Wednesday, 3 May 2017

Open Letter to Christy Clark BC Prmeier and Brenda Leong CEO of the BCSC - You Aid And Abet Criminal Behavior.


 An Open Letter to Premier Christy Clark, and Brenda Leong CEO of the BC Securities Commission,


 We have been attempting to pursue justice on behalf of our shareholders in the case of U-Go Brands vs. the BC Securities Commission for some time now. We have made both of you aware of the situation for a few years, Christy you even sent a 'Dear John' please screw off type letter in regards to our complaints. The BC Securities Commission operates as a criminal extortion operation that has no interest in justice or truth, it along with corrupted shyster lawyers at Farris Law and Hunter Litigation Chambers has worked to obstruct justice and frame innocent so as to extort them.
 You mentioned supposed avenues that could be taken however you and I know many of those are just decoys to run 'little' people like us around the block until we go away or get old and die. For those of you new to the issues regarding the BC Securities Commission I will attempt to be brief, though the crimes of the Commission and its victims are many  and the issues deep. Both Brenda Leong and Christy Clark know this and yet continue to aid and abet criminal behavior.

 The  BC Securities Commission has accused several of us including myself Christopher Burke of distributing securities without a prospectus, the charges of which can be seen here.
BCSC_panel_finds_that_five_B_C__residents_illegally_distributed_securities..

 While the BCSC has judged us guilty it has not proven its charges in a real court of law such as BC Supreme Court. Although we are technically guilty of 'distributing without a prospectus', we were set up as I will explain and demonstrate below. Not only that the entire premise of the 'law/regulatory' offence with which we were charged is based on a conflict of interest that negates the purpose of the law itself as it is devoid of the principles of the fundamentals of justice and the rule of law.
 The BCSC is simply a tool that is used by lawyers and large corporate interests to ensure a constant cash flow to their pockets through various methods of extortion

 As we have demonstrated numerous times the BC Securities Commission cannot be trusted and has no legal credibility, it is not fit to make legal rulings since it has abandoned the principles of the fundamentals of justice and the rule of law.
 The following links are but a few examples of this criminal behavior.
 How a cartel operates..
bcsc-the-regulator-who-regulates-their-own-investments/

 How the law means nothing to a regulatory corporation that polices itself.
"A License To Steal"

We filed Criminal charges against the BC Securities Commission in spring of 2015, we were assured by Kelowna RCMP that a thorough investigation against the BCSC was taking place and was well warranted, the case was supposedly sent to the Crown in Kelowna BC. We spoke with the Crown,  they never got the file.
 Is this why Former Kelowna RCMP Chief Nick Romanchuk retired suddenly is 2016?
Top Cop Suddenly Retires

 Charges include Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, False Pretence, and  Fraudulent Concealment among others. To be clear we have made peace with Kelowna RCMP and hope to work with them very soon on the restoration of justice for all in the financial world, unfortunately the bureaucrats and various private interests in key positions of power in this province are not willing to cede to justice that easily as it would expose their vast criminal networks.

We spoke with Internal Affairs regarding this case, they were very co-operative. We have left the door open for further legal action via the RCMP, this issue is not yet over as far as we are concerned.
 Complaint re RCMP Investigation Against the BCSC

 Christy, Brenda what we want to know is why all the deception regarding what goes on at the BC Securities Commission? Why was our defence ignored? Why were BCSC staff deceptive in prosecuting this case?

 Here is one simple example regarding our case against the BCSC in which our defence was completely ignored.

 The claims of the Executive Director and its Council/Counsel in the 2015 ruling are simply untrue,
 we note particularly the claim that the respondents contravined Section 61 of the Securities Act, Distributing Securities Without a Prospectus (Or Offering Memorandum).



 This is the only charge the BCSC could come up with in 'making' its case after a 19 month investigation.
 What the findings of this BCSC ruling do not reveal however is the truth. The Council/Counsel for the Exective Director at the BCSC was deceptive in how it made its case. When it claims we did not turn our minds to the Securities Act it is blatently lying.
 Furthermore we have reason to believe lawyers at Farris Law were integeral in ensuring we committed a Regulatory Offence and colluded with authorities at the BCSC to ensure we did just that.

 First I will demostrate that we had an Offering Memorandum prepared by Farris Law.



 And a screen shot of an OM draft prepared by Farris Lawyers for U-Go Brands of which I was a director.
 

 Now the question is why was the Offering Memorandum not used? Why did the BCSC completly ignore the fact that we turned our minds to the Securities Act when we had an Offering Memorandum prepared by lawyers at Farris Law?
 Perhaps this email will shed some light on what went on.. would the BCSC and Farris Lawyers collude to ensure regulatory infractions were committed such as a violation of Section 61 of the Securities Act?
 The Offering Memorandum was drafted in June/July 2013 yet not used, why?
 Could it be that the BCSC had Farris Lawyers dissuade the respondents from using an OM even though both parties were aware of the intent of the fledgling U-Go Brands to ensure compliance by having one drafted.
 The following email is from Sept of 2015, it is from William Ting the initial BCSC investigator in our case to one of our lawyers at Farris Law, Teresa Tomchuk. In the last section of this email Mr. Ting indicates he is aware of the intention of the respondents to gift share-holders of a former offshore company, Spyru shares in a new U-Go Brands start-up in order to save shareholders money from what was discovered to be a fraud.


 If Mr. Ting and the BC Securities Commission were really concerned about the welfare of the public's money as the BCSC mandate claims why would he not intervene in this matter knowing full-well the course of action taken? Why would the respondents (we) omit to use an OM? Why would any of this even be
 According to phone conversations had between at least one of the respondents in this case and our lawyers at Farris Law the use of an OM would not be necessary at this time. Several individuals at Farris were involved in phone and email conversations with BCSC employees that we have not been made privy to prior to any allegations being made against us by the BC Securities Commission.
 Kevin Kingston, Teresa Tomchuk, Patricia Horton and Trevor Scott were all attorneys and/or employees of Farris who were involved in handling our case when we first contacted the BCSC regarding fraud at Spryu. Did these individuals have a hand in ensuring the destruction of U-Go Brands? Would the BCSC collude with Farris Lawyers in order to 'make' a case?

 We certainly think they would given the deception that we have seen from the staff at the BCSC.
 Was this entrapment?
 If the BCSC and its staff or in this case former staff would lie about seizing a private bank account as it did below what else would it and its employees stoop to? Here is Former Director of Criminal Enforcement at the BCSC lying about the BCSC illegally freezing a trust account that could not possibly be the beneficiary of proceeds of crime as it had not had any money deposited in close to twenty years for starters.

  Here we see that as always at the BCSC lying and deceit are modus operandi, below is posted documentation from TD Bank that prove our claims.


Christy and Brenda its clear that the BCSC is a sham, it simply extorts the public. 'Compliance' is simply a code word for pay to play, see Conflicts of Interest and the Sham that is Compliance
 The BCSC will turn a blind eye to fraud when it suites its purpose as is best demonstrated by the fake advisor/adviser scam seen here on CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bank-s-deceptive-titles-put-investments-at-risk-1.4044702

Christy and Brenda, both of you are guilty of aiding and abetting the criminal behavior of the BCSC on a mass scale.. What other crimes are you hiding?


Christopher Burke
250 807 7870
bk1092003@yahoo.ca

No comments:

Post a Comment