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'?
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 Columbians from fraudulent
and malicious activity in the private financial markets .
There are at least a few British Columbians who have currently reported their misgivings
about the way the BCSC conducts itself in the course of market regulation. The BC Securities
Commission has the power to regulate and enforce both criminal offenses and civil matters
pertaining to the regulations set out in the Securities Act (rsbc 1996) of British Columbia.
According to Mr. Peter Harris and Mr. Christopher Burke who represent U-GO Brands Inc. out
of Kelowna B.C. the BC Securities operation has no interest in maintaining a fair
marketplace nor does it maintain a shred of integrity as it conducts its operations. We will
refer to Mr. Harris and Mr. Burke as the Directors as they are both directors of U-GO Brands
Inc.
The case can seem long and complicated however the U-GO Brands Directors feel its very
simple, the U-GO Brands case never should have existed. According to the allegations facing
the BC Securities Commission the BCSC lied to and mislead the Directors from the moment
the Directors contacted the BC Securities Commission to report fraud and ensure they
maintained compliance with Securities Act. The U-GO Brands directors have made allegations
against the BCSC that include everything from Perjury, Tampering, Obstruction of Justice,
Fraudulent Concealment, Collusion, Entrapment, Break and Entering, Illegal wiretapping, etc..
The full range of accusations can be seen at a blog set up by the Directors at
www.bcsecuritiescommissionasham.blogspot.com
The U-GO Brands Directors take issue with a December 2015 ruling by the BC
Securities Commission that declares them guilty of breaching Section 161 of the Securities
Act. According to the U-GO Brands Directors not only would the breach not exist had the
BCSC properly done its job instead of committing entrapment. The allegation is nullified by
the fact that the BCSC investigator perjured herself multiple times in the course of testifying
against them. In addition the Directors claim that much of her testimony in the form of
affidavits submitted as evidence is simply not true. Says U-GO Brands Director Christopher
Burke of the entire process of dealing with the BC Securities Commission,
"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."
The Directors claim it all started with an offshore start-up company that was in the energy
drink business called Spyru. In 2013 the chain of events began to unfold that has lead to the
U-GO Brands Directors allegations against the BC Securities Commission. To make a long
story short Mr. Harris who was a former VP at Canadian Pacific Shipping had been contacted
by his old mentor and boss Klaus Glusing from back in the shipping days and recruited to
help Mr. Glusing with the fledgling drink company he had on his hands. Mr. Glusing needed
funds to finish the development and launch of the spirulina based Spyru energy drink, Mr
Harris was tasked with raising shareholder capital in British Columbia as well as from various
investors throughout the US and Canada. Mr. Harris had not talked to Mr, Glusing who was a
Harvard business graduate in years yet due to their long prior relationship had no reason not
to trust Mr. Glusing. Mr. Glusing retained total control of the company and would not cede
any decision making power or control to anyone else including Industry professionals who
were hired for their expertise according to the U-GO Brands directors.
Little was Mr. Harris to know that Mr. Glusing had his hand in the cookie jar so to speak and
was embezzling funds from the growing little company which at its peak had product in 800
stores in North America. Once Mr. Harris found out about Mr. Glusings fraudulent activities he
took several courses of action, first he contacted numerous law firms for
consultation. Secondly Mr. Harris hired a private investigator to confirm his suspicions, Mr.
Harris then reached out to contact the BC Securities Commission and report the fraud he had
discovered. In addition Mr. Harris and the previously hired industry professional decided the
best thing to do in order to save the shareholders money from Spryu would be to start a new
drink company based on formulas and branding already developed by the industry
professional that Mr. Harris had previously hired. This industry professional who shall remain
unnamed for privacy reasons needed a business partner to look after the financial side of
things while he took the product to market, in return this white knight was willing to simply
give all the old investors in Spyru shares in the new company.
Out of the ashes of Spryu, U-Go Brands was born. U-GO Brands and its directors some of
which were activist shareholders in the old company Spyru made every effort to be compliant
with the Securities Act in British Columbia. The directors original call to the BC Securities
Commission for help and in order to ensure compliance was still unanswered at this point.
Included in the attached photographs is a copy of one of Mr. Harris's early communications
with the BC Securities Commission where he asks why he has not yet heard from the BCSC in
regards to his reporting fraud. According to the U-GO Brands Directors it is evidence like this
that contradicts the testimony of the BC Securities Commissions prosecutors who insist the
Directors paid no attention to the law.
The 2013 original email (attached) from Mr. Harris to the BCSC is a sharp contrast to the
claims of the BCSC in their 2014 Temporary Order a part of which is attached as a picture.
