Sunday, 31 January 2016

Dear Justin Trudeau, Mrs Wilson-Raybould - Its a matter of National Security.

Dear, Mr. Justin Trudeau, Mrs Jody Wilson-Raybould:


I write you in regards to a multitude of crimes committed by the BCSC and their absolute disregard

for justice and the rule of law in regards to the Financial Markets they are mandated with Regulating.

Do not let these lawyers and supposed financial gurus fool you, they regulate the industry in a manner

akin to racketeering. There is absolutely no benefit in their “protection” of BC citizens. The Financial

Regulatory Agencies in this nation need a major overhaul and the true story I outline is evidence of

such. The current regulatory regime only allows the rich rights to play in the world of Start-Up

enterprises and Venture Capital. Building a National Regulatory agency in the same manner the BCSC

and the OSC operate will not only create a larger criminal racket spanning the nation, it will destroy the

innovation and hamstring local talent. The current regulatory regime in effect squeezes out thousands

of small viable and legitimate businesses by creating regulations that suppress them and/or bleed them

of cash until they have been destroyed. There are many solutions to creating a regulatory environment

that is free of conflict of interest and helps build a strong nation however those conversations are for

another day.

I understand there are legitimate fraudsters and a major need for Regulation of the Financial Markets

however the BCSC has been granted powers to act as it wishes, it receives funding through creating

Regulatory Offences that have to be committed in order for them to get funded. This is counter to the

concept of the Rule of Law this nation is founded on. The BCSC Lawyers and supposed financial

gurus will argue that the Financial Market Rules should simply be excluded from this precept for the

very sake that it is the Financial Market, its very complex and only a few understand it.

This is a complete lie perpetuated by the current Regulatory regime in order to confuse people and

maintain their grip on power. The BCSC exists on a conflict of interest and only keeps our nation weak

and allows foreign Corporations to hollow out our Corporate infrastructure and squeeze out

productivity and innovation of local companies.

It is this very conflict of interest that encourages the committing of such crimes as myself and my

business partners have endured against us over the past three years. We are not alone.

The package I have sent you includes a little bit of everything we have gone through. Evidence of

Perjury and Tampering committed during the course of the BCSC and its prosecution against us,

evidence I am under surveillance by private Black-Ops thugs that have been hired to silence me. I have

included some of our experiences outside the evidence provided in regards to our sham of a

prosecution. Experiences such as the Black choppers repeatedly sent to harass me, the thugs I

photograph after playing cat and mouse games. I even had a ex Military type approach me randomly

and tell me they will kill me for doing what I am doing. I am standing up for my rights as a Canadian

Citizen. They are destroying our nation its time to take it back.



Christopher Andrew Burke

Peter David Harris


Evidence of the first time the BC Securities posted the Thibert family Trust accounts online on the BCSC website for the world to see.
 When we initially asked to have the Bank account numbers removed BCSC staff responded by telling us that once the webmaster had posted something it was up for good and could not be removed.
 These are the actions of a Regulatory agency mandated with protecting the integrity of the financial markets?


More to come..

Peter Harris
Christopher Burke


Sometimes as you can see our frustrations in dealing with such a lying, deceptive, and manipulative agency bubble to the surface.
On 30/01/2014 5:08 PM, Peter D. Harris - U-GO Brands wrote:
Dear Ms. Donders, Further to my message of this morning, it's obvious your bosses are telling you to take us around the block a few times and we will go away. WRONG! Ms. Donders, Let me give you a piece of advice, don't let yourself get involved into confidential meetings after 5:00pm to do what you think is damage control, your bosses will take you down in a New York minute when they realize their career is in jeopardy. You are involved in a very protective and career minded environment, you are working with people that have no morals and these people would put their own mother under the bus and not loss one minute of sleep. IT’S a FACT JACK! Your bosses do not have your best interest at hand, your being set up for a fall. The BCSC is staffed with people you should never trust, your bosses are in a damage control mode and that means when the shit hits the fan your going to find out how solid your bosses are. As stated, we are prepare to sit down face to face with the appropriate authority to reach a happy resolve. We are approachable! Please convey to your bosses the longer they wait to come to the table the more I will push and if that means collateral damage so bit it !!! Let's stop the intimations and lets work out a an agreement!!!!!!! I wish you the best in your career. I expect a timely response. You have a great evening Cheers Peter

On 30/01/2014 12:06 PM, Peter D. Harris - U-GO Brands wrote:
Please Hand deliver to Ms. Brenda M. Leong, BCSC Chair

Dear Ms. Donders, What is wrong with you people? You still don't get it... What the agency should be doing is sending us a letter wanting to meet face to face and come to



a revolve for the best interest of 300 BC investors and stop you abuses. Your letter of today is exactly why I call your agency a bush of bullies, you still don't get it and you do not lsiten to peoples concerns. The key to this case is your agency failed and ignored the fact we had been deceived and defrauded by our off-shore directors, the agency never investigated that part of the case and made it very obvious they were not interested to pursue any further, why is that, what happen to a fair and impartial investigation?. The agency, never address the issue to protect the 300 investors and that's the agency main mandate, THE AGENCY HAS FAILED the 300 investor BIG TIME, all you have done is treat us like criminals and use legal wording to intimidate us. Again with the threats, we are not in contempt of court, if you want to be technical we are in competent of your agency and not the law. By the way the agency has been officially notified that we exersie our right not to apprea infront of your investigator, I want to see the Judge that going to give you a bench warrant for contempt, when you have failed in your investigation and we have plenty of documentation where we asked the agency for help and the agency decide not to respond.. The agency is not exempt from the law and is CERTAINLY not a court. If I don't want to be questioned by a police office, I can exercise my right not to be questioned, unless the police officer can substantiate and prove to the Crown that he has sufficient evidence to make a case. What makes the your agency so special? NOTHING Your so call SUMMONS TO APPEAR IN FRONT OF AN INVESTIGATOR is exactly what is, how can you get a judge to issue a bench warrant against us, when we have not been summons by the court, but by your office, failing to answer questions by an investigator is not against the law, you should no better. Please stop your intimidations and lets site down a work this out FACE TO FACE in the best interest of the Agency and our investors. Cheers Peter Harris P.S. if you get your bench warrant, please let me know and we will all surrender ourselves to the RCMP Kelowna detachment and will be immediately released on our own recognizance. I await you pleasant message... Cheers Peter


See the story break live at the Digital Journal


See the biggest story in BC this year breaking on Newswire first!!

