process and the Rule of Law? U-GO Brands directors have been denied any due process and adherence to the Rule of Law in regards to their dealings with the BC Securities Commission. We have been told repeatedly by public officials and lawyers that theres not much they can do since its a "Securities" issue. Our problem with that is that this is simply a blind excuse to let the BC Securities Commission act in an arbitrary and malicious manner when prosecuting the U-GO Brands directors. Are the financial markets now deemed free from the rule of law??
 The BC Securities Commission has the power to seize assets and prosecute people under Criminal Law as well as under Civil Law through its Tribunal Process.
If the BC Securities Commission is going to have these types of powers, the power to destroy some ones life they had better ensure due process and the rule of law are key in every investigation and judgement rendered or they themselves will be legally compromised and in no position to make a credible ruling.
 Our case is exactly such a case. This is not simply a question of a Securities infraction, this is a matter of civil rights.
 We have the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, Securities market or not.
 The BCSC did not extend us that right when it published defamatory material it knew to be false when printed.
The following exert is from our lawyer and a conversation with investigator Lindsey Donders in early 2014  in which Lindsey Donders mentions that the BCSC was aware that Lorne Cire and Peter Harris did not take the money in question yet continued to try to prosecute them for it.
 To this day we still have a disgorgement fee facing us of $650K, disgorgement fees by legal definition are only applicable in cases of fraud where ill gotten gains were retained.
In our case the BCSC could prove neither because we are as innocent as we were the day we went to them for help.

 Notice this is in April 2014, why did the prosecution continue to try and pin a crime on Lorne Cire and Peter Harris when they knew them to be innocent?

 In another flagrant contravention of Law the BCSC held two hearings, one on October the 8th and the other on Oct 31st 2014. It has withheld the transcripts from both hearings insisting they do not exist even though we all had to say our name for the stenographer who was there and recorded the entire process. The following is a direct quote from Ms Mitchell Banks where she states there is no record of the Oct 8th 2014 hearing when we asked for the transcript.
 The thing here is even if she were telling the truth and we all imagined the stenographer present the BC Securities Commission would still be in contravention of Supreme Court Law which demands they record such hearings even if they are preliminary.

  How can the BC Securities Commission be trusted to act in a fair and unbiased manner when making any legal decisions if this type of behavior is commonplace?

 These are just a couple examples of the BC Securities Commission and its complete disregard for the rule of law and justice.

 We simply do not trust the BC Securities Commission as they have been nothing but deceptive, vindictive,  and malicious during the entire prosecution. Why all the lies? What does the BCSC have to hide?

 Christopher Burke
 Peter Harris

BC SECURITY COMMISSION - THE PERJURY FILES

BC SECURITY COMMISSION - THE PERJURY FILES

  As previously promised details on Perjury Brief number one and further evidence of the BC Security Commissions lies to try and cover it up. The bottom line is no matter which version of the story the BCSC tries to hide behind it finds itself in contravention of the Law and the very Securities Act which governs it. The accounts were private trust accounts and there were no reasonable grounds to cease trade order the account as it had not received any cash input in close to two decades according to TD Bank Officials who vehemently protested the order. Both had no relation to U-GO Brands whatsoever.

 Here is evidence from the bank, I will follow with various statements from BCSC officials in regards to the cease-trade, all deny giving the order and blame the bank.

Stay tuned more as always to come..

www.bcsecuritiescommissionasham.blogspot.com

 

 

 

 

DEAR BC SECURITIES COMMISSION CEO BRENDA LEONG - ITS YOUR MOVE! - LETTER FROM LAWYERS THREATENING TO SUE ME FOR TELLING THE TRUTH

LETTER FROM LAWYERS THREATENING TO SUE ME FOR TELLING THE TRUTH


  Since this letter was sent I threatening legal action if I continue telling the truth we have not stopped publishing evidence and the truth in regards to the Criminal actions of the BCSC..
While Canadian press is to scared to tell the truth we have had our press releases picked up by major US papers including the Boston Globe, Miami Herald, Kansas City Star, LA Daily Times, San Jose Mercury etc..

