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.
Immunity of commission and others
(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.
Obstruction of justice
(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.
- 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?
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 # ( )
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.
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.
Are these the actions of a public official with integrity acting in "Good Faith"?
You can see Section 32 and 52 of the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 here,
Application of Administrative Tribunals Act to 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].
Section 11 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
Section 14 of the Administration Tribunals Act.
Part 4 — Practice and Procedure
General power to make rules respecting practice and procedure11 (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 orders14 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.
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.
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"?
Marginal note:Life, liberty and security of person7. 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.
 2 S.C.R. 817 ].
See Exhibit # ( )
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?