Thursday, 24 March 2016



See You-Tube for more

As always stay tuned for more..


March 24/16

On the ongoing saga between the BC Securities Commission and the Directors of U-GO Brands

The U-GO Directors would like to outline five of the main reasons that will highlight their legal position against the BCSC, every one of these reasons has multiple Federally Indictable offences behind it. As the Directors have previously alleged the case is flawed from the very beginning and the Dec 2015 ruling against the U-GO Director’s is further evidence of a malicious prosecution filled with lies and deception to say the least.

On Dec 14 2015 the BC Securities Commission ruled that the U-GO Brands Directors had distributed Securities without a prospectus violating the Securities Act, as a result the Directors have received significant market bans as well as financial penalties of up to $3 million dollars. These penalties are unprecedented especially considering no Fraud was committed and the Director’s did not benefit from ill gotten gains however a necessary punishment according to the BCSC. The BCSC maintains that the Directors were reckless in their actions fund-raising and running U-GO Brands and that Mr. Peter Harris and Mr. Christopher Burke's dissent and allegations of criminal behaviour against the BCSC represents a serious threat to the integrity of the financial markets in British Columbia. As a result hefty and unprecedented fines and market bans currently face the U-GO Directors.

Mr. Peter Harris and Mr. Christopher Burke allege that the BCSC has been deceptive from the very start of this case when Mr. Harris contacted the BCSC to report Fraud in regards to an offshore company Spyru. Mr. Harris contrary to the insistence of the BCSC self-reported possible breaches of the Securities Act other then the Fraud reported and the U-GO Directors offered to step down if they had committed any violations of against the Securities Act and pay any normally associated with such a contravention. Their sole concern from the start, the reason they started U-GO Brands, hired a Securities Lawyer and contacted the BCSC was to save the Spyru investors money and maintain legal compliance.

According to the U-GO Directors what the BC Securities Commission fails to mention or acknowledge is the evidence the U-GO Directors have provided to prove their innocence from the very beginning of any allegations the BCSC has made. Further evidence regarding the Directors allegations can be seen at, and

The Directors pose five main reasons they disagree with the BCSC and have made claims that they have committed multiple Criminal Code offences including but not limited to Obstruction of Justice, Tampering, Fraudulent Concealment, Perjury, Break and Entering, False Pretense Slander\Libel, Breach of Trust etc.

Reason the BCSC is a Sham #1


Whether committed under oath or simply in writing as an affidavit the BCSC, its staff including but not limited to the the main investigator (Ms. Donders) in this case, the Council for the Executive Director (Mila Pivnenko and James Torrance), and the former Director of Criminal Enforcement Ms. Mitchell Banks have repeatedly lied in over the course of this investigation in order to make a case. There are more lies then have yet been counted so for now we will outline just one at this current time.

The BCSC illegally Cease Trade ordered a pair of private trust accounts then lied to cover up the fact.

There is numerous pieces of evidence in regards to deception and lies on behalf of the BCSC on this matter alone, the following is taken from Ms. Mitchell-Banks email communication with the Mr. Harris who was at the time head of the Criminal Enforcement division of the BCSC.

This statement by Ms. Mitchell-Banks that denies the BCSC is responsible for the CTO can be compared to the following evidence provided by the TD Waterhouse investment bank that the BCSC issued the Cease Trade order on two private trust accounts, accounts which it knew could not possibly have received the proceeds of criminal activities as no cash had been deposited in almost 20 years. In addition the entire procedure in regards to the operation of the BCSC is full of lies and deception, for a Regulatory Enforcement agency charged with ensuring the integrity of the financial markets in BC this pattern of deception and lies is very alarming. The BCSC has lied about everything from its refusal to release the Oct 2014 Hearings Transcripts to alleging that we did not turn our minds to the Securities Act and Legal Compliance.

The BCSC lies or is deceptive and withholds the truth on a regular basis whether in its attempts to prosecute the Director’s for Fraud long after the BCSC knew they were innocent or the recent refusal on the behalf of the Commission to tell the public the truth about Director of Criminal Enforcement Division Ms. Mitchell-Banks and her recent departure from the BCSC. Inside sources have confirmed that indeed Ms. Mitchell-Banks was fired by the BCSC, why does the BCSC hide this? See the Cease Trade order below and compare to the statements made by Ms. Mitchell-Banks denying any BCSC involvement. Why the lies?