The truth will prevail.

Peter Harris
Christopher Burke


 Hi Brenda,

  Just wondering what kind of info you want me to share this week. I wonder how the BC public would feel about the secret army you and the rest of the scum you hang with deploy against people like me when you don't get what you want? Or maybe the other one?

 Maybe I should talk about the pay-scale, how BCSC employees get rewarded for bringing legitimate local companies down based on rules that need to be broken in order for you to get paid?
 The cash bonuses involved.. Wow this almost smells like a criminal racket!! Oh wait.. maybe it is!

Honestly I cant figure out what to post today, cant find the evidence I was looking for, its lost in all the other wads of evidence I'm buried in lol!

Christopher Burke
Peter Harris

Saturday, 30 January 2016


My response when Lawyer Leonard T Doust threatened legal action in order to keep me from telling the truth..
Leonard T Doust
Dear Sir,
While I can respect your position on use of the charges pending term I must
differ on all other matters pertaining to Spyru, U-Go Brand, I must also make it
clear to you that we have enough hard evidence to qualify our position to ensure
charges are pressed. Any legal protection granted to the Securities Commission
and its agents by the Securities Act is only applicable if the Agency operates in
good faith. The BCSC has compromised its position from the start. We have
ample evidence to prove these allegations as well as demonstrate bad faith
throughout on the behalf of the securities commission. In addition we consider
the very foundation of the BCSC to be arbitrary in nature, it does not operate in
the best interest of the investors or the BC Economy. The fact that BCSC has to
make rules and regulations that need to be broken to allow BCSC to receive its
funding does not sit in accordance with the rule of law as it is a clear conflict of
interest. As you are now council for the Commission I will inform you that in
addition to Criminal Charges we intend to have the Commission examined with a
Constitutional Challenge in Canadian Supreme Court, the basis of the BCSC is in
many ways without legal merit. No doubt Section 33 of the Canadian Constitution
Act of 1982 will come to your mind but its only applicable if 'good faith' is clearly
demonstrated, not only that the Securities Act must clearly define any actions
that may otherwise be criminal as being legal. The Securities Act does not allow
for criminal acts as the BCSC has committed there are no legislations that give
BCSC the right to operate in the manner it does. Mr. Doust I can assure you that
we have hard evidence to prove our position and we are prepared to use
every legal avenue needed to bring this matter to a fair and just
conclusion even if that means testifying in Canadian Supreme Court in front of
the entire country.
Christopher Burke
Peter Harris
Stay tuned tomorrow to see how many times the BC Securities Commission will post citizens private banking info online. Also a letter from Leonard T Doust from Law Firm McCarthy Tetrault sent last spring threatening legal action.
 And if time permits how Farris Law colludes with the BCSC to entrap unsuspecting innocent victims.. Stay tuned..


This particular item may be nothing but I have had numerous attempts to hack my computer. Even the current computer I use to write this likely has a key logger and has been physically compromised since my Family and I caught two men in the process of exiting our hotel room as I have previously mentioned in the Surveillance files.
 Here is a screen shot of an attack on my PC.
Usually they come while I am writing emails to people they do not want me to talk to.
 For some time they controlled the phone lines, email and internet. They are still listening of course but now they know that every word I say I want them to know. I have nothing to hide however I have been forced to take extreme measures for the safety of ourselves, family and friends.

Peter Harris
Christopher Burke


We are not the only ones dealing with this type of behavior on the behalf of the BC Securities Commission. The link here is to the story of Rodney Snyder who has undergone similar experiences in dealing with the BCSC. See the following..

 The people of British Columbia will no longer be subjected to such criminal abuse nor will we tolerate our interests being sold outright to people who would poison our waters, steal our resources and corrupt our legal system so as to deny us the same rights blood money bought them.

Christopher Burke
Peter Harris


 The BC Securities Commission hides its crimes behind Section 170 of the Securities Act.

Immunity of commission and others

170  (1) No action or other proceeding for damages lies and no application for judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act may be instituted against the commission, a member of the commission, an officer, servant or agent of the commission, a designated organization, a director, officer, servant or agent of a designated organization, an auditor oversight body, a director, officer, servant or agent of an auditor oversight body, an employee appointed to administer this Act or any person proceeding under

(a) an order, a written or oral direction or the consent of the commission,

(b) an order of the minister made under this Act, or

(b.l) a delegation or authorization referred to in section 167.2 (1) (a) or (b),

for any act done in good faith in the

(c) performance or intended performance of any duty, or

(d) exercise or the intended exercise of any power,

under this Act, including a duty or power referred to in section 167.2 (1) (c), or for any neglect or default in the performance or exercise in good faith of that duty or power.

(2) No person has any remedies and no proceedings lie or may be brought against any person for any act done or omission made as a result of compliance with this Act, the regulations or any decision rendered under this Act.

What the BCSC pretends is that this is a licence to disregard the Rule of Law. This is simply not true, the BCSC must still act in 'Good Faith' when investigating and prosecuting the Respondents in any case.
 One or two of these crimes that you have perpetrated or even three committed accidently and owned up to on the behalf of the BC Securities Commission could perhaps be overlooked. This however is not the case, as you know we have mountains of evidence against all of you and will be gathering further.
 Some of you including you Brenda, are facing a long time in a Federal prison cell.

Did the BCSC act in 'Good Faith' when it illegally Cease-Traded the Thibert Trust Accounts?
Did it act in 'Good Faith when multiple employees lied to cover it all up?

Did the BCSC act in 'Good Faith' when it printed materiel it knew to be false well after all evidence proved otherwise?

Did the BCSC act in 'Good Faith' when it printed all the private details of the Thiberts Trust accounts on its website for the world to see?

Did the BCSC act in 'Good Faith' when it printed all the private details of the Thiberts Trust accounts AGIAN on its website for the world to see seven or eight months after our lawyer at the time had them taken down the first time??

Did the BCSC act in 'Good Faith' when it destroyed hearings transcripts for two hearing management meetings??

 Did the BCSC act in 'Good Faith' when it when its prosecutors attempted to stick us with a $9 Million dollar disgorgement when they could not find us guilty of fraud or profiting from ill gotten gains?

 Did the BCSC act in 'Good Faith' when it ignored our crys for help while it decided how best to entrap us??

