Friday, 5 February 2016

Attn Ms Brenda Leong June 1, 2015 Warning we will file criminal charges if you do not move to settle with us.



Page 1 of 9

U-GO BRANDS NUTRIT IONAL PRODUCTS INC. CHRISTOPH ER A. BURK E Director Email: bk1092003@yahoo.ca :

MONDAY JUNE 1, 2015

BRITISH COLUMBIA SECURITIES COMMISSION




Ms. Brenda M. Leong


Commission Chair and Chief Executive Officer


701 West Georgia Street

P.O. Box 10142, Pacific Centre

Vancouver, BC V7Y 1L2
CRIMINAL CHARGES PENDING

Against

B.C. SECURITIES COMMISSION

FOR



WRONGFUL PROSECUTION AND DISCRIMINATION

IN THE CASE OF



SPYru Inc., Paradox Distributors (1992) Ltd.,

Echo Partners Ltd., U-GO Brands Nutritional Products Inc.,

Peter David Harris, Lorne Neil Cire, Christopher Andrew Burke,

Millard Michael Kwasnek, and

Joseph Yvan Jean Claude Thibert aka John Thibert

(Collectively, the Respondents)

Section 161 of the Securities Act, RSBC 1996, c. 418
Dear Ms. Leong,

For more than three weeks now, you and Mr. Thompson have completely ignored every attempt by us the Respondents for an amicable meeting, discussion and confidential resolve to be unlawful investigation and prosecution by your Commission employees against us.
Your obvious disrespect for us and our rights as Canadian Citizens in refusing to reply or acknowledge our letters requesting to meet with you to resolve the Commission’s wrong doing and abuse of power by the Commission’s investigators resulting in violating the Criminal Code and our Civil Rights leaves us no recourse but to send you this letter. The Commission’s litigators and investigators out and out lied at the Commission’s Hearings pertaining to our case. By now I’m confident that you are well apprised of the chain of events that have transpired between the Respondent and the Commission’s investigators and litigators over the last 23 months and counting. Page 2 of 9

U-GO BRANDS NUTRIT IONAL PRODUCTS INC. CHRISTOPH ER A. BURK E Director Email: bk1092003@yahoo.ca

With all due respect Ms. Leong, the Commission is a public agency and it is your duty to reply to all correspondence you receive from the public or a Respondent’s attorney! Since the Respondents cannot afford legal representation and are forced to represent themselves, do you not owe us the same courtesy as you would extend an attorney?


Since we have not had any reply to our letters, we can only assume that the Commission has retained outside legal counsel to handle the Commission’s criminal wrong doing and you have been advised not to communicate with us. We are very familiar with this tactic as it is commonplace in the Government and/or Corporate sectors when they find themselves in irreversible unlawful conduct. Ms. Leong, I can assure you that we are not about to be taken around the block by your agency for another 23 months!
Ms. Leong, what your staff did to the Respondents and our Shareholders is beyond reproach and is criminal! The Commission, as it wrongly believes, is not above the law!

We are sure that you are aware of the resent news of the arrest of ten Canadian Senators, the charges being filed by the RCMP in Ottawa! Do you think you are more immune to prosecution than Canadian Senators?!

The Commission MUST take responsibility for the unwarranted abuse of power, slander and unlawful actions perpetrated by its employees, both investigators and litigators!

Why is it the Commission cannot step-up to the plate, accept responsibility and do something honorable for the first time and admit the Commission’s catastrophic failure to protect our investors, our company and our good names?

Peter Harris contacted you a year and a half ago more than once to tell you that you had abusive employees using unethical and unlawful tactics to pursue the investigation against us and you did not heed his warnings! You chose to dismiss this warning and go by the book rather than using common sense and intervening when you had the opportunity, before this situation has escalated beyond control, which it now has!

You ignored our pleas for help and as a result you failed in your duties as Chair and CEO to insure that the Commission staff are not in violation of the Commission’s Code of Ethics and lawful conduct. Instead of rectifying this situation, it would seem that in fact you perpetuated it, contrary to Sections 463 and 465 of the Criminal Code.

Let’s cut to the chase Ms. Leong. Every one that is involved in this case, the investigators, the litigators including yourself and all other parties involved behind the scene are all well aware that the Commission’s prosecution of SPYru and the Respondents is totally illegal, Page 3 of 9

U-GO BRANDS NUTRIT IONAL PRODUCTS INC. CHRISTOPH ER A. BURK E Director  Email: bk1092003@yahoo.ca

discriminatory and unwarranted. Moreover, the Respondents should have never been formally accused by the Commission. We would like to affirm that The Panel presiding over this investigation are the only officials that have ever shown the Respondents any respect, courtesy or understanding, and they did give the Respondents fair and unbiased attention.