To summarize the first reason the U-GO Directors claim the BCSC is a sham one need look no further then the vast amount of lies and deception that are perpetrated by its employees, in one hearing lead investigator Ms. Donders even lied under oath and denied the accounts were Cease Traded by the BCSC. The entire investigation is built on the evidence of liars. How many lies are allowed to be committed to make a case before a case no longer has any validity? Twenty, thirty, seventy, one hundred? One? Two? Most of the rest of the following reasons are the related to the lies and deceit of the BCSC.

Reason the BCSC is a Sham # 2


The U-GO Brands Directors argue that the attempted Fraud charges before them for well over a year after the BCSC knew they were innocent are simply more evidence of their claims, the BC Securities Commission has been deceptive from the day the U-GO Directors contacted the BCSC until now. Why would the BC Securities Commission continue to press charges over a year after they knew those charges had no merit? See the email exchange between U-GO Brands Lawyer and BCSC investigator Ms. Lindsay that indicates this to be true, that the BCSC knew this as early as April 2014 yet the Council for the Executive Director continued to attempt to have the charges stick until July 2015.

The BC Securities Commission has argued that none of the U-GO Directors complaints are valid due to the fact that this is a highly regulated Securities issue, the U-GO Brands directors in return point to the fact that it stopped being a Securities issue when the BCSC attempted to press false Fraud charges for which jail time may be applicable.

See our lawyer inform us that after a conversation that he had with Ms Donders she informed him that the allegations facing the U-GO Brands Director’s had no merit in April of 2014.

Why then over a year later in 2015 would the prosecution (The Council for the Executive Director) still be attempting to have Fraud charges pressed? See evidence below..

The outright refusal of the BCSC to acknowledge the truth in this case combined with malicious intent are just some of the factors that lead to our reason number two that the BC Securities Commission is a Sham, public servants attempted to push false charges on innocent citizens for over a year. As the BCSC itself admits they had access to all the banking accounts they, they knew better and attempted to push Fraud charges anyways.

Reason the BCSC is a Sham #3


In early 2013 Mr. Harris discovered that his former boss and mentor for 30 years in the shipping industry Mr. Klaus Glusing, recently turned business partner was embezzling funds from an offshore start-up Spyru. Spyru had many BC investors and a product on the shelves from BC to New York. Mr. Peter Harris took multiple steps to protect the investors and do the right thing including quitting Spyru, hiring a Securities Attorney in order to issue an Offering Memorandum and maintain legal compliance, starting U-GO Brands in BC in order to save the Spyru shareholders and contacting the BC Securities Commission in order to report fraud and maintain compliance.

U-GO Brands was a promising all natural and organic entry into the beverage drink market, in partnership with an industry veteran from the lower mainland who had a product and branding developed in the SuperDrop (tm) project. U-GO produced over 80,000 bottles which all sold well and had orders pending for 30,000 retail outlets across North America including 10,000 7-11s, U-GO Brands was a legitimate company with a bright future before it was destroyed by the BCSC.

The BCSC was aware from the beginning that the U-GO Brands directors had wanted to gift old Spyru shareholders shares in the new U-GO Brands company. This may have conflicted with the Securities Act, in an email the initial case investigator Mr. William Ting sends to the director’s attorney at the time Mr. Ting indicates he is aware of the U-GO Brands directors resolve and will let them proceed for the time being. See the email inserted above as evidence that the BCSC is fully aware of the Director’s plans to gift Spyru shareholders shares in the new U-GO Brands company and despite questions about legal compliance will let the Directors proceed. Why would they mislead the Directors for months and then turn around and attempt to charge then for the very Fraud they reported as well as offences that never would have occurred had the BCSC done its job in the first place, after refusing to help us or even talk to us at one point.

To sum up reason number three that the BCSC is a sham, the U-GO Brands director’s went to them for help and did the right thing. They spent nine months deceiving, it took them seven months to even bother telling them they were not going to look into the Spyru fraud as they had no jurisdiction. Why?

Reason the BCSC is a Sham #4

The BCSC is Not to Be Trusted, it runs 'Courts' without recording transcripts.

In regards to the missing hearing transcript for Oct the 8th and Oct 31st 2014 preliminary hearing. The BCSC insists no such transcript ever existed and it is not standard practice for one to be recorded for a preliminary hearing. At this preliminary hearing there was a stenographer, the director’s all had to state their name for the record at the beginning of the hearing. All other hearings and interviews had transcripts produced including the hearing precluding the Oct 8th hearing. Why would there not be a transcript for this hearing? Even if it is a preliminary hearing? There is a transcript for the March 13/14 2014 preliminary hearing and we will attach it as proof. Why would the next hearing even if 'preliminary' not be recorded?