Did the BCSC act in 'Good Faith' when it stuck us with a disgorgement fee of $650K instead of $9 Million even though we are innocent??

Why does the BCSC hide behind thugs with cardboard cut-outs?

What is the BCSC hiding?

Peter Harris
Christopher Burke


BCSC Falsehoods and Lies.

The following statement was released by the BCSC on Dec 28 as part of a BCSC press release issued in the Kelowna Daily Courier in regards to the U-Go Brand/Spyru case.

“Harris, Cire, Burke and Kwasnek have been ordered to pay $636,000 to the BCSC. That’s the amount they obtained as a result of their misconduct in relation to U-GO.”

Once again the BCSC insists on printing statements about the respondents it knows are false and misleading for the public's consumption. The statement made here would lead the average lay person to believe we committed fraud and profited from ill gotten gains. The BCSC knows damn well this isn't true yet it perpetuates falsehoods in regards to the respondents all the time.

Does the BCSC really think itself to be above the law?

Does the BCSC realize that it is digging its own grave?

Does the BCSC not realize if it does not come to the table immediately it will be destroyed completely?

Every time the BCSC manipulates the truth to try and spin it for its own devious purposes it simply gives us more bullets to load up with?

The BCSC insists our refusal to be regulated is a danger to the integrity of the markets. What about BCSC perjury, tampering, extortion?? Does this keep the markets safe? We are simply standing up for our civil and human rights.

Does the BCSC really think it it cover the truth?? The truth is bursting at the seams and you try and hold it in but the thing is the harder you squeeze the easier it will slip out of your grasp.

Look around your comfy office tower, look outside.. Do you really think you know everything going on? Do you think you have control?? If you do.. enjoy it while it lasts.

Do you realize that we have barely started to fight back?

Does the BCSC think it can make us disappear?

By the way I have more photos of your 'friend's .. do you think I'm intimidated?

I know what its like to be watched by some thugs.. Do you?

Time to deal with us. The alternate option is that the BCSC will be destroyed and if you think its all good because you will just go work with the new national regulator think again. We will ensure this does not happen. We have enough evidence to destroy any credibility a new regulatory agency has so think very carefully about what it is you find important before you continue. This is not a threat its a promise.

How was 2015? Did you have a good year? I hope you did because we are going to make your next years a living hell if the BCSC does not immediately settle with the respondents. Promise.

Do you think you can make us go away? I have evidence that the cops don't have, you don't have it either. If we disappear they get it all and you all start facing far more prison time then you already are.


Christopher Burke

Peter Harris


T h e Ho n o u r a b l e Wa l l y Op p a l , QC . B o u g h t o n L aw Ema i l me s s a g e e x c h a n g e b e twe e n B C S C a n d E c h o P a r t n e r s L t d . Oc t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 t o Oc t o b e r 23, 2 0 1 4

P a g e 1 o f 8 F r om: P e t e r Ha r r i s T u e s d a y , O c t o b e r - 2 8 - 1 4

Tuesday, October-28-14

Dear Mr. Oppal,

Further to our previous case overview report and for your convenience and quick reference we have attached said document.

In addition, we are sending you the below message exchange with the Commission and this is only an example of the treatment we have been subjected to by these so called investigators.

We look forward to meeting with you this coming Thursday your offices at 3:30pm


Peter Harris

On 28/10/2014 6:31 PM, Teresa Mitchell-Banks wrote:

Mr. Harris,

You are entirely welcome to attend the Hearing Management Conference on October 31st. In fact, it is staff’s position you should all come and represent yourself. As I have previously advised you, the position of the Commission is that Mr. Harris should not be representing any of you and that you should either act on your own behalf or hire counsel.

On 28/10/2014 3:16 PM, Peter D. Harris - Echo Partner Ltd. wrote:

Exhibit: SM00075 - SP-181 RESPONSE IS NOT REQUIERED Subject: Unlawful Freezing of Trust Accounts Mr. John and Diane Thibert British Columbia Securities Commission

Mr. James K. Torrance,

Senior Litigation Counsel

Mr. Torrance,

We refer to Ms. Mitchell-Banks below message and it’s beyond comprehension why Ms. Mitchell-Banks keeps sending email messages to Mr. John Thibert affirming that Mrs. Diane Thibert’s trust account was never frozen by the Commission. T h e Ho n o u r a b l e Wa l l y Op p a l , QC . B o u g h t o n L aw Ema i l me s s a g e e x c h a n g e b e twe e n B C S C a n d E c h o P a r t n e r s L t d . Oc t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 t o Oc t o b e r 23, 2 0 1 4

P a g e 2 o f 8 F r om: P e t e r Ha r r i s T u e s d a y , O c t o b e r - 2 8 - 1 4

As per the attached letter from TD Waterhouse dated October 17, 2014, it clearly confirms Diane Thibert’s account was order frozen on February 6, 2014. This was not an error on the part of TD Waterhouse as implied by the Commission, otherwise TD Waterhouse would have immediately unfrozen Diane Thibert’s trust account.

In fact when Mr. Blair Payton of TD Waterhouse received a copy of the order to freeze Diane Thibert’s account and the Thibert’s joint account, Mr. Payton call Lindsey Donders to question the legality of the frees order, Mr. Payton’s phone conversation with Ms. Donders was terminated quickly as she hung-up the phone.

In addition, we did receive a message from the Commission that the freezing of the Thibert’s joint trust account was a computer glitch and was subsequently lifted on February 13, 2014. This does not absolve the Commission from an unlawful and negligent action.

TD Waterhouse is an established Canadian financial institution and why on earth would they make false statements to the Commission?

The repudiation on the part of the Commission investigative staff, clearly shows tunnel vision and unwillingness to accept new evidence.