Do you think I have heard from their lawyers?? No! They are all too scared to face us in a court of law because everything that we say is the truth. Instead they try to harass you with thugs and black choppers but they have had to give up on that because it only incriminates them more.. I have far more evidence in regards to the Surveillance Files that I have not yet made public, they are afraid I will get more, hence no Chopper visits for weeks since I posted the Surveillance pictures! I'm almost bored and lonely now lol!

 Its your move Brenda! Cant sue us, cant disappear us, cant' scare us into silence.. what's it gonna be?

 

 

We will not stop until justice is done..

regards

Christopher Burke

Peter Harris

 

 

 

DEAR BRENDA! THE LETTER THAT GOT THE BCSC TO LAWYER UP, A WARNING TO BRENDA LEONG THE CEO.

DEAR BRENDA! THE LETTER THAT GOT THE BCSC TO LAWYER UP, A WARNING TO BRENDA LEONG THE CEO.

 

Dear Brenda,

Your council has outlined the BCSC's position on the subject of U-Go-Brands and Spyru. It is regrettable that the Commission continues to operate in a criminal manner that is contrary to the public interest and more on par with a mob enterprise running an extortion racket. This is not my opinion it is a fact which we have proof for. In the case you have forgotten we are prepared to shed light on the entire operations of the BCSC by issuing a Constitutional challenge in addition to current proceedings against the BCSC. We will not have our legal rights undermined.

We have warned you time and again what the repercussions of not coming to the table and dealing with us after our rights were Criminally violated would be. Criminal charges will follow the criminal investigation currently underway. We begged the Commission to make right of the situation and gave it plenty of opportunities and warnings to do so before we filed with the Supreme Court for an injunction.

Your council insists that we have no evidence to back our allegations against the BCSC and has provided an affidavit to support such claims. The affidavit holds no evidence that would support your position that the BCSC proceeded with the U-Go/Spyru investigation in 'Good Faith' in accordance with the Securities Act. Relying on section 170 of the Securities Act does not exempt you from criminal charges especially in the case of a malicious investigation conducted in bad faith from the start. Although it may provide protection from civil action, Section 170 is no remedy for a series of will-fully perpetrated criminal offences. 

A few of the many Reasons the Commissions investigation and findings are/have been compromised;

 

1. Failure to live up to mandate as a public agency to serve the public good. We asked the BCSC for help and instead were subject to entrapment on behalf of the Commission with the Commission omitting to tell us for 7 months they had no jurisdiction over the problem we presented. Nor it they inform us it that KNEW of the Glusings prior fraudulent activities when we informed the BCSC of the scam the Glusings had perpetrated on us. Instead they publicly announced that we had stolen the money and conspired to entrap us.
   
   
2. Perjury in the course of the investigation and hearings (Donders and TD)
   
   
3. Lying to the plaintiffs in order to compel the plaintiffs to give evidence against themselves and threatening contempt of Supreme Court charges in the event we refused. Forcing us to testify as witnesses against ourselves!(For your reference Ms. Leong because your council is clearly misguided - this is illegal according to the Supreme Court Rules)
   
   
4. Failure to provide a transcript for the Oct Preliminary Hearings. Although we all recorded our names for the record of the court to the stenographer and the Stenographer was present the entire time. However Commission claims the hearing was not transcribed and it is not always policy to transcribe such procedures as preliminary hearings. This is a blatant lie.
   Whether or not the Commission Recorded the hearing is a moot point. The BCSCs divergence from the rule of law and self admitted operation in contravention of the The Supreme Court Law which govern all lesser courts compromises the BCSC and its legal credibility.

If these occurrences were a one off and not the norm then perhaps the BCSC could invoke section 170 and the 'good faith' argument. We can and will tender as many as perhaps hundreds of documents/emails/conversations with the BCSC that prove otherwise. The onus is on you, where is the Agencies proof it acted in good faith? 

Since the Commission continually relies on the Securities Act in defence of its actions I will demonstrate that not only is the Commission in violation of the Criminal Code and the Canadian Constitution but in violation of the Act which governs it. 