Either the BCSC is lying and withholding the transcript, or the transcript was destroyed.

For arguments sake lets pretend the director’s didn't see the Stenographer and nothing was really recorded then this would beg the question how can the BCSC claim to operate as a court with all the authority of Supreme Court as it is so fond of informing us it has. The BCSCs mandate is to operate in a fair, just and impartial manner yet its court proceedings are so far from impartial and just that its a complete joke. Attached is copied a section of the Commissions own policy on hearings. Keep in mind that policy is not law, it must however fall within the confines of the law.

<<< Exert from Commission Policy on Hearings>>>


2.1 Procedures – The Commission conducts hearings less formally than the courts. The Act

and Regulation prescribe very few procedures the Commission must follow in hearings.

Consequently, except for these, the Commission is the master of its own procedures. In deciding

procedural matters, the Commission considers the rules of natural justice set by the courts and

the public interest in having matters heard fully and decided promptly.

<<< End of exert>>>

How can the BCSC claim to operate as a court of law yet operate in such an arbitrary manner, by its own admission if it is to follow the rules of natural justice set by the Courts then certainly everything should be on record including a preliminary hearing.

The Commission and its Agents have repeatedly stated that the Commission is not governed by the Canadian Constitution nor is it obliged to operate in a manner that is in accordance with the procedures and rules of Canadian Supreme Court. This is contrary to the Constitution which clearly states that unless specific Provincial Legislation outlines otherwise all laws, regulations, rules, courts, tribunals etc shall operate in accordance with the Constitution Act of 1982 in section 32.
Application of Charter

  • 32. (1) This Charter applies
    • (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
    • (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
Either the transcript was destroyed or withheld or their never was one in the first place as the BCSC insists. Whichever answer is true it is the position of Mr. Harris and Mr. Burke that the BCSC has lost all credibility as it operates in contravention of either the Canadian Constitution and the guidelines for Supreme Court or the Criminal Code. Neither of these positions would support any supposed authority the BCSC operates with, it has compromised its position and is not fit to regulate the securities market in British Columbia as it does not operate in accordance with the principles of justice and the rule of law.

The BCSC is guilty of either withholding/destroying evidence or a breach of the Canadian Constitution either way the BCSC is compromised.

According to Ms. Mitchell Banks the following is what happened to the Oct hearing transcripts.

To sum up reason number four the BCSC is Sham, the BCSC is deceptive and cannot be trusted. Its destruction and subsequent denial of the existence of the Oct 2014 Hearings Transcripts is evidence of the director’s claims against the BCSC.

Reason the BCSC is a Sham #5

Spy Games

In early 2015 after it was clear to the BCSC that the Directors were innocent of fraud charges the BCSC decided to break into Mr. Christopher Burke's Family Hotel room in Vancouver BC and hack his computer in an effort to attempt to pin anything they could on the U-GO Brands directors, there were multiple witnesses present at the time. Since then the BCSC has harassed Mr. Christopher Burke for over a year with black-ops military ops units, choppers random death threats and cyber attacks. After the December 2015 ruling against the Directors the BCSC stepped up the intimidation game against Mr. Burke, the following picture is of one of the Surveillance vans that the BCSC had following him. It was taken on New Years eve day 2015 after the ruling by the BCSC, the van is parked in a position to watch Mr. Burke go to the Bank, his parents, friends, shopping and any general errands he would run in his neighbourhood. The van was found to have a cardboard cut-out with eye holes in it facing the side of the street Mr. Burke would walk.

Mr. Burke for his own safety has conducted multiple counter-surveillance operations to accumulate evidence, the photos of this van are not the only photos of such activities other vehicles and people have been recorded or photographed. Small portions of that evidence are made public at the following sites.

And also on these news releases from a couple of US Papers the LA Daily News and the Chicago Daily Herald..

To summarize reason number five the BCSC is a complete sham, if their was any real truth to their allegations and findings they would not feel the need to harass the U-GO Directors with black ops units and helicopters all year but especially AFTER their Dec 2015 ruling. The Directors maintain that this is further evidence of the lengths the BCSC will go to to suppress justice and the truth. The BCSC will send thugs to threaten Mr. Burke into silence but will not sue the Director’s despite its repeated threats to do so should the U-GO Brands director’s continue to make their allegations against the BCSC public.

