Tuesday, 5 July 2016

BC SECURITIES COMMISSION HAS NO REMEDY UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT FOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR


Attn: Minister of Finance Micheal De Jong, Attorney General Ms. Suzanne Anton, and The Honourable Premier Ms. Christy Clark.


Section 170 of the Securities Act is no Remedy for Purposeful Criminal Acts, The BC Securities Commission has no Legal Remedy under the Canadian Criminal Code and the Securities Act for its Criminal Behavior.


The BC Securities Commission is not above the law. For your reference and understanding in order to make things very clear to you we will demonstrate our legal position that the BCSC has committed a series of Federally indictable offences and breaches of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In order to make this as simple as possible for you to understand we will start by outlining BC Securities Commission Policy and the Legislation in the Securities Act (RSBC). We will compare these to the actions taken by the BC Securities Commission and its staff at the beginning of this case in addition we will contrast that to the Criminal Code and the Charter of Rights and Constitution Act of 1982.
 
 Some exhibits and evidence will be provided to back our position others left blank for now in order to limit the size of this letter.. rest assured however we can back all our claims.

We would like to make it clear for the Courts record and contrary to what the BC Securities Commission claims that we have never tried to evade responsibility for any Securities Act regulations that we 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. We simply ask that we be prosecuted in a fair unbiased proceeding where the only evidence presented against us is not based on the affidavits and testimony of a proven liar.

We came to you begging for help, asking you to do your jobs, you first ignored us and then decided the best course of action would be entrapment.

See Exhibit # s ( )

peters first email and the one “concerned no action”

However given the events that have transpired we are well beyond those possibilities now and serious criminal charges are facing the BCSC and its officials as a result of the actions of the BCSC.

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 following is a list of crimes you, your agency and your employees have committed under your watch, I have not included all the evidence. This is not a legal brief and when we go back to court you will not have discovery. The next time we go to court, if there is any hint of obstruction of justice from the judge or a whiff of your attempts to further deny us the right to a fair and unbiased proceeding we will ensure a circus in that court room. We will ensure that everyone on the planet knows what you and our judicial system is about, that it is a tool for liars and a thieves disguised in sheeps clothes. It is time to do your jobs and administer justice and the restoration of the rule of law in this province. Despite your denials as to the power to do so all three of you have the capability to act and ensure justice, will you continue to destroy the people of this province or will you do what is right?

The following are some of the criminal code offences BCSC employees have committed, some could very well be extended to any of the three of you Ms. Clark, Ms. Anton and Mr. De Jong. Lets hope that never happens and you adhere to the fundamentals of justice.
 
-Breach of Trust as a Public Official

-Perjury

-Obstruction of Justice

-Entrapment

-Tampering/withholding Evidence

-Breaking and Entering

-Defamation and Libel

-Disobeying a statute

-False Pretence

-Fraudulent Concealment

-Conspiracy

 
A brief overview of why we are at odds with the BC Securities Commission can be seen here http://bcsecuritiescommissionasham.blogspot.ca/2016/03/be-fraud-aware-5-reasons-bc-securities.html
We will not lay out all the evidence or perpatrators of each crime at this time, what we will do however is examine Section 170 of the Securities Act (rsbc) 1996, the Canadian Constitution and the BCSC Rule Book.

We will demonstrate first how Section 170 of the Securities Act is no remedy for the actions taken by the BCSC and its staff, in addition we will display evidence to back our position that the BCSC has operated with deception from the very beginning of this case with the intent of ensnaring the U-GO Brands Directors on fraud charges it knew had no merit and allegations of “Distributing Securities without a Prospectus” that would not have any merit had the BCSC done its duty.

The BCSC has alleged that none of our allegations have any merit as we are dealing with a Securities matter, this may have been true however all that changed the moment the BCSC and its employees first began to conceal the truth in regards to the Spryu matter.