Peter D. Harris

On 28/10/2014 9:54 AM, Peter D. Harris - Echo Partner Ltd. wrote:

Subject: We never know when the BCSC Commission is telling us the truth or are they trying to intimidate us again? REPLY NOT REQUIRED

What motivated the Commission not to request an audio recording and a transcript produced at the October 8 hearing? The BCSC Tribunal being a formal and legal forum always records and issues a transcript to the plaintiff and the accused of what was said during the hearing. Our problem is we never know when the Commission is telling us the truth or are they again trying to intimidate us? Peter Harris

On 27/10/2014 2:37 PM, Mila Pivnenko wrote:

Dear Commission Secretary, T h e Ho n o u r a b l e Wa l l y Op p a l , QC . B o u g h t o n L aw Ema i l me s s a g e e x c h a n g e b e twe e n B C S C a n d E c h o P a r t n e r s L t d . Oc t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 t o Oc t o b e r 23, 2 0 1 4

P a g e 3 o f 8 F r om: P e t e r Ha r r i s T u e s d a y , O c t o b e r - 2 8 - 1 4

The Executive Director requests that the second hearing management meeting in Spyru et al. case scheduled to occur on October 31, 2014 be audio recorded and a transcript produced.

Thank you.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014


Senior Litigation Counsel

Mr. Torrance,

How can Ms. Mitchell-Banks advise us to retain legal counsel when she knows very well we have run out of money?

Not only that, we have spent in excess of $150,000.00 in legal fees in our case and we have nothing to show for it.

Facing very significant penalties

This is a very strong statement to make when we are the ones that contacted the Commission for help, not knowing that we would later be set-up and become accused. All of the allegations brought forth against our Group by the Commission, we have proven that the accusations have no merit. The only offence we are guilty of is badly administrating SPYru Inc. as Sales Agents.

As for the accusation pertaining to errors on the U-GO Brands subscription agreements relating to the miss classification of investors, this is a questionable issue as investors do not have to, or refuse to disclose personal finances information when signing the subscription agreement, this is validated by the VCMA as a serious discriminatory issue.

We find Ms. Mitchell-Banks above statement to be inflammatory, intimidating and daunting. This kind of statement coming from an Officer of the Court is unbecoming as an attorney and is totally non-ethical to attempt to scare people into submission.

You should all make sure you have competent legal advice

This statement is arrogant and again, totally unethical on the part of a civil servant.

Mr. Torrance, please understand we are not trying to defy authority, but we will defend ourselves against the Commission’s uncalled for abuses, torments, bullying and slanderous accusations on the Commission website. T h e Ho n o u r a b l e Wa l l y Op p a l , QC . B o u g h t o n L aw Ema i l me s s a g e e x c h a n g e b e twe e n B C S C a n d E c h o P a r t n e r s L t d . Oc t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 t o Oc t o b e r 23, 2 0 1 4

P a g e 4 o f 8 F r om: P e t e r Ha r r i s T u e s d a y , O c t o b e r - 2 8 - 1 4

We certainly do not want to offend your profession or the Tribunal, however, we have no alternative but to attend the October 31, 2014 Management Hearing without legal representation as explained in prior messages.


Peter D. Harris

On 27/10/2014 10:41 PM, Teresa Mitchell-Banks wrote:

Mr. Harris,

Your ‘letters of authorization’ are not acceptable and we will be opposing you representing anyone but yourself or a company for whom you are a director. You, your fellow respondents, and your companies are facing very significant penalties. You should all make sure you have competent legal advice.

On 27/10/2014 9:11 PM, Teresa Mitchell-Banks wrote:

Mr. Harris,

I write to advise you that we will not be forwarding your email directly to the Ms. Audrey Ho, as to do so would be entirely inappropriate. Counsel for the Executive Director will be opposing the entry of your email as an exhibit as it is not relevant to the matters before the panel. Further, most of it is taken directly from the article written by Kim Rossmer and has absolutely nothing to do with the matters with which you and your colleagues are charged. Your email contains submissions not evidence and as such, we will oppose its admission into evidence. You have been sent guidelines for the conduct of a hearing and you would be well advised to read them.

On 27/10/2014 8:06 PM, Teresa Mitchell-Banks wrote:

Mr. Harris,

Hearing management meetings are not usually recorded. As the October 8th management meeting was not recorded, there is no transcript. In the future, if you wish a management meeting to be audio recorded I suggest you ask COMMSEC, in advance, to audio record the meeting. This is an unusual request and so I stress that such a request should be done as soon as possible in advance of a matter so that COMMSEC can consider your request and make the necessary arrangements should they decide to audio record the meeting. T h e Ho n o u r a b l e Wa l l y Op p a l , QC . B o u g h t o n L aw Ema i l me s s a g e e x c h a n g e b e twe e n B C S C a n d E c h o P a r t n e r s L t d . Oc t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 t o Oc t o b e r 23, 2 0 1 4

P a g e 5 o f 8 F r om: P e t e r Ha r r i s T u e s d a y , O c t o b e r - 2 8 - 1 4

With respect to your requests for copies of the Investor Impact Statements, these questionnaires are regularly sent out after the Notice of Hearing is published and are only tendered into evidence if there is a finding of liability and the matter proceeds to a sanction hearing. Staff for the Executive Director will comply with their disclosure obligations at an appropriate time and in an appropriate manner.

Again, staff for the Executive Director will not be responding to your emails. All correspondence will take place through me. This is a regrettable necessity which your previous correspondence has brought about.


T.R. Mitchell-Banks

On 24/10/2014 12:03 PM, Christopher Burke wrote:

To whom it may concern:

I, Christopher Burke hereby authorize Peter Harris to represent me in any and all matters pertaining to dealing with the BCSC. Please cc and communicate with Mr. Harris anything that is communicated with me.

I will exercise my rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Legal: 10 (b) (c)

My rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Under the Great Writ (Habeas Corpus) to instruct any party I deem fit to represent me and speak on my behalf


Christopher Burke.

On 27/10/2014 10:23 PM, Teresa Mitchell-Banks wrote:

Mr. Burke,

I write to make you aware that the staff for the Executive Director will be opposing Mr. Harris representing you at the Hearing. With all due respect, your email makes no legal sense whatsoever. I have given a brief explanation below as to why your email is founded on a grave misunderstanding of the law. I strongly suggest that you take your email (and my response to it) to a lawyer and get some preliminary advice.

The Charter or Rights under 10 of the Charter of Rights (I note you cite b and c) reads as follows: T h e Ho n o u r a b l e Wa l l y Op p a l , QC . B o u g h t o n L aw Ema i l me s s a g e e x c h a n g e b e twe e n B C S C a n d E c h o P a r t n e r s L t d . Oc t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 t o Oc t o b e r 23, 2 0 1 4

P a g e 6 o f 8 F r om: P e t e r Ha r r i s T u e s d a y , O c t o b e r - 2 8 - 1 4

Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

(a) To be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;

(b) To retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and

(c) To have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not valid.