If the BCSC was innocent it would have enough faith in its case to take the U-GO Brands Director’s to a real Court of Law and have them sued for slander, libel and harassment and charged with contempt of court for their refusal to co-operate with the Commission regarding its findings. Instead the BCSC chose to hide behind secret armies of thugs hackers and helicopters to intimidate the U-GO directors into silence and submission. That is reason number five the BCSC is a sham.

One would be best to remain fraud aware, the BCSC is the real fraud and threat to the integrity of the market.

Christopher Burke
Peter Harris

Monday, 21 March 2016


Thursday, March 17, 2016


Letter sent from Christopher Burke to the Manitoba Securities Commission

Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Dear Teresa Sigurdson and Kimberly Laycock,

I represent myself on the matter between BCSC and U-GO Brands. With all due respect I ask the Manitoba Securities Commission back off of this matter until the allegations against us from by the BCSC have been proven in a Federal Court of Law. The BC Security Commission has committed the following Federally Indictable offences in an effort to prosecute in a case full of lies. We have evidence for every claim we make and are prepared to give testimony in Canadian Supreme Court where we should get a fair trial. Nothing the BC Securities does, says or tenders as evidence has any legal credibility after we have been through the following fiasco.

I must also explain it is due to a lack of trust from being lied to and deceived by public officials including the magical disappearance of emails, transcripts and documents that prompts us to respond by sending emails to many parties so that everything we do is on record. 
  • Perjury
  • Tampering/withholding evidence
  • Collusion
  • Fraudulent Concealment
  • Break and entering
  • Breach of trust as a Public official
  • Accessory
  • Conspiracy
  • Illegal Wiretapping
  • Criminal Harassment
  • Slander
  • Libel

These are just a few of the Crimes the BCSC has committed in its attempt to make a case when there never should have been one. We went to them and reported Fraud, they deceived and lied to us for 9 months before telling us they couldn't help us, meantime they were busy entrapping us and attempting to prosecute us for crimes we did not commit. I have attached several papers that will outline the chain of events, the crimes committed, and some evidence to back our position. We have filed criminal charges with the RCMP.

In addition to the crimes committed the BCSC has committed several serious breaches of the Charter of Rights. We are not the only ones to undergo this type of abuse at the BCSC, in addition to criminal charges a class action law suite is a very real possibility.

We do not mean to be vindictive or threatening to the Manitoba Securities Commission as we have no quarrel with the MSC however we are absolutely fed up with our rights being trampled on and being prosecuted based on a series of lies.

Questions regarding the BC Securities Commission:
We have evidence that warrants and validates each question asked..

  • How can a Regulatory Agency mandated with ensuring fair and ethical actions in the marketplace maintain any legal credibility when it operates in the following manner
  • Holds hearings without records, according to the BCSC rules its the master of its own domain in legal proceedings. How can a legal ruling be made with unbiased integrity when as they themselves said they only sometimes record said hearing?
  • What do the Securities Act say about this? What about Supreme court law and our Constitutional rights?
  • How can an agency be trusted to make a fair and impartial decision in a case when it knowingly uses the testimony of an investigator who has perjured herself multiple times?
  • Why would a Regulatory and Enforcement agency in charge of maintaining the integrity of the financial markets mislead citizens who went to them for help for seven months in regards to the reporting of Fraud?
  • Why would the BCSC lie to U-GO Brands directors in regards to Klaus Glusings fraudulent activities?
  • Why would a BCSC investigator tell the lawyer for U-Brands that he is going to let us proceed with issuing shares in U-GO Brands although he knows we may be in contravention of the Act by doing so?
  • Why would the lawyer and the BCSC lead us on to think its all legally OK when they know they are entrapping us into committing an offense against the Act?
  • Why would an agency tasked with protecting shareholders in BC actively work to destroy a legitimate company and in doing so lose 400 shareholders money?
  • How can the BCSC justify posting private banking info online on its website TWICE contrary to the privacy act?
  • Why would the BCSC illegally Cease trade trust accounts then lie to cover it up?
  • How can the BCSC justify attempting to prosecute us for fraud well after they know we are innocent of fraud?
  • Would the BC Securities Commission break into someone’s hotel illegally and hack their laptop if they are desperate to pin a crime on someone and cant?
  • Would the BCSC hire surveillance teams and choppers to intimidate citizens into silence if it cant scare them into silence with the threat of a lawsuit?
  • Would the BCSC attempt to force citizens to settle for all the allegations facing them including fraud even if they know the fraud charges are not true?
  • Is entrapment and collusion standard protocol for the BCSC?
  • Do the rule of law and due process not apply to the financial markets?
  • What about the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?
  • the right to a fair and impartial trial (Hearing) in any legal proceeding?
  • Can the BCSC really just make declarations about someone that are not true and operate as though its the law? Can they prosecute someone based on these declarations without evidence presented?

