Monday, 3 April 2017

Constitutional Law, Case Law, and Securities Regulatory Immunity in Canada



Constitutional Law, Case Law, and Securities Regulatory Immunity in Canada:

 

The Financial Regulators are not free from the rule of law in Canada and although it seems they are able to act with impunity they are bound by the law just as anyone else is. The following section will outline our Constitutional rights, the Criminal Code, and how despite what many Securities
lawyers and the Regulators have insisted the Constitution and the rule of law DO APPLY to our financial markets in Canada. Unfortunately our judges, police officers, and public officials have been purposely blind and/or simply mislead by bad legal advice and refuse or are blocked from prosecuting any guilty players for the real financial crimes that are taking place in this country.

The purpose of this section is to promote awareness and empower the public through knowledge so that we can force our Justice Ministry do its job and prosecute the criminals who are committing Fraud through the regulatory agencies. Although this article will specifically compare case law and the Constitution Act of 1982 against the BC Securities Commission, the premise is the same across the board for the rest of the financial regulatory regime. The IIROC, the OSC, the ASC etc. are all
'self regulating' organizations that to my knowledge are mostly 'self funded' like the BCSC.
  In the case of the BCSC the Regulator even holds securities in an investment corporation such as the BCIMC, the absurdity of such a conflict of interest is covered here at BCSC Holds BCIMC Securities - Does BCSC Even Know the Meaning of Words Like Conflict of Interest?
 
 Conflicts of Interest - Do Banks Own the Regulators? Commissions Are Not Immune from Rule of Law.
 
 When a person who has been the victim of criminal actions of one of these agencies goes to the police the police usually simply refer them back to the regulatory agency that committed the crime as it is 'self regulated'.
 Of course these criminal agencies hold their own sham of a court (Tribunal) where due process, the rule of law and the fundamentals of justice are thrown out the window, they never find anything wrong regardless of the magnitude of the crime. This has created an economy in Canada that is an illusion, it is propped up by corrupted market regulators who ensure 'compliance' in the marketplace by charging for paperwork such as a Prospectus which does nothing to actually counter fraud or criminal behavior. (We should be clear this does not mean that their are no legitimate companies or safe investments, much of the real fraud however takes place with the assistance of corrupted law firms and corrupted members of various legal enforcement agencies.) While this is happening a select few are siphoning all the real wealth from Canadians, if this continues our future will be similar to that of Greece right now. A look at financial regulatory conflict of interest and the sham that is 'compliance' can be seen here BCSC - Conflicts of Interest and the Sham that is Compliance.
 
 Of course the BCSC is in a round-about way controlled by the banks and investment firms, after all many of the large financial institutions own stakes in the TMX group, the TMX Group owns a private firm called CDS Inc. CDS Inc. is listed as a stake-holder in the BCSC.
 
 The Rule of Law and the Fundamentals of Justice in the Financial World.

Below we have will look at two sections Section 32 and 52 of the Constitution Act of 1982 as well as the mandate of the Constitution which outlines the adherence of this nation to the rule of law.

Although the Constitution makes it very clear as to the scope and extent of its power, the public is often mislead as to how it applies in the Financial markets as somehow our Judges, Lawyers and Public Servants have allowed the Rule of Law to be eroded completely from the Financial marketplace.

This does not mean that the BCSC for example does not have certain powers that allow it to do its job and Regulate the marketplace by overstepping our Constitutional rights. In some cases it certainly may overlook our constitutional rights however as I will outline, this does not mean that they are exempt from the rule of law. Below is Section 32 and 52 of the Constitution Act. We will compare it to a case before the Alberta Supreme Court that involved a man who questioned his Section 7 Constitutional rights being violated by the Alberta Securities Commission.

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

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 (80)

PART I

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS


 Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

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

As I have previously stated the BCSC is required to follow the rule of law and operate within the confines of our Constitutional rights unless a legislative act explicitly states otherwise. No legislation in the Securities Act including Section 170 give it the legal authority to commit criminal offences and continue a malicious illegal prosecution against citizens of this Province.

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

Application of Charter

Marginal note: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.
  • Marginal note:Exception
    (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.

