Tuesday, 8 March 2016





Friday, March 07, 2014
Teresa R. Mitchell-Banks QC - BCSC

Subject: Your letter dated January 30, 2014 - Summary of our e-mail exchange

Dear Ms. Banks,

I hope you had a pleasant vacation.

In reference to your letter I’m compelled to address your deceptive comments and allegations. For your convenience I’ve attached your letter our exhibit SP-018 for your convenience and reference.

Page one, paragraph two, line 1 to 3
Glusing Investigation
You indicate the commission has investigated the Glusings thoroughly. We know this not to be true. First, the only research the commission did was to retrieve from the TCI Gazette website the probate notice for Mark Glusing, your exhibit 03.

If you refer to our exhibit SP-005, pages 7 to 9, it clearly illustrates the commission never did verify and confirm our allegations about fraud perpetrated by the Glusings. We did confirm to the commission we retained Harbor Investigations of Vancouver and they provide us with the following lawsuits filed against Klaus Glusing in Bermuda Supreme Court, the plaintiff was MICHAEL G. DEGROOTE is a Canadian businessman and philanthropist from Hamilton, Ontario and he sued Glusing for $872,602.00. The next lawsuit was file by Mr. Andrew. 

Outerbridge, the co-plaintiff,
The Butterfield Bank of Bermuda, they sued for $2.3M.
The last lawsuit we filed by CAST (1983) LTD. for $903,000.00.
All of the above lawsuits are based on misappropriation of funds.

What we find misleading on the part of the commission, is if you refer to our exhibit SP-019, your message dated February 6, 2014, you state, since Klaus Glusings has past way and that the commission has no authority or jurisdiction in the BWI, how can you say the commission investigated the Glusings? Moreover, your message revealed that the commission cannot help the SPYru Investors. Why where we not told of this fact in June 2013?

Page one, paragraph two, Line 4 to 5
Glusing Investigation is closed
We cannot apprehend why the commission would say the investigation can move no further since the Glusings are now deceased? This is not a valid justification on the part of the commission, your investigations are based on DOCUMENTATION, paper trails and it’s apparent the commission has failed in acting fairly and in an impartial manner pertaining to the Glusings.

Page one, paragraph two, Line 6 to 8
Knowledge of Klaus Glusing’s death
You declared the commission only found out January 23, 2014 about Klaus Glusing passing away. I find it hard to believe the statement made in your letter, when we notified Farris Law October 29, 2013, please refer to our exhibit SP-020.

Page one, paragraph two, Line 9 and 10
Klaus Glusing TCI bank account
We passed along information to the commission that Klaus Glusing only had $300.00 in his bank account when he died, even so this information is only hearsay from our contacts on the island. I would guess to say the commission has no idea as to what bank Klaus Glusing was dealing with.

Page one, paragraph two, Line 12 and 14
Assessment of our Fraud complaint against the Glusings
It’s difficult to comprehend the commission stating that our complaint and allegations against the Glusings is absent of new and meaningful evidence. This is totally incorrect, we sent the commission internal messages between Lorne Cire, myself and the Glusings that clearly shows the Glusing ran and were in control of the company, and in fact we were not even officers of SPYru Inc. We refer again to our exhibit SP-005.

Page two, line 1 and 2
You remark my obligation to appear under Summons
We find the statements made in your message to be misleading, deceptive and untruthful. In the message you say and I quote: You are legally compelled to attend and give evidence under oath. My question is, why would I agree to give evidence against myself? In a court of law, my defense attorney would strongly advise me not to testify on the stand.

Page two, line 2 and 3
Assessment of our complaint to the commission
You announce that after your investigation of our complaint against the commission not willing to meet with us face to face, you have come to the conclusion our complaint is non-warranted. With all due respect, how can the commission permit an involved investigator in our complaint to review our grievances? This is undoubtedly a conflict of interest, not to mention the legitimacy of the internal review.

Page two, line 4 to 5
If you do not comply and Contempt of Court
In reference to your filing a Petition in Supreme Court for Contempt of Court is again miss-leading and not truthful. You know very well no Judge will sign a Contempt of Court order against us, when the commission clearly stated we are not obligated to attend.

Please refer to our exhibit, SP-021, you confirms that our presence at the hearing is not mandatory. Do you not think this is a complete contradiction of statements and is untruthful?

As we have cited before, it’s deplorable the commission’s unwillingness to work with us. However, we will fight for what is right and we will protect our investors.
Peter Harris

No comments:

Post a Comment