Christopher Burke


How long will Ms. Brenda Leong let the crimes of the BCSC carry on?


Sunday, March 20, 2016



Thursday, March 13, 2014


Brenda M. Leong, Chair and Chief Executive Officer
701 West Georgia Street
P. O. Box 10142,
Pacific Centre Vancouver, B. C. V7Y 1L2

Dear Ms. Leong,

Yesterday I contacted your administrative assistant wanting to possibly take five minutes of your time, unfortunately this did not come about.

Ms. Leong, I have 38 years of corporate experience and I do comprehend your predicament and your executive responsibilities to your Agency. Let me point out, at the end of my career, I was responsible for 17, 000 employees and I ’m sure you will agree, as management we all experienced employees lying to get the job done or protect their career. Unfortunately, in this case I respectfully have to say this has happened to U- GO Brands and its Directors.

I am sure your employees will attempt to discredit us by using possibly my phone message to Mr. Ting and Mr. Thibert’ s phone conversation with Ms. Donders against us. We both apologized to the respective parties and again we never got an acknowledgement from either Mr. Ting or Ms. Donders. Please see attached apology letter to Mr. Ting.

Ms. Leong, we are not bad people as your employees have made us to be on the internet. For your information we have notarized signed statements of facts from some of our investors that will testify that your employees told them that U- GO Brands   and its Directors are under investigation for embezzling and miss-appropriating funds, in addition your employees implied to our investors we are bad people and operating a bad company and for that reason the commission is taking us to Court March 13 th and as Directors we will never be allowed to trade again under the BCSC.

This is morally wrong Ms. Leong and not at all right. I t’ s a complete distortion of the truth when we have not been officially accused of any wrong doing other that misclassifying our investors on our subscription agreements.
That’ s not embezzling or miss-appropriating funds, in the meantime we are struggling to keep our company afloat while the commission is trying to put us out of business for no good reason other than to satisfying their personal egos because we are fighting back and that’ s totally unacceptable as far as your employees are concerned.
Ms. Leong, all we ask is for the commission to stop this nonsense of posturing and intimidation. We are prepared to sit down and work this out like reasonable adults.

As I mentioned, if we did not believe in our innocents, we would not be trying to work out a mutual resolve for our investors.

I undoubtedly hope the commission does not underestimate our willingness to protect our investors and U - GO Brands, we will use all of the legal avenues at our disposal if we need to, and this is not posturing but simple survival.

I respectfully hope we can overt a catastrophic nightmare and I courteously await your response.
Peter Harris

Saturday, 19 March 2016


 As we have previously stated we are hardly the only individuals undergoing this type of legal abuse at the hands of the BC Government or its related agencies. The following is taken from a website called where the criminal elements of the BC Government that are working to rob the wealth of this province from its inhabitants are being exposed by a Mr. Carten and his investigative team.
The following is a little bit of history in regards to the BC Securities Commission and the cess pool of crime that it hides under the guise of protecting the market.
 It helps us understand when we start asking questions in regards to the dealings between U-GO Brands and the BCSC such as where are the Oct 2014 Hearings transcripts? Why illegally CTO bank accounts and lie to cover it? Why would the lead investigator commit perjury in the giving of evidence?
 Why would the BCSC former Director of Criminal Enforcement Division Ms. Mitchell-Banks tell us if we want to deal with them we have to plead guilty to a crime they knew we did not commit?
Why all the deception from the BCSC.. likely because the BCSC is a criminal racket.

 The following may shed some light as to how the BCSC really 'protects' the public.


Corruption Clean Up Continuing in British Columbia

Premier Christy Clark Terminates Hyndman, Chairman of B.C. Securities Commission

Unreported in Canada's mainstream media and, to our knowledge first reported here, Premier Christy Clark, and her colleagues, fired or terminated Douglas Hyndman from his lofty sinecure as Chairman of the British Columbia Securities Commission by Order In Council made May 28, 2012.  Mr. Hyndam was paid an obscene and outrageous salary (from British Columbia taxpayers money) of $523,000.00 in 2010/2011.

