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.
- 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.
- Perjury in the course of the investigation and hearings (Donders and TD)
- 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)
- 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.
(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.
- 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.>>>
- 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
- Twice posting the Thiberts private banking information online for the public to see.<<<BREACH OF SECTION 11 of the Securities Act.>>>
- Attempting to coerce us to settle on all allegations against us when we approached the BCSC in regards to a settlement.<<<BREACH OF SECTION ??>>>