It was established that the Panel did not concur with the litigators that SPYru Inc. should have been prosecuted by the Commission as it was an offshore company and should have never been on the docket! In addition, the Panel interrogated the litigators as to the validity under the Securities Act for formally prosecuting the Respondents as agents of SPYru, when the Respondents never had any control or ownership of SPYru Inc.


In fact Ms. Michel-Banks admitted much later than she should have that the Commission never investigated SPYru and its owner Klaus Glusing, thus, how can the Commission prosecute a company that was never investigated? As confirmed by Ms. Michel-Banks, the Commission has no authority over offshore companies. Why did the investigators wait seven months to tell us they had no intention of helping us protect some 320 investors?
The BC Securities Commission and the respondents, Christopher Burke, Peter Harris, Jean Thibert, Lorne Cire, and Dr. Michael Kwasnek have now been in conflict for 720 days. We the Respondents were the first to turn ourselves in and admit to unknowingly violating the BC Securities rules regarding some investor’s misclassification! This error was done in ignorance of your rules, not in malice towards them. However, the entire investigation and process has been flawed and its legitimacy compromised from the very start when Criminal Code Violations and Civil rights were broken by the Commission staff with full knowledge of the breach of their own code of ethics unlawful actions and full awareness of what they were doing, thus, demonstrating their malice towards us!


I will not waste time repeating the abuse of power, malicious prosecution, harassment, intimidation, slander, deception and overall disregard for the general public over whom you are mandated to protect and oversee…

Consider this letter a notice that we are absolutely finished playing games with the Commission. I will outline the house of cards that the Commission is built upon and the possible consequences of the many unreasonable delays in this case as well as all of the criminal charges that both yourself and your employees as well as the Commission itself is faced with.
Let me explain your precarious situation. First of all the fact that the very nature of the Commission is arbitrary at best leaves the Commission with little legal ground to stand on. I refer of course to the Canadian Constitution Act; Part 1; Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Page 4 of 9

U-GO BRANDS NUTRIT IONAL PRODUCTS INC. CHRISTOPH ER A. BURK E Director Email: bk1092003@yahoo.ca
'Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the Rule of Law'

Duhaimes.org/legaldictionary describes the rule of law in the following manner; 'Individuals, Persons, and Governments shall submit to, obey and be regulated by the law, and not arbitrary actions by an individual or group of individuals.'




The Law Dictionary describes the rule of law as;


'The predominance that is absolute of an ordinary law over every citizen regardless of that citizen’s power.'

Here we have just a few examples of the definitions of the rule of law. Two things are clear. Laws must be abided by all citizens. No one is outside or above the law. Laws must not be arbitrary in nature nor should they warrant arbitrary actions by individuals or groups of individuals.

Ms. Leong, the very foundation of the Commission is contrary to the Canadian Constitution Acts. The Commission as clearly stated by its own admission is funded through regulatory offences that are punishable by fines. Its very existence depends on finding and/or creating regulations to be broken in order that it may levy fines and charges on the accused. The premise on which the Commission sits is a very precarious position. There are no constitutional accords that would give it the mistaken almighty powers it currently acts with, not even the Securities Act which governs it. I very much doubt that the rules and regulations or the way that the Commission operates would stand up before a Supreme Court Judge, however let’s continue to look at the picture before us. In addition to the Commission and its lack of legal credibility as a whole, the Commission and its agents including yourself Ms. Leong are guilty of indictable offences.


The following are Criminal Code offences which persons in your agency or yourself have committed over the last 720 days and which by law you and the Commission are fully accountable for:
Criminal Code (R.S.C.) 1985 c.C-46

Breach of trust by public officer;


122. Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person. Page 5 of 9

U-GO BRANDS NUTRIT IONAL PRODUCTS INC. CHRISTOPH ER A. BURK E Director Email: bk1092003@yahoo.ca Website:



Disobeying a statute


126. (1) Everyone who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.




Perjury


131. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false.




Punishment


132. Everyone who commits perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.


R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 132;

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17
Defamation and Libel


298. (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.

Marginal note: Mode of expression


(2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony
o (a) in words legibly marked on any substance; or

o (b) by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.


R.S., c. C-34, s. 262.
Marginal note: Publishing


299. A person publishes a libel when he

(a) exhibits it in public;

(b) causes it to be read or seen; or

(c) shows or delivers it, or causes it to be shown or delivered, with intent that it should be read or seen by the person whom it defames or by any other person.