From 1987 to 2012, Douglas Hyndman was the man in responsible for supervising much of the activity at the Vancovuer Stock Exchange, one of the great crime scenes of the Western World

 The Investigation Continues

At this time, we do not have enough information to determine if Douglas Hyndman is a crook but the investigation continues.  Three weeks after he was terminated from the his top job, the story remains unreported by the mainstream media in Canada.

The British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) was established by the Government of British Columbia to supervise and regulate securities trading, i.e. the stock market,  in British Columbia.

Mr. Hyndman was appointed Chairman of the BCSC, in 1987, by the notorious Premier Bill Vander Zalm who, like every elected British Columbia Premier after him, was  forced from office due to a corruption scandal.   And, those elected politicians, Michael Harcourt, Glen Clark, and Gordon Campbell, continued to keep Mr. Hyndman in office, for 25 long years, until Premier Christy Clark finally showed some courage, did the right thing, and rescinded his appointment.      

Under Mr. Hyndman's, arguably incompetent and/or corrupt supervision, the Vancouver Stock Exchange grew from a moderately corrupt regional stock exchange into a major player as a den of thieves specializing in for money laundering, racketeering, pump and dump, fraud and corruption.   During this period, it was protected by a corrupt legal and judicial system and an incompetent police force that are discussed elsewhere on this web site. 

The situation was so bad that Canada's former top cop, RCMP Commissioner Zacardelli, stated: "When it comes to international money laundering, all roads lead to Vancouver".
Put simply, Douglas Hyndman should have been removed from his job two decades ago but successive corrupt Premiers refused to do the job for reasons that have yet to be explained.

In relation to the Water War Crimes, Hyndman was Chairman of  the BCSC when W.C.W. Western Canada Water Enterprises Ltd.  was touting and selling its shares based on the secret illegal agreement it had made with the Government of British Columbia that gave it an exceedlngly favourable position in the marketplace.  Hyndman turned a blind eye and a major stock market fraud took place with many investors losing millions upon millions of dollars.

Click here to read more about WCW Western Canada Water Enterprises Ltd. and its fraudulent stock market swindle

NDP Party Leader Adrian Dix
Douglas Hyndman

The Editors believe that the British Columbia New Democratic Party and its members made a major mistake when it selected Adrian Dix to be its leader for the next election which will be called in 2013 and where Premier Christy Clark will be his opponent. 

Mr. Dix had been Chief of Staff to former Premier Glen Clark and Premier Clark was well informed of the corruption taking place at the Vancouver Stock Exchange under the negligent or corrupt supervision of Mr. Douglas Hyndman.  In fact, Premier Clark made several speeches in the legislature were he railed and ranted about the "crime scene" known as the Vancouver Stock Exchange but  when he was elected to the premier's office, Premier Glen Clark and his roomate / Chief of Staff, Adrian Dix, forgot about those speeches, they forgot about the public interest and they did nothing about Douglas Hyndman the man who is arguably most responsible for the massive corruption that took place at the Vancouver Stock Exchange while he was Chairman of the BCSC from 1987 to 2012.

To be fair to Mr. Dix while he was with Premier Clark's office, he had to follow orders from his boss, but in April, 2011, Adrian Dix became leader of the NDP Party and he has remained silent about the continuing presence of Douglas Hyndman at the British Columbia Securities Commission which, abjectly and miserably, failed to stop the massive stock market fraud taking place on the Vancouver Stock Exchange - the scene of some of the biggest stock market swindles in Canada -  for 25 long years.   

Douglas Hyndman
and the
Water War Crimes

By following the career of Douglas Hyndman one can make a better judgment of his probable involvement in the Water War Crimes.

Hyndman`s online resume states he joined the Ministry of Finance in 1975 and worked as staff member of the Treasury Board until 1984 when he became the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for the Treasury Board where he remained to 1987. 

During this period, he would have been in a position to influence and guide the emerging British Columbia government policies which were favouring W.C.W. Western Canada Water Enterprises Ltd.  It is a certainty that he would have regularly had dealings with the Canadian Federal Treasury Board in Ottawa that was also using its powers to favour W.C.W. Western Canada Water Enterprises Ltd.   It is probable the Douglas Hyndman met and knew James "Jim" Whiteside who had worked in a senior position with the Federal Treasury Board but who suddenly moved to British Columbia where W.C.W. Western Canada Water Enterprises Ltd. became his first with his newly established financial advisory business

When W.C.W. Western Canada Water Enterprises Ltd. was ready to seek public financing through the use of false and misleading documents to be filed with the Vancouver Stock Exchnage and the British Colubmia Securities Commission, Douglas Hyndman, a man with absolutely no private business experience, was inserted as Chairman of the British Colubmia Securities Commission, the public body charged with the responsiblity of insuring the investing public were protected from swindlers, fraud artists, deceivers, cheats and the like.   This appointment would have been approved by the Ministry of the Attorney General where many of the Water War Crimes took place and where the crooked Robert Edwards was the Deputy Minister.   