PART VII

GENERAL

Marginal note:Primacy of Constitution of Canada
  • 52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
  • Marginal note:Constitution of Canada
    (2) The Constitution of Canada includes
    • (a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;
    • (b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and
    • (c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
  • Marginal note:Amendments to Constitution of Canada
    (3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada

          
********************************************************************
In the case of the ASC v. Beaudette the rights violated in question were the Section 7 rights to refuse to be self-incriminated including the sharing of evidence with foreign (SEC) Regulatory Enforcement agencies and the right to refuse to testify against oneself. In this particular case Beaudette lost his bid to invoke his Section 7 Constitutional rights however the Court was very careful to note that even though the ASC was able to over-ride his constitutional rights they must do so in a manner which does not deny that person the Fundamentals of Justice. I will expand on that concept momentarily first however I will present a couple of exerts from the ruling of the Alberta Supreme Court in regards to the right of the Alberta Securities Commission to over-ride certain Charter rights as it performs its Regulatory duties.

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

From the ASC v. Beaudette;
 
*********************************************************************************
In these sections of the Courts ruling in the ASC v. Beaudette case we glean one thing very clearly, although the ASC may at some times due to the nature of its mandate overlook certain Constitutional rights of Canadians depending on the context it must still adhere to the rule of law and fundamental justice when doing so. Specifically note the Courts statement that “Section 7 does not promise that the state will never interfere with a persons life, liberty, or security of person – laws do this all the time – but rather that it would not do so in a way that violates the principles of Fundamental Justice

I will use a very simple analogy I have used in our case against the BCSC. We don't protest the BCSC's power to compel us to testify against ourselves despite the Charter rights which state that we may refuse such an action. Where we protest the actions of the state in interfering with our life, liberty and security of person is when we are compelled to testify against ourselves in front of an investigator who has committed perjury. We protest having to testify in a 'Court' which as they themselves admit only sometimes records preliminary hearings and cannot give us the transcripts for multiple hearings which we requested.

In other words we refuse to testify to the truth in front of Court officials who are dishonest and have no interest in using the truth to achieve justice whether it incriminates us or not.

When the investigators no longer tell the truth and the Commission decides its 'Courts' only sometimes need to record hearings the principles of the Fundamentals of Justice have been violated. This is a criminal act and I will demonstrate how the BCSC is not legally immune from prosecution for such an action. To understand why the BCSC is not immune from prosecution for Criminal Code Offences and arbitrary suspension of Constitutional rights we will examine firstly Section 170 of the British Columbia 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.

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

While the current regulatory regime acts as though this is a free pass to commit Criminal Offences with impunity this is not at all the meaning of this section, nor is it the purpose of this section to shield the Commission and its members from criminal actions. The often overlooked phrase is 'Good Faith', Commission staff must operate in good faith for Section 170 of the Securities Act to apply. The term 'Good Faith' does not apply to the laundry list of criminal actions frequently undertaken by these regulatory commissions including the BCSC in our case. The very nature of actions such as Fraudulent Concealment, False Pretenses, Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, Tampering/Withholding Evidence etc means by definition that their was no “Good Faith” involved. The concept, principles and fundamentals of “Good Faith” are a complete contradiction to any of these actions.

Where then does the problem lie one might ask, if by law the BCSC must operate under the rule of law and yet refuses to do so with seeming impunity then one must look towards the Judiciary and Law Enforcement Agencies as being part of the problem. Another part of the problem is that the BC Securities Commission has been deemed a Self Regulatory Organization (SRO) that is capable of judging itself on Criminal and Civil matters. One should not need a very high IQ to understand how ludacris this is!

 For more on the subjects of the rule of law and our financial regulatory regime see below.
BC Securties Commission Has No Remedy Under the Securities Act for Criminal Behavior

 See below for a glimpse at the future of financial regulation in Canada whereby the current 'bankster' regulators plan on further entrenching their power by removing the responsibility of ensuring integrity in the marketplace and replacing it with a mandate to ensure no material adverse effects damage the market place. In other words they want the power to hide the truth and prop up a dead horse.
 New National Securities Regulators Remove Mandate to Ensure Market Integrity - Replace With Powers to Whitewash Truth

 Don't believe the BC Securities Commission or any of our other supposedly reputable financial regulators would act with deception?
 Ask them then why they have tried their best to hide the following file and have it scrubbed from public record?
 The Missing File - Case #43449 BC Court of Appeal
Anyone interested may contact me by email at bk1092003@yahoo.ca for a PDF copy of this file, it has not been found anywhere on public record to date.

As always stay tuned for more on how your financial regulators are a sham!

No comments:

Post a Comment