Nothing in Section 143 or 144 or any other section of the Securities Act gives the Commission the legal right to have us testify against ourselves as witnesses. In fact it explicitly states that the Commission and its agents are expected to proceed in the manner of Supreme Court Civil procedures.

Securities Act

144  (1) An investigator appointed under section 142 or 147 has the same power

(a) to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses,
(b) to compel witnesses to give evidence on oath or in any other manner, and
(c) to compel witnesses to produce records and things and classes of records and things
as the Supreme Court has for the trial of civil actions.

 

Brenda if your Council is advising that you are not in contravention of our Constitutional rights then I must suggest you hire new council.

We were compelled to testify against ourselves by your Agency under threats of being called into contempt of Supreme Court! How could we be in contempt of Supreme Court for refusing to testify against ourselves in the very Court which specifically outlines our right not to be compelled to testify against ourselves?!

 

At the time we were not aware of our legal right to refuse to be compelled to testify as Supreme Court rules dictate . The BCSC constantly flouts its powers as being that of the Supreme Court, if it has those powers it is most certainly bound to follow Supreme Court precedent and operate under the rule of law.

 

In regards to the preliminary hearing transcripts and their existence or lack thereof;

 

Section 11 of the Tribunals Act which would give the Commission power to run its 'court/tribunal process' as it saw fit does not apply to the BCSC as per section 4.1 of the Securities Act. No other Provincial or Federal Legislature specifically details how the Commission is to run its courts and/or tribunals and procedures.

 

The Securities Act which governs the BCSC does not detail or prescribe protocols, policies and/or procedures which would give the BCSC the legal right to operate in such a manner. As such the BCSC is obligated to operate inside the rule of law and in accordance with the rules of the Canadian Constitution and the Supreme Court of Canada.

Fundamental to the facilitation of these procedures is the rule of law and the administration of justice. The BCSC displayed complete disregard for these principles when it arbitrarily decided not to record the Oct 8^th and Oct 31^st hearings in the course of what it claims is standard procedure.

 

One of the two following scenarios is the truth about the hearings as stated by the Commission itself.

According to the Commission it did not record the Hearings in question, if this is true then by its own admission it operated in contravention of the Supreme Court Rules which govern it. If this is not true then the Commission lied and conspired to withhold and/or tamper with evidence in regards to the hearings recordings. Whichever is true is of little consequence as both scenarios outline Criminal offences and total disregard for the law.

No provincial legislation governing the BCSC contains specific language that would justify the BCSC in running its courts in the whimsical and arbitrary manner it has demonstrated.

The BCSC must adhere to Supreme Court rules and procedures and falls under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982. This is contrary to the BCSCs' constant insistence that it is outside of the law or that the law does not apply to them.

The BCSC compromised any legal authority and credibility it had when it forced us to testify as witnesses against ourselves. This is contrary to Section 11 (c) of the Canadian Charter of rights.

The BCSC committed a criminal offence when it forced us under threat of 'contempt of Supreme Court' to testify as witness against ourselves and attempted to get us to plead guilty to allegations they knew were false. The BCSC's decision to absolve the Plaintiffs from wrongdoing concerning all but one allegation are nothing but an attempt to escape responsibility for its Criminal actions.

 

The BCSC is in contravention of the very Securities Act which governs it, how can the BCSC make any legitimate rulings in light of such a tainted investigation and prosecution?

The following points are contraventions of the Securities Act which governs the Commission that were committed by the Commission! These contraventions alone justify our current proceedings against the Commission.

1. Compelling the U-Go Brands directors to testify as witnesses against themselves under threats of being called into contempt of Supreme Court.
   <<<BREACH OF SECTION 143 and 144 of the Securities Act in addition to being a BREACH OF SECTION 11. (c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.>>>
   
   
2. Claiming that there were never any transcripts for the Oct 8^th and 30^th hearings and that it is not protocol of the Commission to record such hearings. BREACH OF SUPREME COURT RULES
   
   
3. Twice posting the Thiberts private banking information online for the public to see.
   <<<BREACH OF SECTION 11 of the Securities Act.>>>
   
   
4. Attempting to coerce us to settle on all allegations against us when we approached the BCSC in regards to a settlement.
   <<<BREACH OF SECTION ??>>>

When paired with the extensive list of Criminal Code violations, Canadian Constitutional violations and breaches of the Charter of Rights it becomes extremely apparent that the Commission consistently demonstrates bad faith throughout the entire prosecution and investigation.