By concealing the truth and failing to inform the U-GO Director’s of their knowledge of Klaus Glusings prior fraudulent activity the BCSC failed their public mandate to protect BC shareholders, in addition the failure to convey the truth was part of a two-fold effort to prosecute the U-GO directors for fraud it was aware they did not commit.
 Once this happened the BCSC committed a Criminal Code offence and any immunity granted under Section 170 of the Securities Act became null and void.
First however we will demonstrate why the BCSC is in no position to make a credible legal ruling, its ability to render an unbiased and fair decision in this entire process has been lost due to an unprecedented series of circumstances. We start with an examination of the Policy Manual and Securities Legislation in relation to the Canadian Constitution. We do not start here because it is the beginning of the chain of events in relation to the BCSC and the U-GO Brands, but rather in order that one may understand the underlying mechanisms of the BC Securities Commission that allow for its regulation and enforcement of the Securities markets.
By understanding the conflicts of law and the overstepping of bounds of the legal parameters set by the Securities Act and our Constitutional rights throughout the entire operating procedures of the BCSC as being standard measures of enforcement we come to realize that destruction of the Fundamentals of Justice is standard procedure in the BCSC. The ability to participate in the capital markets is surely a privilege that on can expect to be extended in a fair and democratic society. Upon participation the market participant surely must expect to fore go certain rights in order for a Regulatory agency to maintain a fair and ethical marketplace. However that is no excuse for blatant disregard for the rule of law.
A Regulatory Enforcement agency that is able to issue such orders as a CTO on a whim, without reasonable grounds to do so and lie to cover up the fact it did is a risk to the integrity of the very market that it is mandated to protect. In addition its position that it does not record some hearings including the Oct 2014 Hearing management meeting is puzzling to say the least, incriminating to be more precise.

We all said our names for the stenographer on record, the blatant denial of the truth throughout this investigation is evidence that the BCSC acted with will-full bias and malice against the Respondents in the U-GO Brands case.

The BCSC is a Regulatory Agency that is at constant risk of operating in a unjust and biased manner. This is due to the fact the model of funding the BCSC is based upon is one in which the BCSC must create Regulatory Offences that need to be broken in order for them to levy fines against marketplace participants and thus achieve its funding targets. Technically this could be considered a conflict of interest and inherently create a dangerous model of Financial governance as one would think that such a model means that BCSC officials must find a reason to ensure that marketplace participants break the rules in order to get a paycheck. A funding model such as this could lead to aggressive and malicious attempts to prosecute people for both Regulatory offences and Criminal Code offences they did not commit if the BCSC was in need of reaching its funding targets laid out in reports such as the 2014 Enforcement Report.

It is vital to understand that while the funding structure of the BCSC may in some ways encourage a conflict of interest in the Regulation of the Financial Markets this conflict is meant to be mitigated by the proper application of the fundamentals of justice, adherence to the Securities Act and the confines of the rule of law.
Section 170 of the Securities Act was designed to give BCSC investigators broad powers under the Act to proceed with a Securities investigation.
Securities Act (RSBC) 1996

Immunity of commission and others

170  (1) No action or other proceeding for damages lies and no application for judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act may be instituted against the commission, a member of the commission, an officer, servant or agent of the commission, a designated organization, a director, officer, servant or agent of a designated organization, an auditor oversight body, a director, officer, servant or agent of an auditor oversight body, an employee appointed to administer this Act or any person proceeding under
(a) an order, a written or oral direction or the consent of the commission,
(b) an order of the minister made under this Act, or
(b.1) a delegation or authorization referred to in section 167.2 (1) (a) or (b),
for any act done in good faith in the
(c) performance or intended performance of any duty, or
(d) exercise or the intended exercise of any power,
under this Act, including a duty or power referred to in section 167.2 (1) (c), or for any neglect or default in the performance or exercise in good faith of that duty or power.
(2) No person has any remedies and no proceedings lie or may be brought against any person for any act done or omission made as a result of compliance with this Act, the regulations or any decision rendered under this Act.

The key point here is 'good faith', the BC Securities Commission must act in 'good faith' in order for its immunity from prosecution and ability to suspend certain aspects of our legal rights to apply.

