Thursday, 24 March 2016


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


  1. Thanks for this - I am looking forward to speaking with you about this situation. Please call Alan at 250-300-8400

  2. BCSC has interfered financial markets and are COVER UP agents of crimes. In my case BARRICK and SILVER WHEATON + ROYAL GOLD + HASBC + DEUTSCHEBANK AG + CANADIAN BANKS at PASCUA LAMA PONZI SCAM, where Barrick is and has been ver a decade allowed to run a RACKET as if it owned one ounce of Gold, Silver or Copper in Chile it did not, 1994 to date.

    Barrick bought salt and nitrates concessions from LAC only.

    BCSC cover up Agents of violations of Criminal Code of Canada Section 400(1) with Barrick at PASCUA LAMA PONZI SCAM & RICO crimes.

    Jorge R Lopehandia 778 990 4197

  3. BCSC has interfered financial markets and are COVER UP agents of crimes. In my case BARRICK and SILVER WHEATON + ROYAL GOLD + HASBC + DEUTSCHEBANK AG + CANADIAN BANKS at PASCUA LAMA PONZI SCAM, where Barrick is and has been ver a decade allowed to run a RACKET as if it owned one ounce of Gold, Silver or Copper in Chile it did not, 1994 to date.

    Barrick bought salt and nitrates concessions from LAC only.

    BCSC cover up Agents of violations of Criminal Code of Canada Section 400(1) with Barrick at PASCUA LAMA PONZI SCAM & RICO crimes.

    Jorge R Lopehandia 778 990 4197