This negates any protection the Commission and its agents may have had under the Securities Act.

This makes the BCSC liable and answerable to the Canadian public for the crimes it has committed.

Any suggestion otherwise is a misleading statement and a falsehood.

Sincerely

Christopher Burke

Peter Harris

Directors

U-Go-Brands

ONE OF MANY ATTEMPTS TO REACH OUT TO THE BCSC AND PUBLIC OFFICIALS YEARS AGO BUT THEY WERE ALREADY BUSY ENTRAPPING US

ONE OF MANY ATTEMPTS TO REACH OUT TO THE BCSC AND PUBLIC OFFICIALS YEARS AGO BUT THEY WERE ALREADY BUSY ENTRAPPING US

We must note that the Honorable Suzanne Anton did recently give us the courtesy of a phone-call and would like to be kept in the loop regarding developments.. As these are Federal Crimes being committed by a Provincial Regulatory and Enforcement agency Ms. Antons ability to intervene on this matter.

 A Representative for the Honorable Ms Christy Clark also took time to address our concerns.
 Our only request of Ms, Clark is an in-depth look at eliminating conflict of interest in the financial markets in order to build a better Securities Act.
 One that doesn't give a Enforcement and Regulatory agency power to act arbitrarily by decree instead of following due process and the rule of law. If Ms. Clark truly wants whats best for BC families and the economy this will be a high priority. We do not need to bow to foreign corporations to pander for jobs, we need to protect our own homegrown corporations because those are the ones that will have British Columbians best interests at heart.

 

 

 

Peter Harris U-GO Brands Nut r i t ional Product Inc. 250-756-8213

1

Minister of Justice and Attorney General Honourable Suzanne Anton PO BOX 9044 Stn Prov. Govt Victoria BC V8W 9E2

 

 

Email: JAG.Minister@gov.bc.ca

 

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Subject: BCSC Unfair Practice

Reference: BCSC Enquiry Log #38849 * June 2013 * SPYru Inc. and Paradox Distributors

Dear Ms. Anton,

We are contacting you as a last result to protect over 300 BC investors and prevent the collapse of a viable company. We have prepared the following information for your review and assessment to investigate the BC Securities Commission for causing financial damages, abuse of power and failing to perform their mandated duties involving our Official Notification dated June 2013 to the "commission" of fraud perpetrated by our off-shore directors located in Providencials, TCI. We also requested the "commission" to assist and guide us as to how we can salvage our 300 BC investors and have these individuals registered as investors under the BC Securities Act.

This involves the start-up of a beverage company based in Providencials, TCI, where in 2010 Mark Glusing and Klaus Glusing formed a company named SPYru Inc. registered in the Turks and Caicos Islands. The Canadian directors were Lorne Cire and Peter Harris both residents of Kelowna, BC. They both resigned from SPYru Inc. in January 2013 on the grounds that Mark Glusing and Klaus Glusing had miss-appropriated funds and we needed to protect over 300 BC investors.

 

We are now at the stage we need to bring out the mitigating circumstances that have caused this state of affairs. The "commission" has been investigating us from the time we notified them in June of 2013, and after nine months we still have not been accused of any wrong doing other than improper documentation under the "commission". As of last week January 24th the "commission" has now asked for more documentation as they still want to continue to investigate our case. If the "commission" has not found anything after nine months, why are they still investigating?

 

 

It does not make sense for the "commission" to ask us to be witnesses and testify against ourselves. We have not been formally accused of any wrong doing and no complaints have been Peter Har r is U-GO Brands Nut r i t ional Product Inc. 250-756-8213

 

2

filed to the "commission" by our investors. The "commission" advised us that our case is unique, the "commission" stated they usually go after people, they mentioned they have no protocols for individuals volunteers themselves and the "commission" admitted they were not sure how to handle our official request for assistance.