The Editors are of the opinion that that the appointment of Douglas Hyndman to the British Columbia Securites Commission was part of a deliberate plan to insure that W.C.W. Western  Canada Water Enterprises Ltd. would be permitted to carry on its dirty business of ripping off the public without sanction from the responsible public authority.

As a general rule, a person who was at the crime scene when the crime was carried out is regarded as a suspect until proved otherwise.  Certainly, Douglas Hyndman should be taken in for questioning by the police.  
 As always stay posted for more

Thursday, 17 March 2016

How Far Is to Far? Where Do You Draw the Line Between Financial Regulations and Civil Rights?

 Why investors and business should be very wary of doing business in BC. Former BC Securities Commission CEO Douglas Hyndman is gone but nothing has changed, the province that brought you the Bre X mining scandal is still a haven for liars and thieves.

Could the BC Securities Commission be at the heart of all the Corruption?

 Why all the deception from a Regulatory Enforcement agency mandated with ensuring an ethical and fair marketplace?  Should you keep your money out of British Columbia?

On the ongoing saga between U-GO Brands and the BC Securities Commission.​

The Directors from U-GO Brands Mr. Christopher Burke and Mr. Peter Harris would like to make it clear for the public record and contrary to what the BC Securities Commission claims that they have never tried to evade responsibility for any Securities Act regulations that they violated. The U-GO Brands Directors have been honest from the very moment they contacted the BCSC. Nor do the U-GO Brands directors deny that the Securities Act gives authority to the BCSC to enforce market regulation. They simply ask that they be prosecuted in a fair unbiased proceeding where the only evidence presented against them is not based on the affidavits and testimony of a proven liar.

 The U-GO Brands Directors claim that the BC Securities Commission acted contrary to the law and to the public interest when it began its case against them on deceptive grounds omitting to tell them the truth about a Fraud they had reported. In addition the BCSC mislead the U-GO Directors and entrapped them, BCSC officials did not inform the U-GO Directors for seven months that they had no jurisdiction over the Fraud reported. Instead the BCSC conspired to entrap and attempt to charge the U-GO Directors with a crime it knew they had not committed, Fraud.
For full details on the U-GO Brands directors allegations that include but are not limited to extortion, tampering, obstruction of justice, perjury, illegal wiretapping, break and entering, fraudulent concealment, false pretense, collusion, conspiracy and black ops harassment see below..

See Exhibit #1 (Mr. Harris - "Concerned no action")

Do the actions of Mr. Harris who begged the BCSC for an audience and/or simply a reply at the very beginning of this case fit with the accusations that the BCSC has made that they had no regard for the law and the public good?

 See Exhibit #2  (Mr. Harris never attempted to evade responsibility, in fact he brought the attention to the BCSC and hired Farris in order to ensure a fledgling U-GO Brands Company was compliant.)

These are just a couple of emails indicating Mr. Harris had a strong desire to seek compliance and work with the BCSC, Mr. Harris even went so far as to have an Offering Memorandum prepared however was told that it would not be needed at the time.

 See the Council for the Executive Director insist the U-GO Directors did not turn their attention the the Act.
See Exhibit #3

"This entire case has been nothing but a vindictive, malicious and highly illegal railroad job from the moment Mr. Harris contacted the BCSC until now. The BC Securities Commission has no interest in the truth, ethics, integrity or any sort of honorable and just actions that are by law a necessity in a highly regulated financial marketplace" said U-GO Brands director Mr. Burke in a statement for the press, he further elaborated,
 "Perhaps an Alberta Supreme Court ruling said it best in the case the ASC v. Beaudette, in this case the ASC wins in a disagreement as to whether the state could compel one to testify against ones self in 'Securities' matter. The Court ruled that the state had a right to compel a person to testify given the circumstances. Participation in the financial capital markets is a privilege and one can expect to reasonably give up some rights simply by participation.  Such things as the ability to access banking information and have one testify against ones self are important tools in the duties of a market enforcement agency, we do not protest that.  We note however that the Court in its ruling was very careful to note in the courts own words"..