Section 170 of the Securities Act is not a free pass that allows the BCSC to break the law at will in order to attempt to prosecute someone, especially someone they know is not guilty of the charges that the BCSC is attempting to press. Section 170 also omits the inclusion of protection from prosecution for Criminal Code offences.
To be clear we ask the courts to consider the following exhibit

Exhibit # ( )



The destruction and/or withholding of the Oct 2014 Hearing Transcripts by the BCSC constitute the Obstruction of Justice according to both the criminal code and Section 57.5 of the Securities Act. There can be no protection under the Section 170 of the Act for such actions displayed by the BCSC and its officials in this regard. It is also a criminal code offence under the Canadian Criminal Code.
Securities Act (RSBC) 1996

Obstruction of justice

57.5  (1) A person must not
(a) refuse to give any information or produce any record or thing, or
(b) destroy, conceal or withhold, or attempt to destroy, conceal or withhold, any information, record or thing
reasonably required for a hearing, review, investigation, examination or inspection under this Act.
(2) A person contravenes subsection (1) if the person knows or reasonably should know that a hearing, review, investigation, examination or inspection is to be conducted and the person takes any action referred to in subsection (1) before the hearing, review, investigation, examination or inspection.

The tampering with such crucial legal documents such as hearing transcripts preliminary or not can have serious consequences even in civil tribunals and courts where criminal code offences do not apply.

If the BCSC was operating in good faith why would it feel the need to temper with and deny the existence of the Hearings Transcripts? Surely the BCSC has nothing to hide?
The ability to seize assets comes to mind as dangerous real consequence of the orders given by an agency such as the BCSC, these powers are not given so the BCSC can act arbitrarily regardless of its Financial Model. The very success of such a Financial Regulatory Model is premised upon its adherence to due process, fundamental justice and the the rule of law throughout its role in maintaining the integrity of the marketplace.
If the BCSC under the current model simply adhered to the legal framework it has been given in the Securities Act (RSBC) 1996 act regardless of the funding model perhaps the BCSC would not find itself where it is now.

Rights such as the ability to see banking information in order to confirm accounting compliance or follow a money trail in order to verify fraudulent activity come immediately to mind. The case of the Alberta Securities Commission V. Beaudette is certainly applicable and we will discuss the ramifications of that decision further below.

Hand in hand with the relinquishment of such rights however comes an expectation, responsibility and duty on behalf of the Regulatory and Enforcement agency that is denying such rights to adhere to the principles of fundamental justice as set out by law. In the case of the BCSC its own policy manual states that it should operate in a manner consistent with the principles of natural justice as set out by the Courts.

We have briefly covered some of the key points on natural justice, fundamental justice, good faith and how they must be intertwined in the fabric of any regulatory enforcement agency that is mandated with maintaining the integrity of and ensuring a fair and ethical marketplace.

While we have much further to discuss on those subjects and their application to this case in particular it is vital that we put forward the following questions so the Courts can understand our outrage at the chain of events that has transpired. The following questions all arise from real events that occurred and we will provide evidence, or witnesses to attest to every claim made. These questions is not a full list of all the crimes committed however we ask you, can these all be conducted in 'good faith'? We certainly don't think so and will present evidence as to why.
    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 okay when they know they are entrapping us into committing an offence 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 and the Securities Act?

  • Why would the BCSC illegally Cease Trade Order two private trust accounts when it knows neither one has received any cash input for close to twenty years, let alone any proceeds of crime or ill-gotten gains?

  • Why then would the BCSC tell us it did not issue said order when clearly it did, why would the bank have to wait for the approval of the BCSC to change the order if as the BCSC suggests the CTO was the banks fault? Why does the BCSC lie about everything it does?

  • Why would the lead investigator in this case Ms. Lindsay Donders lie under oath giving evidence in the hearing against us in regards to the BCSC and the illegal CTO of the Thiberts TD Waterhouse accounts? In one sequence Ms. Donders varies the lies so as to say that she didn't lie about the bank CTO, she merely instructed the Thiberts financial adviser to lie to his client. Ms. Donders then follows that up with a lie in regards to the accounts even existing anymore, saying essentially that they did not exist and therefore the whole ordeal was inconsequential. We can assure you the accounts in question do exist, why would the lead investigator in this case try to lie about it? With Ms. Donders giving so much contradictory evidence the question must be asked .. which lie to believe?

  • How can the BCSC justify attempting to prosecute us for fraud well after they know we are innocent of fraud?

  • 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 offence 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 offence as well, regardless of the outcome of the trial or hearing. The prosecution attempted to have someone charged with a Federal offence they knew was innocent! How is this justifiable on behalf of the BCSC?

  • Would the BC Securities Commission break into someones 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? The photographic evidence I can provide the Courts suggest this is a very real possibility. When did the BCSC get the authority to conduct warrant-less wiretaps and harass citizens with private military type outfits?
    Why would they continue to do all this on a broader scale AFTER they have made their Dec 18 Filing Supreme Court against us?