 

BCSC – Summonses to Appear

 

 

On January 23rd last week Lorne Cire appeared in front of the "commission" at their request and the overall meeting was about the review of bank statements, subscription agreements, credit card bills, balance sheets and so on.

 

 

The "commission" never asked Lorne Cire about what happened with Klaus Glusing and ourselves, it was obvious they intentionally avoided the subject.

To date we have paid $125,000.00 to provide the "commission" with evidence as witnesses to be potentially used against us by the "commission". In actuality we have paid $125,000.00 to be investigated by the "commission"? Should that not be at the "commission" expense?

Why are we paying legal fees when we have not been formally accused by the "commission"?

 

Legal Representation of our Securities Attorney

 

 

Teresa M. Tomchak – Farris Law, Vancouver

We have no complaints about Ms. Tomchak as this is a unique case and she is faced with many grey areas, Ms. Tomchak is stuck between a rock and a hard place, after all the "commission" is her bread and butter, how hard can she push?

 

The "commission’s" Agency Service Failures

 

 

 It has become apparent the "commission" has no intention to protect the SPYru investors

 

 

 We requested a meeting with the "commission" to explain our exceptional situation, it was made very clear by the "commission" they had no interest in meeting with us to have a better understanding of our state of affairs as victims, all the "commission" requested was that we tender the SPYru documentation for their review and every time we communicated with the "commission" they strongly advised us to retain the services of an accredited securities attorney

 To date we have spent over $100,000.00 in legal fees to deal with strictly documents and not the mitigating circumstances. Moreover, we are now looking at another $25,000.00 in legal fees plus travel, hotel and meal expenses while in Vancouver to appear in front of the "commission"

 

 The "commission" wants this file to go away, it’s a political and potential PR nightmare, by the "commission’s" ongoing actions it’s very clear they do not want to make a Ruling or a Decision to assist and protect the SPYru investors and their investment.

 

 

Peter Har r is U-GO Brands Nut r i t ional Product Inc. 250-756-8213

 

3

BCSC Public Notifications

 

Why is our case, BCSC Enquiry Log #38849 is not appearing on the "commission’s" website docket of Herrings, Notifications and Investigations?

The "commission" has not provide efficient, timely, and responsive service. They have not acted fairly and ethically. They not taken responsibility to reach a timely resolve. They have not acted in a transparent fashion. They have not acted in the best interest of the investor’s. They have not taken a risk-based approach, proactive, innovative, and in a cost-effective manner.

 

Requirements for Corporate Survival

 

 

1. We need to stop the hemorrhaging of operational cash to cover legal fees to deal with the BCSC

2. We must prevent the "commission" from their unnecessary and not validated actions to cause the financial collapse of U-GO Brands

3. For the month of January 2014 U-GO Brands lost $250,000.00 of product orders due to the "commission" depleting our cash flow over this case and we still have not been accused of any miss doings

4. The "commission" failed to protect the interest of the SPYru investors

5. The "commission" failed to acknowledge and properly handle in a fair and non-discriminatory manner and properly respond to Peter Harris and Lorne Cire’s official "Statement of Facts" submitted to the "commission" in June 2013 and both Peter Harris and Lorne Cire requested assistance from the "commission" in the SPYru matter to protect over 300 SPYru shareholders the majority being BC residents, the "commission" never responded to our concerns

6. The "commission" failed to inspire SPYru investors’ confidence in resolving this matter in a timely fashion

 

GENERAL CHAIN OF EVENTS AND TIMELINE

 

 

Between Mark and Klaus Glusing, Lorne Cire and Peter Harris

 

 

This following was submitted to the "commission" in June 2013

 

First Approach by Klaus Glusing

 

 

In late 2009 Klaus Glusing approached Peter Harris to form a new shipping line operating out of Quebec City to Amsterdam, the company was called ICON SHIPPING and our task was to raise $2M to cover the start-up expenses for the ship charters, container leasing and so on.