R.S., c. C-34, s. 263.
Marginal note: Punishment of libel known to be false


300. everyone who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. Page 6 of 9

U-GO BRANDS NUTRIT IONAL PRODUCTS INC. CHRISTOPH ER A. BURK E Director Phone: 250-878-4700 Email: bk1092003@yahoo.ca Website: www.superdrop.com

301. Everyone who publishes a defamatory libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.


R.S., c. C-34, s. 265.
Accessory and Conspiracy;

Attempts, accessories


463. Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of persons who attempt to commit or are accessories after the fact to the Commission of offences:

(b) everyone who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the Commission of an indictable offence for which, on conviction, an accused is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years or less is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term that is one-half of the longest term to which a person who is guilty of that offence is liable;

(c) everyone who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the Commission of an offence punishable on summary conviction is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction; and

(d) everyone who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the Commission of an offence for which the offender may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction

o (i) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding a term that is one-half of the longest term to which a person who is guilty of that offence is liable, or

o (ii) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 463;

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 59
465. (1) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of conspiracy:

o (b) everyone who conspires with anyone to prosecute a person for an alleged offence, knowing that he did not commit that offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(ii) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to imprisonment for less than fourteen years;

Page 7 of 9

U-GO BRANDS NUTRIT IONAL PRODUCTS INC. CHRISTOPH ER A. BURK E Director  Email: bk1092003@yahoo.ca

I could continue for several pages but for now I would like to move along to a couple more points of law that are relevant to this situation outside some of the Criminal charges that are pending against you and the Commission.

At this point it would be prudent to note several other points of law from the Canadian Constitution that have been clearly and demonstrably violated. Keep in mind Section 52 of the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 as you review the following.
Legal Rights Canadian Constitution Act of 1982

Marginal note: Life, liberty and security of person


7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;

(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;

(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;

(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and

(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of Commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.




Marginal note: Treatment or punishment


12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Now I understand that the rules may be subject to Section 33 of the Canadian Constitution, the 'notwithstanding' clause which in theory allows provinces to ignore sections 2, and 7 Page 8 of 9

U-GO BRANDS NUTRIT IONAL PRODUCTS INC. CHRISTOPH ER A. BURK E Director Email: bk1092003@yahoo.ca : 

through 15 of the Constitution however no Legislation or Acts of the provincial government state explicitly otherwise and grant the Commissions' investigators the power to commit criminal acts. Perhaps had the Commission acted in good faith the Commission and its agents would be covered under law however the evidence we have to prove otherwise will fill numerous pages. There is no precedent that would lawfully justify the arbitrary powers the Commission is acting with.

Again I remind you that the Commission is compelled to act in accordance with Section 52 of the Canadian Constitution and to date has clearly done anything but.

Given the actions taken by the Commission and if the Commission so choses to continue to STONEWALL us and show us complete disrespect, we will be left with no option, but to file Criminal Charges as well as making the entire story public including the names and roles/violation of every individual involved. We will have the Canadian Supreme Court examine the Commission against the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian public WILL become informed of how the Commission 'protects' investors as mandated in its published Code of Ethics. (See attached our contact list of media and press release agencies)


SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FOR LOST REVENUES/INCOME
This is not a Punitive Claim! What we are seeking are real costs, expenses and lost revenues incurred in dealing with the Commission’s wrongful prosecution and slandering of the Respondents. Ms. Leong, we have suffered many months of being bullied by the Commission’s investigators and litigators and we are not going to be taken around the block for another 23 months!


This is our fourth attempt to extend to you the Olive Branch. If we cannot reach a financial and CONFIDENTIAL settlement SOON, or we do not hear from you in the next five working days of receipt of this letter, rather than seeking justice and Reimbursement of $11,000,000, we will seek an EXEMPLARY lawsuit of $30,000,000 and as you know the Judge could award a higher amount to insure that the Commission NEVER perpetrates again an injustice such as the Commission has done in our case! Reimbursement Invoice Payable To Amount
U-GO Brands Investors Reimbursements UGO-0150 Shareholders $766,229
SPYru Inc. Investors Reimbursements UGO-0151 Shareholders $1,200,000
U-GO Brands Directors Projected Lost Incomes UGO-0149 Directors $1,236,447
Legal Fees Incurred UGO-0150 U-GO Brands + $17K owing $201,100
U-GO Brands Reimbursement UGO-0148 U-GO Brands $7,949,900
Amount Due $11,353,676


Ms. Leong, this is not a win or lose matter. It is the Commission’s responsibility to morally fix a great injustice that the Commission has perpetrated against the Respondents and their investors.
This is your opportunity to fix a grievous wrongdoing in a CONFIDENTIAL manner!

Please be advised that if you do not correspond with us within the specified time frame, this letter will be sent as is to all of the Media agencies named in our attachment by Email and Fax.


Sincerely,

Christopher A. Burke
Peter Harris
Directors


U-GO BRANDS NUTRITIONAL PRODUCTS INC.

No comments:

Post a Comment