Section 7 does not promise the state will never interfere in a persons life, liberty, or security of the person – laws do this all the time – but rather that the state will not do so in a way that violates the principles of fundamental justice.”

 See Exhibit # 4  (Alberta Securities Commission obligation to Fundamental justice)

See Exhibit #5 (Alberta Securities Commission on obligation to Constitution)

" In very simple terms" continued Mr, Burke, "We are not protesting the right of the state to intrude in certain aspects of our lives given our participation in the financial markets. We are protesting the fact that they are denying the fundamentals of justice by attempting to prosecute us using an investigator whose testimony is full of lies, holding hearings without recording them. We don't protest their right to compel evidence, we were the first ones begging them to see us! We protest having to give evidence in front of a lying investigator in a 'court' that according to its own officials only sometimes records hearings."

In addition Directors argue the attempted Fraud charges before them for well over a year after the BCSC knew they were innocent are simply more evidence of their claims, the BC Securities Commission has been deceptive from the day the U-GO Directors contacted the BCSC until now.
 Why would the BC Securities Commission continue to press charges over a year after they knew those charges had no merit? See the email exchange between U-GO Brands Lawyer and BCSC investigator Ms. Lindsay that indicates this to be true, that the BCSC knew as early as April 2014

See Exhibit #5 (Allegations in 2014 have no merit)

Why would the BCSC still be attempting to press these charges over a year later in July of 2015 when it knows they have no merit, is that Fundamental Justice?

See Exhibit #6 (Fraud 2015 charges)

 Fraud charges such as the BCSC continued to attempt to push on the U-GO Brands directors after it knew they were innocent are very serious charges. A Federal offense for which jail time may apply. To publicly allege that persons known to be innocent of such a crime are going to be prosecuted for such a crime also constitutes more then one serious Federal offense as well, regardless of the outcome of the trial or hearing.

 Any attempt at immunity from such dishonest and slanderous actions is null and void according to Section 170 of the Securities Act. 'Good Faith' is a key component of Section 170. How can the BCSC continue a lie for over a year that could put someone in jail, how can it attempt to prosecute someone based on a series of lies and use 'good faith' as in defense of their actions?
 What the U-GO Brands directors take issue with is the blatant disregard by the BCSC for any adherence to the principles of the fundamentals of justice throughout its entire proceeding. In addition the absolute disregard for their duty to the public interest and the maintaining of the integrity of the marketplace is a Breach of Trust as a public official among other crimes.

 The BCSC cannot hide  behind 'Securities Laws', it has committed multiple felonies for which their is no immunity under the Securities Act.
Why does the BCSC deny the truth? Should these be the people in charge of watching out for your money in British Columbia?
 The BCSC began this case with deceit, the U-GO Brands Directors came to them open and honestly. Why would the BCSC wait seven months before telling the U-GO Brands directors it did not have jurisdiction over the first company Spyru when they came to ask for help with Spyru?

 Why does the BCSC hide everything it does? Its attempt to charge the U-GO Directors with fraud knowing they were innocent of such charges is a very serious crime, the BCSC cannot simply say that this is a Securities Matter any longer. The attempt to charge the U-GO Directors for a fraud the BCSC knew they were innocent of means that the BCSC is outside of the realm of the Financial markets, again we look a the ASC v. Beaudette Case and see what the Courts have to say about such a matter.
See Exhibit # 7

 As we can see the Court ruled that because their was no true penal consequence the ASC was simply doing its job and had a right to proceed as it did.
 In the case of the Commission v. U-GO Brands however there were and still are penal consequences that arise from the sanctions sought, jail-time for Fraud is an applicable punishment. Over $3 Million in fines facing the U-GO directors is a true penal consequence, one should not be subjected to such punishments without adherence to the fundamentals of justice and the rule of law.
 The BCSC has blatantly disregarded both of these principles in the U-GO Brands Case and its denial of the truth. How can the U-GO directors be prosecuted and punished based on what can clearly be proven to be lies on the behalf of the Commissions Investigator and the Council for the Executive Director?


The very first actions taken by the BCSC were Fraudulent Concealment, or False Pretence, at the very least Misconduct of an Official Executing a Process and the Obstruction of Justice apply from the outset of this case. Is this how the BCSC maintains the integrity of the markets?

 Christopher Burke
 Peter Harris