Since Peter Harris worked with Lorne Cire at PARADOX as an independent, Peter Harris recruited Lorne Cire to raise investment funds for ICON SHIPPING. Peter Har r is U-GO Brands Nut r i t ional Product Inc. 250-756-8213

 

4

For six month Peter Harris & Lorne Cire contacted Canadian and American corporate executives, professional team owners to promote ICON SHIPPING with no success in raising any capital.

 

 

 

Personal Relationships and Working History

 

 

Kelowna’s (Lorne Cire & Peter Harris) decision to work with Klaus Glusing was based on Peter Harris’s 17 years of working on and off with Klaus Glusing back in the 70’s at CAST LINES in Montreal and over the years Klaus Glusing became Peter Harris’s mentor and we had no reason not to trust Klaus.

 

 

 

Second Approach by Klaus Glusing

 

 

By late 2010, Klaus Glusing asked if PARADOX would be willing to help his son Mark muster-up investors for his son’s new venture called "SPYru Uberwater", the nature of this business is to create and produce a water base drink infused with "Spirulina". According to Mark Glusing he only needed $175,000.00 to get SPYru up and running, this was only going to be a short term assignment. Over time after Mark Glusing’s passing in October 2011, red flags started popping up and as a result from October 2012, Kelowna recognizing that Klaus Glusing had a hidden agenda and this was to constantly badger Kelowna to sign-up new investors and not focus on the commercial development of SPYru and its success.

 

PARADOX/SPYRU - Money Transfers to Mark Glusing

Since this was going to be a short-term assignment and Kelowna had no intentions of being involved with SPYru on a full time basis, Klaus Glusing suggested Kelowna use Western Union and MoneyGram to transfer investor funds to Mark Glusing for the SPYru venture.

 

PARADOX/SPYRU – Bank Transfers to Klaus Glusing

Having no success with the ICON SHIPPING campaign, it was decided by all parties to focus our attention on developing SPYru. Base on this decision at first all investment funds collected by Kelowna were deposited in Lorne Cire’s personal bank account and forwarded on to SPYru.

 

 

Both Lorne Cire and Peter Harris approach Klaus Glusing insisting SPYru be transferred from Providencials, TCI and set-up in Canada or the United States, they insisted transferring of cash money had to stop. In addition Kelowna insisted that all accounting duties be transferred to Kelowna, our request was belligerently rejected by Klaus Glusing.

 

In the meantime Lorne Cire switched the banking from his personal account to the PARADOX business account, pending our approaching corporate attorneys to investigate our legal position in Canada versus the Turks and Caicos. Our objective is to salvage our work to date on this project and protect our loyal investors. Peter Har r is U-GO Brands Nut r i t ional Product Inc. 250-756-8213

 

5

 

 

It became evident Klaus Glusing had no intention to get SPYru Uberwater to market, Kelowna realised this when it was confirmed to Kelowna by major retailers they would not carry SPYru Uberwater due to the chemicals it contained.

Mark and Klaus Glusing were aware of this from the very start and never passed on this information. Thus, Kelowna came to the conclusion the Glusing’s were only interested in razing cash for their personal benefit.

 

CONFRONTING KLAUS GLUSING FOR MISS-MANAGEMENT OF SPYRU IN.

 

 

Board Meeting – October 2012

 

 

Both Lorne Cire and Peter Harris traveled to Providencials to express our dissatisfaction on how the company was being administered and we confronted Klaus Glusing with the following questions:

 

Q. We want to see the company minutes registered in Providencials, TCI?

A. No need for you to see the company minutes, I sent you the Director confirmation

Q. How many shares does SPYru Inc. have in total?

A. No need for you to be concerned, just keep the investors coming and we’ll make it

Q. How many shares do you have now since Mark’s passing?

A. It’s none of your business, let’s move on

Q. What happens to SPYru if you die?

A. A lawyer will be appointed by the court

Q. Do you not have a lawyer to take care of business?

A. No, I don’t need one

Q. How do we protect our investors since SPYru is an off-shore company?

A. Don’t worry about it, I’ve been running off-shore companies for years, they are protected

Q. If the investors are protected, can you explain why we cannot transfer SPYru to Canada or the USA to insure regulations are adhered to?