  • Why 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?

  • If a citizen found out about a fraudulent operation and did the right thing by reporting to the BCSC and offering his testimony as to the truth and begging to talk to any public servant at the BCSC about a unique situation in regards to the offshore Spryu company and the fledgeling U-GO Brands why would the BCSC ignore him for months?

  • When a supposed director of an offshore company in the Turks and Caicos discovers that the CEO of said company is embezzling funds from the company which has BC ties and investors and chooses to do the right thing and report the fraudulent activity why would the BCSC after first ignoring him, mislead him for seven months of its intents?

  • Why would the BCSC choose False Pretense as its first action in regards to our contacting the BCSC for help?
We ask the Courts to keep the above questions in mind as we continue to present the evidence that gave rise to such questions. Maybe alone one or two of these actions taken could be considered an understandable mistake in the course of duty however this is not the case. There is a very repetitive pattern of blatant abuse of power and malicious, vindictive prosecution conducted on behalf of the BCSC that we can display. The trail of actions taken from the very day that Mr. Peter Harris contacted the BCSC to report fraud until now are indicative of a BCSC that has completely lost any grasp on principles of fundamental justice and the rule of law.

The following is taken from reasons for the Courts decision in turning down an appeal based on Section 7 violations of the Charter of Rights. Notice that although the Court acknowledges the right of the ASC to suspend Section 7 rights related to the Canadian Constitution, the Court in relation to its ruling against Beaudette noted that the ASC was still bound to do so in a way that does not violate the principles of fundamental justice.

EXHIBIT # ( )

It is very important to note that the while the Court in this case sides with the ASC in terms of a Section 7 Charter violation it also outlines the expectations on an agency relying on such exemptions from the Charter. “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.”

To be clear I will provide an example so the BCSC understands how it has violated the Fundamental principles of Justice regardless of whether or not a this is a highly regulated environment. In fact because its is such a highly regulated environment these principles must by natural extension of the delicacy of the integrity of the market place be held in a high regard.

However by first violating the fundamental principles of justice the BCSC has made itself liable for the violation of multiple Charter rights as well as of course Criminal Code offences.

The case began in 2013 when the BCSC began entrapment procedures, false pretense and fraudulent concealment. Fraudulent Concealment and False Pretense were committed when the BCSC neglected to answer our requests in regards to our reporting Spyru and Mr. Klaus Glusings defrauding of Canadian investors from the Turks and Caicos. Whether or not the U-GO Brands Directors were guilty of Fraud as was alleged in 2014 or any other Securities violation the BCSC had an obligation to inform the U-GO Brands Directors in regards to their questions on Spryu and Klaus Glusing.

The BCSC knew Mr. Glusing was fraudulent yet omitted to tell us for seven months that they were aware of his fraudulent activities, in addition they led the U-GO Brands directors to believe that their efforts to save the Spyru shareholders by giving them shares in the brand new U-GO Brands company would be acceptable with the Commission. Evidence to back these claims can be seen in the following email exchange between William Ting and Teresa Tomchuk then lawyer for the U-GO Brands Directors.
Ms. Tomchuk of Farris Law was retained on behalf of the U-GO Brands investors in June of 2013 in order to ensure compliance with the BCSC and investigate their desire to grant previous shareholders in Spyru new shares in U-GO Brands thereby saving their investment in what they discovered was a fraudulent company.
While contacting the BCSC in regards to a unique situation re the saving of the Spyru investors the U-GO Brands directors worked with Farris Law in order to ascertain the best possible legal avenue to maintain compliance with the Act and salvage the Spryu project. The directors had a legitimate opportunity for a coast to coast turn-key styled brand of unique RTD 'ready to drink' organic beverages in the incarnation of U-GO Brands and its Superdrop brand (TM).