The bold and the underlining are mine. If you read the section you are quoting you will see that it does not apply to you. You are not under arrest or detention. The meaning of the word counsel is defined in the case law as meaning a lawyer. Mr. Harris is not a lawyer. The commission does not have the jurisdiction to hold a habeas corpus hearing and you are not detained in any event so no court would grant you a habeas corpus hearing. In short, s. 10 has no application to the case at hand.

Similarly, your insistence on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and what you call the ‘Great Writ (Habeas Corpus) are both equally inapplicable to your present case before the BCSC.

The allegations against you and your fellow respondents are serious. You should realize that if you are found liable by the Commission, staff will be seeking very significant penalties against you. Please get some legal advice from someone competent to give it to you. Legal advice may seem expensive but it will not be as expensive as going without it. If you have a defence you should lead it. Talk to a lawyer.

On 28/10/2014 3:38 PM, Christopher Burke wrote:

Ms. Banks,

Thank you for the clarification that you are NOT a Supreme Court and BCSC has no such jurisdiction to proceed in such a manner. This means however that as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the highest law in the land that all other laws, bylaws and acts both civil and criminal must fall within these guidelines unless a specific act of CANADIAN Parliament States otherwise.

Thus the BCSC under the Securities Act must operate within the confines of the law. BC Supreme Court Civil Rules allow me the right to choose any person I deem to speak and act on my behalf. The Canadian Bill of Rights again allows me to choose any party as I see fit to represent myself. T h e Ho n o u r a b l e Wa l l y Op p a l , QC . B o u g h t o n L aw Ema i l me s s a g e e x c h a n g e b e twe e n B C S C a n d E c h o P a r t n e r s L t d . Oc t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 t o Oc t o b e r 23, 2 0 1 4

P a g e 7 o f 8 F r om: P e t e r Ha r r i s T u e s d a y , O c t o b e r - 2 8 - 1 4

Essentially if you are saying that your court does not have the authority regarding previously mentioned law then certainly your court being lesser then the Supreme Court of Canada and British Columbia does not have the right nor authority to tell me who may or may not represent me. Since I have no money for a lawyer and BCSC approved lawyers have no interest in justice in the first place and can clearly be seen as in collusion with the commission (Hence the instance upon one) I authorize Peter D Harris to speak on my behalf in all matters pertaining to the BCSC.

Power of Attorney documents will be produced to affirm said notion. And for the record an email IS now considered a legal document I may use as valid proof in a court of law.


Christopher Andrew Burke

On 27/10/2014 9:11 PM, Teresa Mitchell-Banks wrote:

Mr. Harris,

I write to advise you that we will not be forwarding your email directly to the Ms. Audrey Ho, as to do so would be entirely inappropriate. Counsel for the Executive Director will be opposing the entry of your email as an exhibit as it is not relevant to the matters before the panel. Further, most of it is taken directly from the article written by Kim Rossmer and has absolutely nothing to do with the matters with which you and your colleagues are charged. Your email contains submissions not evidence and as such, we will oppose its admission into evidence. You have been sent guidelines for the conduct of a hearing and you would be well advised to read them.

On 27/10/2014 7:12 PM, Peter D. Harris - Echo Partner Ltd. wrote:

THIRD REQUEST Mr. Terrance, we again, respectfully request that you send us the October 8, 2014 hearing transcript and we want all of the Investor Impact Statement you have on file, we are simply exercising our right to information.

On 25/10/2014 11:29 AM, Peter D. Harris - Echo Partner Ltd. wrote:

Subject: SPYru / Echo Partners October 8, 2014 - Transcript of the Management Hearing and we want all of the Investor Impact Statements SECOND REQUEST T h e Ho n o u r a b l e Wa l l y Op p a l , QC . B o u g h t o n L aw Ema i l me s s a g e e x c h a n g e b e twe e n B C S C a n d E c h o P a r t n e r s L t d . Oc t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 t o Oc t o b e r 23, 2 0 1 4

P a g e 8 o f 8 F r om: P e t e r Ha r r i s T u e s d a y , O c t o b e r - 2 8 - 1 4

Mr. Torrance Further to Ms. Mitchell-Banks message dated 24/10/2014 at 1:32 PM informing us and I quote, We are not in possession of a transcript of the October 8 Hearing We all know this is not true, every time there has been a hearing we received a transcript and now we are told you have no copy. Mr. Torrance honestly? Is this the way to act as a government independent agency? We all know that if it had been Greg Allen from Hunter Litigation requesting the transcript, the commission would have complied immediately. But since we cannot afford legal counsel, the Commission staff is doing everything in its power to continue to intimidate us and show us complete disrespect and they continue to violate our civil rights. Mr. Terrance, we again, respectfully request that you send us the October 8, 2014 hearing transcript and we want all of the Investor Impact Statement you have on file, we are simply exercising our right to information. Sincerely Peter Harris

On 23/10/2014 4:28 PM, Peter D. Harris - Echo Partner Ltd. wrote:

Subject: SPYru / Echo Partners October 8, 2014 - Transcript of the Management Hearing Mr. Torrance, Please send us as soon as possible the transcript of the October 8th Management hearing. Thank you, Peter Harris


Our $1.05 Billion Dollar law suite filed against the BCSC in an attempt to bring them to the table.
We never intended to go ahead with the suite as a Billion dollars is an obscene amount, we simply want what we are owed. The case against U-GO Brands Inc. never should have existed.
As of early 2015 our lost revenues would be $11.4 Million dollars in addition we wanted an extra
%15 for the shareholders whom the BCSC is currently screwing.
 Today the number stands much closer to $20 Million dollars.

Thursday, March 06, 2014

Honorable Suzanne Anton

Minister of Justice

Room 232

Parliament Buildings

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Supreme Court Civil Claim against the BCSC, Case #102380


In the matter of





Exemplary and Punitive Damages for $1.005 Billion Dollars

Dear Honorable Ms. Anton,

I’m contacting you again in regards to our ongoing quandary with the BCSC and my letters addressed to you, dated February 20th and February Feb 27, 2014 pertaining to our protest against the commission for mishandling our request for help from the BCSC to protect a viable and profitable company and its investors.

