Why Would 13 Canadians Securities Commissions Intentionally Decieve Investors?

The following is an exert from Unpublished Ottawa on Regulatory Fraud,


From the Desk of Larry Elford,

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

Posted on January 29, 2018 | larry elford | Written on January 29, 2018

Comments

Tags:

Securities Commissions

fake advisor titles

Letter type:

Open

Author's Note:

Author's Note:

My circle of malpractice and misconduct investigators can find no possible public interest benefit, and considerable public interest harm, in learning that Securities Commissions are 'aiding the industry' in deceiving, and hiding essential information from the public.
The video below shows (at the one minute mark) how the commissions in Canada informed the public about the difference between an investment salesperson and a registered investment adviser. (a fiduciary professional with a duty to "do no harm" to investors)  This 'clarity' was in place from September 2009 until January 2018, when for some reason, the commissions decided to eliminate some of the clarity for investors. They further removed (twice now) information which cautioned and informed investors.  Why?

Author's Video Note

 

This is how a "confidence man" works:
Prior to September of 2009, the license and registration category of your investment "advice giver" was (in 99% of cases) one of the following two choices:
a) a registered investment adviser (the "Do no harm" fiduciary professional)
or
b) a registered "salesperson"  (the one where they could act against the investor interests)
Investors were not well informed, back then, as most, if not all persons who were registered in the "salesperson" category preferred to call themselves by a non registered and non-regulated title, spelled "advisor".
By clever use of a single "Vowel Movement", millions of investors are deceived, and led to believe they have a "do no harm" fiduciary-duty professional, while the salesperson and the dealer have accomplished a clever bait and switch.  They will have convinced trusting clients that they are dealing with someone to be trusted, while actually hiding the saleperson's lesser duty of care.
“ the confidence man is someone who preys upon peoples confidence in them”
=======
Fast forward to September of 2009, when the CSA (umbrella organization of all 13 Canadian Provincial Securities Regulators), decide to change the rules/laws in Canada, REMOVING  every mention of the word SALESPERSON in the Securities Act, rules.  They replace that rather clear term, with the term "DEALING REPRESENTATIVE".  To be fair, they did, in some documents place the word (Salesperson) in brackets, immediately behind the word "Dealing Representative".  That helped maintain some of the original info and intent of the disclosure.
Still, one a small step was taken in the direction of "editing out" the term "Salesperson" from the Securities Rules and laws in Canada.  The important thing to keep in mind, is that Securities Commissions did NOT move to eliminate the commission sales role from "advice givers", but rather they simply allowed commission-sales "advice givers" to obfuscate their 'label', to in effect be less clear and open to their investor clients. Allowing them to hide their registration and job role from investors.
They continued (as they do to this day) to refer to themselves as "Advisors" in most cases, despite Securities Act rules and laws against "misrepresentation of ones registration category".  It simply serves investment salespeople better if they do not tell their customers that they are "salespersons".  Trust (and the customer's money) is eaier to gain if they conceal the true "salepserson" registration behind a not-true advisor title...(gaining trust by cocealment?)
========
Fast forward to January 2018 and the new changes quietly put into place have now deleted the (salesperson) clarification from the "Understanding Registration" page of the CSA web site.  It appears that the provincial governement regulators truly do not want the public to "Understand Registration", when it comes to investment salespersons...
This again brings to mind the regulatory double mandate, double-bind,..of having to do what they industry pays them to do....or else.
Ten million Canadians who rely upon their investments to support themselves financially in retirement should not be treated to intentional obfuscation and apparent deception, by the investment industry, and most certainly not by government empowered (but industry paid/selected) securities regulators.
This smacks of foxes guarding the henhouse, and helping their fox friends to pillage the hens, while working for a provincial government which tells the public that they are safely regulated and protected.  It smacks of a breach of the public trust...

 See source for the full article here,
Why Would 13 Canadian Securities Commissions Intentionally Decieve Investors?

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

More on Larry Elford below,

 

  Larry   Elford

Website: http://www.speakersalberta.com/_Elford.html

Investment Misconduct and Malpractice Analyst
Larry Elford is acclaimed as one of Canada’s top qualified experts on the subject of White Collar Crime as it relates to the investment selling industry. He is a retired CFP, (Chartered Financial Planner), a CIM, (Certified Investment Manager) by the Canadian Securities Institute, a FCSI, (Fellow of the Canadian Securities Institute), the highest designation awarded by the Canadian Securities Institute to those for top achievements in educational and industry accomplishments. He is also an Associate Portfolio Manager and Director of the Canadian Justice Review Board of Canada. Larry is often called upon as an expert with national broadcasters like CTV, Global and CBC.
Larry worked inside the largest financial institutions in Canada for twenty years until his retirement in 2004. He works today writing, speaking and coaching Canadians on how to create safe and honest treatment for investors.
Larry Elford is also an author and film producer. He was included in John Lawrence Reynolds’ second edition bestselling book, The Naked Investor, Why Almost Everybody But You Gets Rich On Your RRSP and Bruce Livesey's  2012 book, Thieves of Bay Street, How Banks, Brokerages and the Wealthy Steal Billions from Canadians. He produced a compelling documentary film, Breach of Trust, The Unique Violence of White Collar Crime, to benefit investors, legislators and those who investigate financial crime.  It can be viewed on Youtube.  https://youtu.be/k2K6pzFtyTU   
Twitter:    @RecoveredBroker
lelford@shaw.ca
Facebook group for Fraud victims
https://www.facebook.com/groups/albertafraud/
Facebook group for Fraud victims across Canada (Small Investors Protection Association of Canada, 1998)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/240100382792373/
Video site for victims of investment malpractice  
http://www.youtube.com/user/investoradvocate?feature=mhe
www.investoradvocates.ca    research site

 More to come as always..