A. As you know I’ve been researching the possibilities with an Atlanta law firm to possibly setting up SPYru in the USA. I certainly do not want to incorporate in Canada for tax reasons Peter Har r is U-GO Brands Nut r i t ional Product Inc. 250-756-8213

 

6

Q. We asked why SPYru is not supplying PARADOX with monthly expenditure reports and bank statements from the funds PARADOX is sending to SPYru/Klaus Glusing

A. You don’t need to worry about that, besides I’m taking care of the books. In the TCI’s we don’t have to submit a financial report to Canada since we’re a private company and off-shore

 

 

 

Total Funds Not Accounted for: $805,515.13

 

 

 Mark Glusing: $213,759.99

 

 

 Klaus Glusing: $591,755.13

We have no plans to pursue Klaus Glusing for these funds, our only resolve is to insure investor protection and security.

 

Action taken to transfer Shareholder Base from Providencials, TCI to Kelowna, BC

 

 

Effective March 2013 PARADOX DIST. terminated its business agreement with SPYru Inc. and Klaus Glusing.

Our principal objective is to protect our investor base from losing their private investment and taking into consideration Klaus Glusing refusing to provide PARADOX with monthly financial statements of all funds transferred from Kelowna to Providencials, TCI.

Through our corporate attorneys, FARRIS LLP, Kelowna, BC and through Mr. Kevin Kingston we now have a BC Corporation listed as: ECHO PARTNERS LTD. We have instructed Mr. Kingston not to assign new ECHO PARTNERS and or U-GO BRANDS share certificates pending BC Securities approval.

 

ECHO PARTNERS LTD. – Profile

 

 

Nature of Business

 

 

Joint venture Company dedicated in the development of all natural products with dynamic health and environmental sustainability.

 

Our mandate is to distribute proprietary products and their trademarks under our subsidiary U-GO BRANDS NUTRITIONAL PRODUCTS INC.

 

 

 

Board of Directors

 

LORNE CIRE, Director, President and CEO

President, Paradox Dist. (1992) Ltd

 

PETER HARRIS, Director and Board Secretary

Paradox Dist. (1992) Ltd

Anderson Harris Marketing Peter Har r is U-GO Brands Nut r i t ional Product Inc. 250-756-8213

 

7

 

DR. MICHAEL KWASNEK, Director and Board Treasure

Director Optometry -Great Canadian Super Stores

 

JOHN THIBERT, Director

President, Bear Promotions

 

CHRISTOPHER A. BURKE, Director

President, Ghosted Media

 

SPYru Shareholder General Profile

 

 

With the exception of about five investors, from March 2010 to present, PARADOX signed over "Three Hundred" (300) SPYru Investors. A great deal of our shareholder base consists of the Cire Family and friends.

 

 

The other two major group of contributors to our shareholder base are, Dr. Michael Kwasnek and John Thibert, as a result we have a substantial amount of Medical Doctors as shareholders. John Thibert is a retired from Ottawa and is very well known in the Okanagan Valley, Mr. Thibert has brought a substantial amount of local business men to our investor base.

SPYru only sold shares to friends, family and business associates. We never promoted or solicited the general public, all investors came referred.

 

ACTION TAKEN BY KLAUS GLUSING SINCE THE MARCH 2013 TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT

Ever since the termination of our agreement with SPYru, Klaus Glusing has been virtually canvasing via e-mail messages and by phone some SPYru shareholders for more investment funds and criticizing Paradox, no one in Canada has responded to Klaus Glusing’s phone calls or e-mails.

For your reference, the above mentioned e-mail messages can be found in the "Klaus Glusing Correspondence" folder.

In addition Klaus Glusing contacted Dr. Michael Kwasnek, John Thibert to offer them a position in SPYru selling shares in Canada, both have not responded to Klaus Glusing.

October 2013 Klaus Glusing passed away in his sleep of natural causes in Providencials, TCI and SPYru Inc. is no longer operating. In addition, no will or assets have been found by the Providencials authorities, they did find a bank account with $300.00, and no one has claimed the body. Peter Har r is U-GO Brands Nut r i t ional Product Inc. 250-756-8213

 

8