According to Ms Pivnenko and Mr. Torrance the council for the BC Securites executive director
or in other terms the prosecution insists that the Directors "did not attempt to turn their
minds to the prospectus and exemption requirements under the Act." The Directors claim
that this is a lie and they made every effort to be compliant, all they ever wanted was a face-to
face meeting with BCSC officials in order ensure they took the right legal steps in order to
save the Spryu shareholders money.
A conversation between the Directors lawyer at the time Teresa Tomchuk of Farris Law and
Mr. Ting from the BC Securities Commission indicates that Mr. Ting was aware of the
Directors intentions to save the Spyru shareholders. Mr. Ting also knew there were breaches
of the Act that would occur if he let them save the shareholders by issuing new shares in the
U-GO Brands company as the Directors wanted to do. In the attached picture evidence of this
conversation is displayed, Mr. Ting tells Ms. Tomchuk of Farris that he will let us proceed with
our intended plans. The U-GO Brands Directors allege that this was the beginning of
entrapment procedures on the behalf of Farris Law and the BCSC. The Directors mention the
fact that they had even offered to step down from the new U-GO Brands company and pay
any penalties associated with the very infraction Mr. Ting had mentioned as evidence of their
integrity. Their sole concern was to save the friends and families money that had been
invested and ensure the continuance of a viable start-up company.
As further evidence to back their claims of malicious and vindictive prosecution the U-GO
Brands directors have shared a statement made by the head of BCSC's Criminal Enforcement
Division Ms. Mitchell Banks. In the statement made by Ms. Mitchell Banks she tells the U-GO
Brands Directors they must plead guilty to all allegations in Oct of 2014. The allegations at the
time included Fraud. As evidence of their position against the BCSC U-GO Brands directors
point to an email from their lawyer dated July 4th 2014 where their lawyer at the time tells
them that BCSC investigator Ms. Donders is aware that the allegations against the directors
that they misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars have no merit.
U-GO Brands Director Mr. Christopher Burke in a public statement for the press had the
following questions in regards to the activities of the BCSC,
"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 illgotten
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?"
The bank cease trade did happen according to documents provided by TD Waterhouse, the
document provided by the bank however does cast doubt on the veracity of the BCSC's
claims. Included in the pictures is a copy of the Cease Trade order provided on request from
TD officials. This can be compared to the numerous statements made by BC Securities
Commission officials that they were not responsible for the CTO. As evidence of this claim the
Directors have provided an email from Ms Mitchell Banks denying the BCSC was responsible
for the order.
Also included in photographs is the BC securities Commissions mandate to the public and to
the maintaining of the integrity of the Securities markets. How far can such a Regulatory
Enforcement agency go in order to attempt a prosecution? If the accusations of the U-GO
Brands Directors are true BCSC officials are responsible for the following crimes, Perjury,
Tampering/withholding evidence, Break and Entering, Fraudulent Concealment, Obstruction
of Justice, Entrapment, and Breach of Trust as a Public Official. These are all outlined with
evidence to back some of the Directors claims in their blog the link to which will be provided
below.
Further crimes alleged by Mr. Harris and Mr. Burke include criminal harassment and illegal
spying. Mr. Burke claims he was able to take photographs of a surveillance van two blocks
from his home on New Years Eve day 2015 in position to watch Mr. Burke go to the bank,
shopping, friends and parents house all from one spot. According to Mr. Burke this is not the
first time people have been stalking or harassing him, since at least early 2015 he has been
aware of this including a possible Hotel break-in whereupon the BCSC is accused of hacking
his computer. Mr. Burke has more then one witness who was present and is willing to back up
this claim. According to the Directors the photo of a van with a cardboard cut-out with eye
holes is just one of many photos they have taken of these alleged activities. These can be seen
at
http://www.bcsecuritiescommissionasham.blogspot.ca/2016/01/bc-securities-surveillancefiles-
two.html
Mr. Burke and Mr. Harris are not the only individual to voice such concerns in regards to the
actions of the BC Securities Commission, the following quotes are taken from the attached
sources and indicates what members of the public who have reported fraud think of the
BCSC.
"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."
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-bcsecurities-
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 Newswire 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?
Additional Links
Newswire- U-GO Brands Press Release
Newswire - U-GO Brands Press Release
Pictures
1. Mr. Harris "whats taking so long"? 2. Mr. Harris first reports Fraud in 2013. 3. BCSC 2014 TO
alleges the Directors paid no attention to the law. 4. Mr. Ting and Ms Tomchuk re U-GO
Brands continuation. 5. Must Plead Guilty to all Allegations. 6. Lawyer reveals Directors not
guilty of Fraud in July 2014. 7. BCSC issues Cease Trade Order. 8. BCSC Denies it issued Cease
Trade Order.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Peter Harris
Christopher Burke
No comments:
Post a Comment