See Exhibit #s ( ) Superdrop viability and order sheet
    CLASSIFIED

  As it stands right now the only charge the BCSC has against myself and Mr. Peter Harris is for Distribution of Securities without a Prospectus, as a result we face $3 Million in Fines. The Council for the Executive Director insists we did not turn our minds to the Securities Act and were reckless in our behavior. The following exhibit below will display evidence to the contrary, once again BCSC employees are lying or twisting the truth. While it is true that we did not do a Prospectus this is not because we simply wanted to flout the law, we didn't do a Prospectus on the advice of our lawyers who where in communication with BCSC employees regarding our intent and actions taken to salvage our investors capital from the Spyru project. We had an Offering Memorandum prepared which would likely have negated charges of distributing without a prospectus however our lawyers advised we would not need it. See the receipt here for the preparation of an OM.

See Exhibit # ( )    Offering memorandum receipt


  This is completely contrary to what the Council for the Executive Director insists, that we have tried to evade the law and failed to turn our minds to the Securities Act. How can the BCSC and its employees maintain any credibility when the constantly lie?

 See Exhibit # (    )
 

 Ms. Suzanne Anton, how many lies is are Crown prosecutors allowed to submit in order to make a case? Is there a maximum? Is the BCSC not well over the limit?


The U-GO Brands Directors took every step that is outlined by the BCSC in order to first report fraud and secondly maintain compliance and protect British Columbian shareholders.
See Exhibit #( )
 


We took the steps that are encouraged by the BCSC and came to them in complete transparency and honesty, the BCSC contrary to its very mandate below set out on a path of deception, collusion, malicious prosecution and criminal behaviour.

The BC Securities Commissions very own public mandate is to promote the pubic interest and ensure a fair Securities marketplace. The BCSC as per its mandate has a responsibility to maintain the integrity of the Canadian capital markets. How can it claim to maintain any credibility or market integrity when it has no interest in seeing the truth in any matter, even when the truth comes knocking at their door?

The Securities market, whether or not it is complicated and highly regulated is no place for the purposeful omission of truth whether on behalf of the BCSC or any respondent against the BCSC.

To continue we will look at further breaches of Section 7 but more specifically Section 11 as well as the beginning of our dealings with Mr. Ting and Farris Law as we reach out to the BCSC in 2013. But before we do so for the consideration of the Court we would like to make very clear the following fact, 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.

We offered at the very inception of U-GO Brands to all step down as directors and put in place a qualified management team that would enable the continuation of a promising company. We made every attempt to communicate, work with and fall into compliance with the BC Securities Commission yet the BCSC despite its mandate to operate in the public interest opted to do exactly the opposite by first ignoring us and then attempting to prosecute us for the serious Federal offence of Fraud despite knowing we were innocent. How is that in any way in the public's interest?

See the following exhibit in which Mr. Harris tells the BCSC that he knows that by reporting Mr,. Glusings Fraud the U-GO Brands directors may have made themselves liable for breaches to the Securities Act, specifically distributing Securities without a Prospectus. Mr. Harris indicates the U-GO Brands directors are willing to pay any financial penalties associated with the Breach of Section 161 of the Act and step down as directors.

See Exhibit # ( )
CLASSIFIED

This is very contradictory of the statements made by the the Council for the Executive Director in which Mr. James Torrance and Ms. Mila Pivnenko state that the U-Go Brands directors only were attempting to turn in Klaus Glusing and in effect were attempting to evade compliance with the BCSC.

See Exhibit #s (    )
CLASIFIED

In Sept of 2013 Mr. Ting tells Teresa Tomchuk that he is aware of their (the directors) intent and will let them proceed.

Exhibit # (    ) 
 Why would Mr. Ting allow the U-Go Brands Directors to proceed with their request and then have th BCSC turn around and attempt to nail them it? He was fully aware of the situation regarding Spyru and U-GO Brands and the directors intent to gift shareholders in Spyru who were going to lose their money to fraud, shares in a viable new U-Go Brands company.

 Are these the actions of a public official with integrity acting in "Good Faith"?
 
Going back to the Court Ruling in the ASC vs. Beaudette case the Court in siding with the ASC outlines exactly the type of responsibilities a Securities Regulation and Enforcement agency has to the rule of law in its Regulation of the Financial Markets:

Exhibit # ( )

As pointed out by the Alberta Securities Commission Section 32 the Charter of Rights speaks to the rule of law as fixing boundaries on the legal authority of the state. In addition the Court speaks to the Supremacy of the Constitution as per Section 52 of the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982.