We have cooperated with the commission for the last ten months and we disbursed $130,000.00 in legal fees and we are no further ahead with the commission. We went from being paid each $20.00 to be witnesses and now we have unfounded and vindictive allegations brought forth by the commission and its employees to our investors.

As of about five weeks ago we terminated our legal counsel and we started to deal with the commission directly ourselves and after numerous letters to the commission opposing and questioning some of their action’s, the commission never replied to our letters other than replying with idle threats. It would seem the commission strongly objects when someone stands up to their abuses and as results of the last five weeks of our applying pressure on the commission, now the commission has become vindictive.

This is an agency filled with people that have very big egos and are out of touch with the real world, these employees show no empathy at all and that’s very dangerous.

It’s unfortunate that we find ourselves in this situation today, when all the commission and its employees had to do was grant us a meeting when we filed our complaint June 12, 2013. The commission and its employees never allowed us to exercise or freedom of expression and to be heard in a fair and impartial manner.

Ms. Anton, we have been dealing with the commission in a very transparent form and for this reason, I’m attaching the following documents for your review and assessment.

In closing, I hope and as we have always indicated to the commission and its employees we are prepare to work with the commission in a fair and impartial manner to protect our investors.


Peter D .Harris


SuperDrop Energy

U-GO Brands Nutritional Products Inc.


Ref erenc e: echo 0 47-08-06 -201 4


E C H O P A R T N E R S L T D . P e t e r D. Ha r r i s Di r e c tor , Bo ar d S e c r e t ar y P hone : 2 5 0 -765-8213 E -ma i l : p. ha r r i s@t e lu s . ne t We b s i t e : www. e c h o p a r t n e r s . c a

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Hunter Litigation Chambers
Greg J. Allen, Attorney

Suite 2100 - 1040 West Georgia Street

Vancouver, BC V6E 4H1
Chain of Events Dealing with the BC Securities Commission

From June 2013 to February 2014

Dear Greg,

To assist you in the SPYru case, I’m providing you with a general overview and cronolized chain of events that occurred while dealing with the commission and our subsequent lawsuit against the commission for conducting a biased and un-lawful investigation against U-GO Brands and Echo Partners, including the slandering of our Directors.
Sole Reason for Contacting the Commission

As you know, we approached the commission as victims of Klaus Glusing and for this reason, we sought out the commission to help us transfer legally SPYru Inc. to Canada and save the SPYru resident investors from losing their investment. Over the next seven months from our initial contact with the commission, we fully co-operated and we voluntary turned over all of the documents requested by the commission.

Deception and Misleading Undertakings

William Ting, BCSC Investigator

On June 12, 2013 when I first made contact with Mr. Ting and without Mr. Ting asking, I voluntarily submitted on the same day, a 10 page "Statement of Facts" explaining our commercial activities with SPYru Inc. and Klaus Glusing going back to 2010, in this document we provided detailed information as to why we were seeking assistance from the commission. (See attached "Statement of Facts" for quick reference) Ref erenc e: echo 0 47-08-06 -201 4
E C H O P A R T N E R S L T D . P e t e r D. Ha r r i s Di r e c tor , Bo ar d S e c r e t ar y P hone : 2 5 0 -765-8213 E -ma i l : p. ha r r i s@t e lu s . ne t We b s i t e : www. e c h o p a r t n e r s . c a

Several days after my first contact with Mr. Ting, Lorne Cire and I requested that we travel at our own expense to Vancouver and meet with Mr. Ting to explain how we got defrauded by Klaus Glusing and why we were seeking their help before the commission rendered judgment and started an investigation.

After all, our case is unique, as the commission agreed, and we did voluntarily approach the commission for help; we never tried to avoid our responsibilities with the commission.

At the beginning, my dealings with Mr. Ting were very friendly, courteous and on a first name basis. After several weeks of numerous e-mail exchanges with Mr. Ting, answering all of his questions and fully co-operating, out of the blue, Mr. Ting indicated to me that I’m to no longer communicate with him and that I should retain a securities attorney.
After all this time, I was under the impression that Mr. Ting was asking for all of the information in order to sort out the matter in the attempt to help us protect the resident SPYru investors. In addition, Mr. Ting never confirmed or indicated to me on June 12th or at any later date that the commission has no jurisdiction or authority over the TCI’s and Klaus Glusing. Thus, the commission had no intention to help us in salvaging the resident investors from the very beginning. We only found out this information from Ms. Mitchell-Banks on February 14, 2014.

Retained Legal Services

When we approached the commission, we had no reason to believe that we had violated some of the BC Securities Act, thus we saw no reason to retain an attorney, since we could explain ourselves to the commission, which never happened.

On July 12, 2013 and on the advice of Mr. Ting, we retained the services of Farris Law in Vancouver. From July 2013 to January 2014 our Farris attorney had numerous phone conversations, e-mails and letters to and with Mr. Ting and commission litigators. As a result, our attorney asked that we send an additional 450 documents requested by the commission. In January 2014 the commission requested additional documents of which some of the documents requested had already been submitted to the commission. Ref erenc e: echo 0 47-08-06 -201 4
E C H O P A R T N E R S L T D . P e t e r D. Ha r r i s Di r e c tor , Bo ar d S e c r e t ar y P hone : 2 5 0 -765-8213 E -ma i l : p. ha r r i s@t e lu s . ne t We b s i t e : www. e c h o p a r t n e r s . c a

How long should an investigation last? It would seem to me after 11 months of investigating our case, the commission by now would have filed formal charges against us. Now the commission is saying: "Allegations have not yet been proven". That sounds to me like a weasel statement.

After seven months of having spent some $80K in legal fees, and realizing we were no further ahead with the commission for an early resolve, on January 29, 2014, we dismissed our attorney and decided to deal directly with the commission. Our decision was based the commission’s hearing manual clearly stating we could represent ourselves without an attorney present. We had no choice since we had run out of funds by then and we could not afford an attorney or travel to Vancouver.
No Longer Cooperating with the Commission

Abuse of Power and Intimidation

On the same day, January 29th we declared to the commission, we would no longer co-operate in the investigation and our reason was that after all of these months dealing with the commission it was obvious we would not receive a fair and impartial hearing and for this reason we wanted to appear in front of a Supreme Court Judge where we knew we would receive a fair and impartial hearing. It was very clear to us that the investigation was turning out to be vindictive and abusive.

