Why investors and business should be very wary of doing business in BC. Former BC Securities Commission CEO Douglas Hyndman is gone but nothing has changed, the province that brought you the Bre X mining scandal is still a haven for liars and thieves.
Could the BC Securities Commission be at the heart of all the Corruption?
Why all the deception from a Regulatory Enforcement agency mandated with ensuring an ethical and fair marketplace? Should you keep your money out of British Columbia?
On the ongoing saga between U-GO Brands and the BC Securities Commission.
The Directors from U-GO Brands Mr. Christopher Burke and Mr. Peter Harris would like to make it clear for the public record and contrary to what the BC Securities Commission claims that they have never tried to evade responsibility for any Securities Act regulations that they 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. They simply ask that they be prosecuted in a fair unbiased proceeding where the only evidence presented against them is not based on the affidavits and testimony of a proven liar.
The U-GO Brands Directors claim that the BC Securities Commission acted contrary to the law and to the public interest when it began its case against them on deceptive grounds omitting to tell them the truth about a Fraud they had reported. In addition the BCSC mislead the U-GO Directors and entrapped them, BCSC officials did not inform the U-GO Directors for seven months that they had no jurisdiction over the Fraud reported. Instead the BCSC conspired to entrap and attempt to charge the U-GO Directors with a crime it knew they had not committed, Fraud.
For full details on the U-GO Brands directors allegations that include but are not limited to extortion, tampering, obstruction of justice, perjury, illegal wiretapping, break and entering, fraudulent concealment, false pretense, collusion, conspiracy and black ops harassment see below..
www.bcsecuritiescommissionasham.blogspot.com
See Exhibit #1 (Mr. Harris - "Concerned no action")
Do the actions of Mr. Harris who begged the BCSC for an audience and/or simply a reply at the very beginning of this case fit with the accusations that the BCSC has made that they had no regard for the law and the public good?
See Exhibit #2 (Mr. Harris never attempted to evade responsibility, in fact he brought the attention to the BCSC and hired Farris in order to ensure a fledgling U-GO Brands Company was compliant.)
These are just a couple of emails indicating Mr. Harris had a strong desire to seek compliance and work with the BCSC, Mr. Harris even went so far as to have an Offering Memorandum prepared however was told that it would not be needed at the time.
See the Council for the Executive Director insist the U-GO Directors did not turn their attention the the Act.
See Exhibit #3
"This entire case has been nothing but a vindictive, malicious and highly illegal railroad job from the moment Mr. Harris contacted the BCSC until now. The BC Securities Commission has no interest in the truth, ethics, integrity or any sort of honorable and just actions that are by law a necessity in a highly regulated financial marketplace" said U-GO Brands director Mr. Burke in a statement for the press, he further elaborated,
"Perhaps an Alberta Supreme Court ruling said it best in the case the ASC v. Beaudette, in this case the ASC wins in a disagreement as to whether the state could compel one to testify against ones self in 'Securities' matter. The Court ruled that the state had a right to compel a person to testify given the circumstances. Participation in the financial capital markets is a privilege and one can expect to reasonably give up some rights simply by participation. Such things as the ability to access banking information and have one testify against ones self are important tools in the duties of a market enforcement agency, we do not protest that. We note however that the Court in its ruling was very careful to note in the courts own words"..
“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.”
See Exhibit # 4 (Alberta Securities Commission obligation to Fundamental justice)
See Exhibit #5 (Alberta Securities Commission on obligation to Constitution)
" In very simple terms" continued Mr, Burke, "We are not protesting the right of the state to intrude in certain aspects of our lives given our participation in the financial markets. We are protesting the fact that they are denying the fundamentals of justice by attempting to prosecute us using an investigator whose testimony is full of lies, holding hearings without recording them. We don't protest their right to compel evidence, we were the first ones begging them to see us! We protest having to give evidence in front of a lying investigator in a 'court' that according to its own officials only sometimes records hearings."
In addition Directors argue the attempted Fraud charges before them for well over a year after the BCSC knew they were innocent are simply more evidence of their claims, the BC Securities Commission has been deceptive from the day the U-GO Directors contacted the BCSC until now.
Why would the BC Securities Commission continue to press charges over a year after they knew those charges had no merit? See the email exchange between U-GO Brands Lawyer and BCSC investigator Ms. Lindsay that indicates this to be true, that the BCSC knew as early as April 2014
See Exhibit #5 (Allegations in 2014 have no merit)
Why would the BCSC still be attempting to press these charges over a year later in July of 2015 when it knows they have no merit, is that Fundamental Justice?
See Exhibit #6 (Fraud 2015 charges)
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 offense 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 offense as well, regardless of the outcome of the trial or hearing.
Any attempt at immunity from such dishonest and slanderous actions is null and void according to Section 170 of the Securities Act. 'Good Faith' is a key component of Section 170. How can the BCSC continue a lie for over a year that could put someone in jail, how can it attempt to prosecute someone based on a series of lies and use 'good faith' as in defense of their actions?
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 BCSC cannot hide behind 'Securities Laws', it has committed multiple felonies for which their is no immunity under the Securities Act.
Why does the BCSC deny the truth? Should these be the people in charge of watching out for your money in British Columbia?
The BCSC began this case with deceit, the U-GO Brands Directors came to them open and honestly. Why would the BCSC wait seven months before telling the U-GO Brands directors it did not have jurisdiction over the first company Spyru when they came to ask for help with Spyru?
Why does the BCSC hide everything it does? Its attempt to charge the U-GO Directors with fraud knowing they were innocent of such charges is a very serious crime, the BCSC cannot simply say that this is a Securities Matter any longer. The attempt to charge the U-GO Directors for a fraud the BCSC knew they were innocent of means that the BCSC is outside of the realm of the Financial markets, again we look a the ASC v. Beaudette Case and see what the Courts have to say about such a matter.
See Exhibit # 7
In the case of the Commission v. U-GO Brands however there were and still are penal consequences that arise from the sanctions sought, jail-time for Fraud is an applicable punishment. Over $3 Million in fines facing the U-GO directors is a true penal consequence, one should not be subjected to such punishments without adherence to the fundamentals of justice and the rule of law.
The BCSC has blatantly disregarded both of these principles in the U-GO Brands Case and its denial of the truth. How can the U-GO directors be prosecuted and punished based on what can clearly be proven to be lies on the behalf of the Commissions Investigator and the Council for the Executive Director?
See www.bcsccriminalcharges.blogspot.com
The very first actions taken by the BCSC were Fraudulent Concealment, or False Pretence, at the very least Misconduct of an Official Executing a Process and the Obstruction of Justice apply from the outset of this case. Is this how the BCSC maintains the integrity of the markets?
Christopher Burke
Peter Harris
No comments:
Post a Comment