 You can see Section 32 and 52 of the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 here,
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-50

Again to reiterate we do not protest the ability of the BCSC to override SOME of our rights as to do so can be sometimes prejudicial to the public's interest in terms of maintaining the integrity of the financial markets. Our issue is in the manner it is done, we have never had a problem with the truth and as we have stated many times we have only wanted a fair and impartial proceeding against us and an opportunity to save U-GO Brands and its investors.

We will start with Part 2 of the BCSC Policy Manual 15-601,
A close examination of Policy reveals two things right away, firstly the BCSC does not even abide by its own policy or legislation. Secondly the BCSC Policy contains provisions that are contrary to the Securities Act Legislation specifically Section 4.1 in relation to the Administrative Tribunals Act.

 See Exhibit # (    )

According to policy the BCSC states first in Part 2, Hearings 2.1 Procedures, that since there is no Legislation in the Securities Act (RSBC) 1996 that the BCSC is master of its own domain in deciding procedural matters. It follows this statement by saying that the BCSC considers the rules of natural justice as set by the courts in hearing matters fully and promptly.

First we will note that as the BCSC policy manual itself states their is little in the Securities Act (RSBC) 1996 that outlines procedure as far as procedural matters in hearings and legal processes of the Commission.

Next we will look at Section 4.1 of the Securities Act

********************************************

Application of Administrative Tribunals Act to commission


4.1  The following provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act apply to the commission:
(a) Part 1 [Interpretation and Application];
(b) Part 2 [Appointments], except the following:
(i)   section 7 (3) [powers after resignation or expiry of term];
(ii)   section 9 [responsibilities of the chair];
(iii)   section 10 [remuneration and benefits for members];
(c) section 43 [discretion to refer questions of law to court];
(d) section 46 [notice to Attorney General if constitutional question raised in application];
(e) section 46.1 [discretion to decline jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code];
(f) section 55 [compulsion protection];
(g) section 61 [application of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act].

******************************************



Noticeably absent in the application of power of the Administrative Tribunals Act SBC 2004 Chapter 45 to the Securities Act Section 4.1 are the following provisions, Section 11 and Section 14.

 Section 11 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_04045_01#section11

 Section 14 of the Administration Tribunals Act.
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_04045_01#section14

Administrative Tribunals Act SBC 2004 (AS PER SECTION 4.1 OF THE SECURITIES ACT THESE SECTIONS DO NOT APPLY)

Part 4 — Practice and Procedure

General power to make rules respecting practice and procedure

11  (1) Subject to an enactment applicable to the tribunal, the tribunal has the power to control its own processes and may make rules respecting practice and procedure to facilitate the just and timely resolution of the matters before it.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the tribunal may make rules as follows:
(a) respecting the holding of pre-hearing conferences, including confidential pre-hearing conferences, and requiring the parties and any interveners to attend a pre-hearing conference;
(b) respecting facilitated settlement processes;
(c) respecting receipt and disclosure of evidence, including but not limited to pre-hearing receipt and disclosure and pre-hearing examination of a party on oath, affirmation or by affidavit;
(d) respecting the exchange of records and documents by parties;
(e) respecting the filing of written submissions by parties;
(f) respecting the filing of admissions by parties;
(g) specifying the form of notice to be given to a party by another party or by the tribunal requiring a party to diligently pursue an application and specifying the time within which and the manner in which the party must respond to the notice;
(h) respecting service and filing of notices, documents and orders, including substituted service;
(i) requiring a party to provide an address for service or delivery of notices, documents and orders;
(i.1) requiring an intervener to provide an address for service or delivery of notices, orders and other documents;
(j) providing that a party's address of record is to be treated as an address for service;
(j.1) providing that an intervener's address of record is to be treated as an address for service;
(k) respecting procedures for preliminary or interim matters;
(l) respecting amendments to an application or responses to it;
(m) respecting the addition of parties to an application;
(n) respecting adjournments;
(o) respecting the extension or abridgement of time limits provided for in the rules;
(p) respecting the transcribing or tape recording of its proceedings and the process and fees for reproduction of a tape recording if requested by a party;
(q) establishing the forms it considers advisable;
(r) respecting the joining of applications;
(s) respecting exclusion of witnesses from proceedings;
(t) respecting the effect of a party's non-compliance with the tribunal's rules;
(u) respecting access to and restriction of access to tribunal documents by any person;
(v) respecting witness fees and expenses;
(v.1) respecting filing and service of a summons to a witness;
(w) respecting applications to set aside any summons served by a party.
(x) requiring or allowing that a process be conducted electronically, with or without conditions.
(3) In an application, the tribunal may waive or modify one or more of its rules in exceptional circumstances.
(4) The tribunal must make accessible to the public any rules of practice and procedure made under this section.
(5) Rules for the tribunal may be different for different classes of disputes, claims, issues and circumstances.