By January 2014, we realized that by standing up to the commission’s allegations, the investigators retaliated by becoming biased, vindictive, and slanderous against our group. The investigators had no justifiable legal grounds to order a cease trade order against U-Go Brands and Echo Partners; this was a clear retaliatory move and abuse of power exercised on the part of the investigators.
Retained Investigating Firm

Klaus Glusing Background Check

We realized the commission was not going to help us, knowing the commission had contacted Klaus Glusing and based on Klaus Glusing’s letter, the commission came to the conclusion that Klaus Glusing had no involvement dealing directly with our resident investors and did not run the company.

Knowing the commission was negligent in its investigation of Mark and Klaus Glusing, we retained the services of Harbor Investigations of Vancouver. We provided the commission with exhibits that proved we sent messages to Klaus Glusing Ref erenc e: echo 0 47-08-06 -201 4
E C H O P A R T N E R S L T D . P e t e r D. Ha r r i s Di r e c tor , Bo ar d S e c r e t ar y P hone : 2 5 0 -765-8213 E -ma i l : p. ha r r i s@t e lu s . ne t We b s i t e : www. e c h o p a r t n e r s . c a

recommending we move SPYru Inc. from the TCI and register SPYru in Canada or the U.S.A.

We also provided proof to the commission that this was not Klaus Glusing’s first time being involved in misappropriation of funds. We supplied to the commission information from the Bermuda Supreme Court confirming three judgments against Klaus Glusing totaling approximately USD$4 Million.
The victims were Cast Lines, a CP Ships company, the second victim was Michael G. DeGroote, a recipient of the Order of Canada and a Canadian businessman and philanthropist from Hamilton, Ontario. The third victim was a land developer in Bermuda. Klaus Glusing left Bermuda and moved to Vancouver to avoid repaying any of these victims.

The commission did know about Klaus Glusing prior to our June 12th contact. Sometime in 2001, Klaus Glusing started a shipping Line in Vancouver called ValuShip. The commission accused Klaus Glusing of lying to investors, therefore, the commission was already aware of Klaus Glusing’s fraudulent history.

Micro Managing SPYru Inc.

Klaus Glusing

We sent to the commission numerous copies of e-mail messages from Klaus Glusing to Lorne Cire and myself instructing us on how to proceed on the day-to-day management of the company. Reading Klaus Glusing’s messages clearly shows that Klaus Glusing was in charge of SPYru Inc.

Lorne Cire and I were never officers of SPYru Inc.; Klaus Glusing was the majority shareholder after Mark Glusing’s passing-away and Klaus Glusing never disclosed to Lorne or myself the number of shares he personally held. After several months of working with SPYru Inc. and after Lorne Cire personally invested $5,000.00, Klaus Glusing gave us a combined 5 million shares and made us Directors with no voting rights. Ref erenc e: echo 0 47-08-06 -201 4
E C H O P A R T N E R S L T D . P e t e r D. Ha r r i s Di r e c tor , Bo ar d S e c r e t ar y P hone : 2 5 0 -765-8213 E -ma i l : p. ha r r i s@t e lu s . ne t We b s i t e : www. e c h o p a r t n e r s . c a

Slanderous Accusations, Misconduct and Abuse of Power

Ms. Donders, BCSC Lead Investigator

My dealings with Ms. Donders were exactly the same as with the communication I had previously with Mr. Ting, courteous and on first name basis at first, thereafter, turning nasty on the part of Ms. Donders after several weeks.

I will site the following actions by Ms. Donders that we feel were out of line, illegal and clearly demonstrate abuse of power.
Known statement by Ms. Donders as follows:

1. Telling some of our investors we were an illegal company and dishonest Directors and that we were going to be banned forever involving securities trading in BC.

2. Contacting TD Waterhouse Head Office ordering the freezing of the personal trust accounts of John Thibert and Diane Thibert. Subsequently, when Blair Payton of TD Waterhouse, financial advisor to the Thiberts, Mr. Payton phoned Ms. Donders questioning her actions. Ms. Donders was dictatorial towards Mr. Payton and hung up the phone on him. These trust accounts had nothing to do with the SPYru case. Subsequently, after our strongly objecting to Ms. Donders actions, several weeks later the commission lifted the cease trade order against the two personal trust accounts. Ms. Donders’ reckless action caused Mr. Thibert to send her an aggressive e-mail message that was replied to by Ms. Mitchell-Banks advising Mr. Thibert the commission will no longer accept his messages and that he is to conform, otherwise the commission will inform the police to take action against him. As a result Mr. Thibert suffered a nervous breakdown and has been under physician’s care ever since.

3. Ms. Donders contacted Mr. Thibert’s personal physician, not requesting medical information, but demanding the information. Ms. Donders phone call was so forceful and demanding that the physician’s assistant was left upset and crying from the phone call. This kind of action on the part of a public servant is total unacceptable.

4. On another occasion Ms. Donders told one of our investors that the commission was taking us to court, when in fact it was a voluntary commission hearing she was referring to, and that we had already courteously replied that we would not attend.

Ref erenc e: echo 0 47-08-06 -201 4
E C H O P A R T N E R S L T D . P e t e r D. Ha r r i s Di r e c tor , Bo ar d S e c r e t ar y P hone : 2 5 0 -765-8213 E -ma i l : p. ha r r i s@t e lu s . ne t We b s i t e : www. e c h o p a r t n e r s . c a

Ms. Donders January 2014 Questioning Lorne Cire

Intimidation and Un-lawful questioning

The first Director to be interviewed by Ms. Donders was Lorne Cire in January 2014 in Vancouver at Lorne Cire’s own expense. The interview was more of an interrogation and our attorney never once raised an objection or intervened in Lorne Cire’s defense to any of the questioning by Ms. Donders. Some of the information requested by Ms. Donders was out of line and illegal to request.
Lorne Cire, RBC Cancelation of Corporate & Personal Accounts Including Credit Cards

Ms. Donders, BCSC Lead Investigator

If Ms. Donders was capable of making slanderous accusations against us to our investors, God knows what Ms. Donders told the Royal Bank about us.

All we know is that after Lorne Cire had a long and detailed phone conversation with the RBC investigator, several weeks later the RBC notified Lorne Cire that they had cancelled all of his accounts.

Lorne Cire had been with RBC for over 20 years as an exemplary client and with Ms. Donders involvement, Lorne Cire’s business relationship with the RBC was severed, the damage is done.