Former Police Commissioner Affidavit Exposes Crime Rings Among Public Officials

 In regards to our previously reported story seen here Ex-federal cabinet minister Julian Fantino takes aim at judge, cops, lawyers, in regards to Mr. Fantino's filing of an affidavit in defence of Mr. Donald Best. We have previously posted that as soon as possible we would share Mr. Fantino's affidavit, we will now share parts of it as well as a link to the entire affidavit. First however we will share an exert from Donald Best.ca where Mr. Donald Best himself clears the air on a few issues surrounding the Toronto Star article mentioned in the previous post and in relation to Mr. Fantino's affidavit.

 See exert from Mr. Best below,

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

Former top-cop details evidence of corrupt acts by lawyers, police, judge
Four years after the Toronto Star first refused to cover the Donald Best story and deleted all mention of the name from the comments section of their website, the newspaper about-faced and published an article about former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino applying to intervene in Best’s judicial review about the Canadian Judicial Council and Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy.
The Toronto Star article opens with the following bombshell statement:

“Former Conservative cabinet minister and provincial police commissioner Julian Fantino has accused a Canadian judge, lawyers and several police forces of acting improperly and even illegally in the conviction and jailing of a man for contempt of court.”

After the Toronto Star published first, the National Post, the Globe and Mail and a host of smaller outlets carried the same Colin Perkel Canadian Press story of corrupt acts by police, lawyers and a judge. (Toronto Star: Ex-federal cabinet minister Julian Fantino takes aim at judge, cops, lawyers)
Yes, Colin Perkel’s article contains important errors and omissions (some of which I correct below) and no link is provided to an actual copy of Fantino’s affidavit (pdf 8.7mb), but at least readers are now aware of an important story that was concealed from them.

The big story is that the after years of participating in a cover-up, the news media is finally acknowledging that this story is not going away, that it is important and that the supporting facts and evidence are as credible as they are disturbing.

In short, it seems likely that the Canadian news media came to the conclusion that the press could no longer withhold the Donald Best story from the public without further loss of credibility and relevance. It took the news media three months to mention Fantino’s September 28, 2017 sworn affidavit. Even then the media did not name any of the principal subjects in this story of corruption with the exception of Justice J. Bryan Shaughnessy whose name is on the official style of cause filed at court.
I’ll fix that naming omission in a moment, but first I want to address just a few of the important errors and omissions in Perkel’s article:

• Contrary to the article’s statement that Justice Shaughnessy found me guilty of contempt of court in 2013, Shaughnessy found me guilty on January 15, 2010 at a civil court hearing that I was not told about and was not present for. Nobody represented me at the hearing. I was in Asia at the time.
• Justice Shaughnessy convicted me based upon several lawyers’ provably false testimony – and also upon a deceitful affidavit by an ‘expert witness’ who concealed from the court that he was a serving Ontario Provincial Police detective sergeant corruptly taking bribes from the lawyers to provide them with access to confidential police information.
• The lawyers falsely told Justice Shaughnessy in writing and orally on the court record that during a November 17, 2009 phone call with them, I had ‘confessed’ to receiving a certain court order. In fact I said exactly the opposite, that I had not received the order – but the corrupt lawyers lied to the judge. Too bad for the lawyers that I have recordings of the call that prove they lied to the judge.
• I returned to Canada and applied to Justice Shaughnessy to remove my conviction and sentence. I presented forensically certified telephone recordings, transcripts and other credible evidence that proved the lawyers lied to the court to obtain my conviction.
• At a hearing in May of 2013, Justice Shaughnessy refused to consider any new evidence showing my innocence. He did not listen to the recordings. He also refused to allow me to cross-examine the witnesses (lawyers and corrupt police) upon whose false evidence he had convicted and sentenced me in January 2010 while I was in Asia.
• On May 3, 2013 Justice Shaughnessy refused to overturn my 2010 conviction for Contempt of Court and sent me to prison to serve the 3 month sentence he had already imposed in 2010.
• After court ended on May 3, 2013, Justice Shaughnessy went to a backroom and there, off the court record and without a hearing, trial or transcript, secretly increased my prison sentence by 50% without notifying me. He secretly created a new warrant of committal with increased jail time that he gave only to the prison authorities. He did not file the new secret warrant with the courts or make mention of it anywhere in the records.
• Later, higher courts denied me the right to appeal my conviction because I could not pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs earlier awarded to the other side on the basis of their provably fabricated and false evidence.
• I was not even allowed to cross-examine the lawyers and other witnesses that Shaughnessy relied upon to convict and imprison me. I was not allowed to cross-examine the corrupt Ontario Provincial Police officer. To this day, no court has listened to the forensically certified voice recordings of my telephone call with the lawyers that prove the lawyers lied to the court to convict and imprison me.
• Every judgment of every reviewing court considered only the evidence that Justice Shaughnessy allowed. Every judgment of every reviewing court is tainted by the fact that Justice Shaughnessy and all the reviewing courts deliberately excluded the evidence that exonerated me. 
• When I could not pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in previous court costs, the court refused to hear my appeal. I served 63 days in prison because I could not pay court costs awarded during a civil matter; with every minute spent in solitary confinement as I am a former police officer. Prison authorities said that solitary was the only place where they could keep a former police officer alive.