General power to make orders

14  In order to facilitate the just and timely resolution of an application the tribunal, if requested by a party or an intervener, or on its own initiative, may make any order
(a) for which a rule is made by the tribunal under section 11,
(b) for which a rule is prescribed under section 60, or
(c) in relation to any matter that the tribunal considers necessary for purposes of controlling its own proceedings.



Notice that both Section 11 and 14 have been omitted from application to the Securities Act.

Specifically the following exert from Section 11 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

11  (1) Subject to an enactment applicable to the tribunal, the tribunal has the power to control its own processes and may make rules respecting practice and procedure to facilitate the just and timely resolution of the matters before it

 It is also important to note that Section 44 and 45 are also noticeably absent from application to the Securities Act.

 See the link to Section 44 and 45 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_04045_01#section44

It is for these reasons we disagree with the statements and actions of numerous members of the Commission including the following statement from former Director of the criminal enforcement division Ms. Teresa Mitchell Banks in regards to the missing hearings transcripts. Simply put the actions taken on behalf of the BCSC conflict with their own policy manual and with the Constitution Act of 1982 and our Civil rights.

Subsequently because no Securities Act legislation outlines the procedures in regards to courts, hearings, tribunals, and legal proceedings, the BCSC is in fact restrained by the confines of the law in order that it may proceed in good faith and in adherence to the fundamentals of justice when conducting proceedings. As we have previously noted Section 4.1 of the Act specifically omits the relevant sections of the Administrative Tribunals Act that would give the BCSC power the power to conduct its court as it sees fit.

Because of this the BCSC must operate its courts within the guidelines provided in the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 and the Charter.

 See the following statement from former head of Criminal Enforcement Ms. Teresa Mitchell-Banks, can these actions be considered to be undertaken in "good faith"?

See Exhibit # (    ) Ms. Banks statement in Oct 2014;

How can Ms. Banks make such a statement? We are all aware the hearing was recorded as we all spoke to the stenographer. In addition as we have stated time and again even if their was not a recording, there should have been a recording. This is just a small portion of our evidence that underlines our position against the BC Securities Commission.

The actions taken by the BCSC to destroy or hide evidence in regards to the Oct 2014 Hearings transcripts are Federally Indictable offences (Fraudulent Concealment, Obstruction Of Justice, Tampering/Withholding Evidence, and False Pretense) Ms Mitchell-Banks as evidenced by this statement alone is liable for these crimes as is the BCSC.

We will continue to outline the breaches against the Constitution Act of 1982 and the Charter of Rights by providing exhibits, case law and of course evidence from the Constitution itself that the BCSC is in severe violation of our rights as Canadians. We will follow by demonstrating evidence that will back our position that the BCSC has committed as series offences against the Criminal Code for which Section 170 of the Securities Act (RSBC) 1996 is no remedy.

The damage done in terms of an all out assault on the Constitutional rights of Canadians has been committed on a broad scale, not just against the five U-GO Brands Directors but against 400 shareholders who were illegally deprived of possible financial gains by the very Commission that is supposed to protect the shareholding public of BC.
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.

Marginal note:Search or seizure
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-50
 
We will outline the principles of fundamental justice that your agency has will-fully ignored with reference to several points of Civil case law.

In Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177, at pp. 212-13, Wilson J. recognized that the principles of fundamental justice demand, at a minimum, compliance with the common law requirements of procedural fairness. Section 7 protects substantive as well as procedural rights: Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, supra. Insofar as procedural rights are concerned, the common law doctrine summarized in Baker infra, properly recognizes the ingredients of fundamental justice. [ Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3, para. 113; see also: Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
[1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 ].

Access to Justice is therefore a democratic safeguard guaranteed by various Charter prerogatives in line with principles of Fundamental Justice which the courts cannot deny for reasons involving budgetary concerns. In Singh supra, at p. 218, Wilson J. speaking for the three members of the Court who addressed the Charter ...doubted that utilitarian consideration[s] ... [could] constitute a justification for a limitation on the rights set out in the Charter (emphasis added).

