Thursday, 28 January 2016


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 8th and Oct 31st 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 8th and 30th 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.


Christopher Burke
Peter Harris



No comments:

Post a Comment