This is also the true story of how, when confronted with forensically certified telephone recordings and other irrefutable evidence proving that lawyers fabricated evidence and lied to the court to convict a person of contempt – the Canadian legal profession and courts closed ranks to save the corrupt lawyers, even when that meant sending an innocent man to prison...

   See the source below for the full story,
News media censorship of Julian Fantino’s Canadian Judicial Council intervention crumbles as Toronto Star publishes bombshell article

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

 Now see exerts from Julien Fantino's Affidavit filed in defence of Mr. Donald Best after Mr. Best was framed by a ring of corrupt public officials. Unfortunately the Judge presiding this matter has refused to allow the affidavit to be accepted. The affidavit is to long to post its 73 pages entirely so we will simply post some snapshots of the file. Anyone wishing for a copy of this file can see Mr. Fantino's Affidavit here.

 Here are a few snapshots of the Affidavit filed in Canadian Supreme Court yet refused as evidence by a Court which seemingly does not adhere to the rule of law.

For brevities sake that is all we will share for the time being of this affidavit. Although to my knowledge this story is not related directly to the BC Securities Commission nor the Ontario Commission I share this story here on this blog in because I believe that it is important the public understand just how corrupted many public officials throughout the system really are. These kinds of stories are happening across the country.
 Although we know there are good individuals inside these various seemingly rogue agencies more often then not the ones calling the shots are guilty of criminal malfeasance, conduct unbecoming of a public official and negligence at best and a wide variety of RICO crime at worst.
It is vital the public understand that this is how the culture of impunity and denial has been allowed to take over our financial regulatory systems as well as many of our courtrooms and that is why I share it here on this blog regarding the financial regulatory sector.

More to come..

BCSC WHISTLE BLOWER TELLS THE TRUTH ABOUT BC REGULATORS OVER TWO DECADES AGO

  See exert from Abel Danger on whistle blower Adrien Du Plessis who uncovers what our financial regulators really get up to as far back as 1993.

                                                       **************************
A Short History of Vancouver Stock Exchange Fraud

Adrian du Plessis discusses Vancouver Stock Exchange fraud Feb. 1993

Adrian du Plessis stock fraud investigator Part 2 1996

Author and whistleblower Adrian du Plessis worked as a stock fraud investigator privately and for the B.C. Securities Commission. He describes many of the stock frauds and scams he encountered and how, much to his chagrin and surprise, the Provincial Government and its regulators seemed to be complicit in this fraud by not prosecuting the many scammers working through the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

Adrian du Plessis – Investigator
Behind the scenes, du Plessis investigated our then-notorious stock exchange. Many believe he almost made it go down in flames. Then he became less behind the scenes and started writing articles for magazines where the editors had to consult in detail with lawyers to avoid lawsuits. As far as I know, du Plessis only wrote the truth, and it was always a truth he had painstakingly researched over a long period of time.
Part of du Plessis’ talent came from an incredible photographic memory. A man’s photo would appear on the front page of The Vancouver Sun with an article on how he had been caught red-handed in a bank scandal. Five years later (the limit of Vancouver’s long time memory for facts such as these), the same man would be on the business page promoting a Veracruz sunken gold venture. Only du Plessis remembered.
But there is another man whose memory may be as good, and like du Plessis it would be next to impossible to buy. This is The Vancouver Sun‘s investigative business reporter, David Baines. For many years in those terrible times of our notorious stock exchange (the ’80s and early ’90s), Baines wrote damning articles on the shenanigans that passed for routine business in our city. Many of those articles were fueled by du Plessis’ research. And I distinctly remember that several times, security was provided for Baines, as he did receive death threats.
As far as I know, du Plessis never bought a car and never made much money with his writing. I believe that had the December 28, 2003 BC Legislature raid in Victoria been investigated by a duel Plessis/Baines team (someone would have gently pushed them from business to politics), we would not be where we are now. I only wonder how du Plessis would modify his often-used term “white-collar crime” for incidents such as these. [Source]

  See Abel Danger for more on this story,
A HISTORY OF VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE FRAUD

                                                      ****************************
More to come including a copy of the affidavit filed by Mr. Julien Fantino we mentioned in the previous post..