The principles of Fundamental Justice are enshrined rights and the entire proceeding against the U-GO Brands directors violated these principles. Although the Court argues against some Section 7 rights in the case of the ASC v. Beaudette we say that aspects of life and liberty must include the the principles of Fundamental Justice in the regulation Financial Markets by the state in order to maintain a free and democratic society. Any imposition on behalf of the state to curb these is simply a thinly veiled form of slavery whether it has been passed into law or not. Certainly as the Courts maintain in the ASC v. Beaudette case the State must in certain aspects of the law override some of our rights such as the previously mentioned right to refuse to testify against ones self that is the subject of the the ASC case.

Our argument against not just the breach of Section 7 of the Charter but most other actions taken by the BCSC is that they have all been void of any of the concepts of the fundamentals of justice from the very beginning.

In other words to use one particular instance again in reference back to the ASC v. Beaudette case we say that we would not argue with the fact that in some cases the state must infringe on Constitutional Rights in order to maintain market integrity. What we take issue with is how said rights are infringed upon.

In plain terms its not that we refuse to testify against our selves, its that we refuse to testify against ourselves in front of an investigator that is a proven liar and in a court that only 'sometimes' records hearings. We point to the case of the ASC vs. Beaudette and the Courts comments on the right of the state to interfere with our Constititional rights in the course of its duties.

We go back to the case of the Alberta Securities Commission Vs. Beaudette in which an Alberta Court of Appeal found that the ASC had legal right to infringe on Section 7 of the Charter of Rights as a Regulatory agency that is tasked with market enforcement.

In this case Beaudette argued that the ASC had no right to compel evidence from him and voiced further concern over the sharing of said evidence with American authorities arguing this violated his Section 7 rights to life, liberty and freedom.

The Courts sided with the ASC in this particular instance but were careful to note that the state still had an obligation to proceed in adherence to the fundamentals of justice.

By necessity the ASC must have the ability to demand that a market participant testify against himself given the delicate nature of the highly regulated financial markets. The ability of the ASC to share this information is vital to the security of the markets and we certainly do not disagree as the nature of the financial marketplace warrants a highly regulated environment. That being said the case of the BCSC vs. U-GO Brands is entirely different in scope, the U-GO Brands Directors only protested being forced to testify against themselves when it became apparent that the entire process was biased, deceitful and malicious. The ability of the BCSC to operate in a manner that may conflict with Section 7 of the Charter only applies when the BCSC is operating in 'Good Faith'.

The actions of the BCSC to withhold the truth from the beginning of this entire fiasco are evidence of our position.

 In 2014 our lawyer had a conversation with Ms. Lindsay Donders of the BCSC, in this conversation she indicated the BCSC was aware that the Fraud charges facing the U-Go Brands Directors had no merit.
 
 See Exhibit #  (    )


  Why if the BCSC was aware in 2014 that the fraud charges facing the respondents in the U-GO Brands case had no merit would the BCSC continue to attempt to press charges? Are these the actions of an agency acting in good faith?

See Exhibit # (   )
 
 

 
   These charges stood until Dec 2015 when the BCSC Tribunal decided all it could pin on us was its phoney contrived charge of Distributing Securities Without a Prospectus.

 None of the actions outlined can be considered undertaken in 'Good Faith", the BCSC does not even abide by its own rules, its rules are not in line with the law and the BCSC has an aversion to the truth. How can the BCSC be in any position to make a legal ruling when it is a criminal agency?


As we have indicated we have evidence to back every claim we have made, and then some.

 We have made it very clear that the BCSC has committed multiple criminal acts for which their is no remedy. Mr. De-Jong, Ms. Anton, Ms. Clark, despite your denials and insistence to the contrary you are all responsible by law for the actions of the BCSC, you have been aware for some time now.

 It is time for you all to do your jobs and ensure justice is done, failure to do so will only result in you all incriminating yourselves further. Act now and you will have a bright future as we have said we don't hold grudges so long as one is able to own up to and rectify their mistakes.

 What will you do?

Regards
Christopher Burke
bk1092003@yahoo.ca

www.bcsecuritiescommissionasham.blogspot.com





 

No comments:

Post a Comment