Also, Dr. Michael Kwasnek, U-GO Brands Treasurer, received a letter with no explanation why, indicating that RBC wished to have no future dealings with him. Dr. Kwasnek also had a long and respected relationship with RBC prior to Ms. Donders intervention.
Misleading Information, Constant Threatening and Abuse of Power

Ms. Teresa R. Mitchell-Banks QC – BCSC Enforcement and Corporate Finance Director

Dealings with Ms. Mitchell-Banks were stressful. Ms. Mitchel-Banks demonstrated in her e-mail messages that she does not appreciate any one opposing or questioning the commission’s actions or authority and as a result if you review the exhibits you will see that my message exchanges with Ms. Mitchell-Banks were aggressive on both sides from time to time. Ref erenc e: echo 0 47-08-06 -201 4
E C H O P A R T N E R S L T D . P e t e r D. Ha r r i s Di r e c tor , Bo ar d S e c r e t ar y P hone : 2 5 0 -765-8213 E -ma i l : p. ha r r i s@t e lu s . ne t We b s i t e : www. e c h o p a r t n e r s . c a

On one occasion Ms. Mitchel-Banks sent me three e-mails between Saturday and Sunday threatening me with contempt of court if I did not appear at the scheduled hearing. Once she realized I was not going to appear, she sent me an e-mail stating that, in fact the meeting was voluntary, and I did not in fact have to appear.

I even sent a personal message to Ms. Mitchell-Banks asking her to please be more understanding of our situation and that we were virtually without funds since we had paid approximately YTD $130,000.00 in legal fees to our attorneys and the commission. Ms. Mitchell-Banks totally ignored my passionate plea to be more understanding, show some compassion or try to work with us. Rather, she chose to be dictatorial and condescending towards us.

Finally, after dealing with Ms. Mitchell-Banks for some five to eight weeks and her going on vacation, I started to communicate with Mark L. Hilford, BCSC Manager, and Litigation.
Misleading Information, Constant Threats and Abuse of Power

Mr. Mark L. Hilford - BCSC Manager, Litigation

My message exchange with Mr. Hilford lasted two weeks and for the most part was aggressive on both sides. Mr. Hilford demonstrated the same negative and condescending attitude towards us and showed no compassion towards our situation.
Aggressive Message to Mr. Ting and Ms. Donders

Peter Harris and John Thibert

We know the commission will use my message and John Thibert’s to attempt to show the commissioners that we are not to be trusted and our behavior is not acceptable in the business world.

Our defense is that we have been treated like criminals from the start and we lost our tempers by retaliating with aggressive messages. Consequently, both John and myself, sent apology messages to both Ms. Donders and Mr. Ting. Ref erenc e: echo 0 47-08-06 -201 4
E C H O P A R T N E R S L T D . P e t e r D. Ha r r i s Di r e c tor , Bo ar d S e c r e t ar y P hone : 2 5 0 -765-8213 E -ma i l : p. ha r r i s@t e lu s . ne t We b s i t e : www. e c h o p a r t n e r s . c a

Consent to Appear in front of an investigator

Travel Expenses and Daily per Diem

The commission never indicated to us that they should cover our travel expenses to go to Vancouver, the only subsidy we received from the commission was a $20.00 witness daily per diem.

Had we known that our expenses would have been paid, we would have agreed to appear for individual questioning.

One of our reasons for declining to appear was we had no funds on hand to cover the travel expenses for all of our Directors. On many occasions, we made it very clear to Ms. Mitchell-Banks and Mr. Hilford that we had no funds to travel.

Once Ms. Mitchell-Banks returned to work we communicated for another several weeks and again things got aggressive and Ms. Mitchell-Banks instructed me that the commission will no longer accept my e-mail messages or phone calls. Mr. Mitchell-Banks made it very clear that we need to retain a Securities Attorney otherwise things are going to get worse for us.
Exemplary and Punitive Damages

Reckless Practice by the Commission

U-GO Brands and Echo Partners were formed in April 2014 and all U-GO Brands Subscription Agreements and other related documents were created and submitted to the commission by Farris Law. To date the commission has not contacted Farris Law to indicate U-GO Brands is in serious violation of the Securities Act.
Corporate and Product Restructuring

Due to the failure of SPYru, we have found ourselves having to recreate our flagship product from "SPYru Uberwater" that failed in the market place due to chemical content that consumers no longer wanted to purchase.

Realizing we had to create an all-natural product we formed a working alliance with John Stevens and SuperDrop. Our action plan was based on the undertaking of a new product launch to protect the resident investors, thus SuperDrop was created. Ref erenc e: echo 0 47-08-06 -201 4
E C H O P A R T N E R S L T D . P e t e r D. Ha r r i s Di r e c tor , Bo ar d S e c r e t ar y P hone : 2 5 0 -765-8213 E -ma i l : p. ha r r i s@t e lu s . ne t We b s i t e : www. e c h o p a r t n e r s . c a

In the meantime, while we were going through this metamorphosis and being defrauded by Klaus Glusing, we found ourselves publicly accused and slandered by the commission. In spite of all the negatives around us, we still managed to get SuperDrop introduced and well received by the National Retailers and Distributors, YTD, we have produced 85,000 bottles of SuperDrop.

Upon the order by the commission of our having to stand-down from the Noor Energy negotiation or any other negotiation involving securities, all five directors are losing the opportunity to reap earnings for the last three years of dedication, hard work, perseverance. Similarly, we are unable to protect our investors as SuperDrop can no longer move forward.

Please see next page demonstrating earning losses over the next five years. The projected revenues and number of stores are set conservatively versus actuals. Ref erenc e: echo 0 47-08-06 -201 4
E C H O P A R T N E R S L T D . P e t e r D. Ha r r i s Di r e c tor , Bo ar d S e c r e t ar y P hone : 2 5 0 -765-8213 E -ma i l : p. ha r r i s@t e lu s . ne t We b s i t e : www. e c h o p a r t n e r s . c a

SuperDrop Energy * Five year Project
Quarterly Revenue per store location Annual Revenues per store location
$450.00 $1,800.00
Period Number of Stores Revenues
2013-2014 2,000 $3,600,000
2014-2015 5,000 $9,000,000
2015-2016 10,000 $18,000,000
2016-2017 15,000 $27,000,000
2017-2018 20,000 $36,000,000