DOES DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL ENFORCMENT MS MITCHELL-BANKS EVEN KNOW THE LAW???

On 24/10/2014 12:03 PM, Christopher Burke wrote:

To whom it may concern:

I, Christopher Burke hereby authorize Peter Harris to represent me in any and all matters pertaining to dealing with the BCSC. Please cc and communicate with Mr. Harris anything that is communicated with me.

I will exercise my rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Legal: 10 (b) (c)

My rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Under the Great Writ (Habeas Corpus) to instruct any party I deem fit to represent me and speak on my behalf

Regards

Christopher Burke.

On 27/10/2014 10:23 PM, Teresa Mitchell-Banks wrote:

Mr. Burke,

I write to make you aware that the staff for the Executive Director will be opposing Mr. Harris representing you at the Hearing. With all due respect, your email makes no legal sense whatsoever. I have given a brief explanation below as to why your email is founded on a grave misunderstanding of the law. I strongly suggest that you take your email (and my response to it) to a lawyer and get some preliminary advice.

The Charter or Rights under 10 of the Charter of Rights (I note you cite b and c) reads as follows:

The Honourable Wally Oppal, QC. Boughton Law Email message exchange betwe en BCSC a n d Echo Partners Ltd . Oc t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 t o Oc t o b e r 23, 2 0 1 4

P a g e 6 o f 8 F r om: P e t e r Ha r r i s T u e s d a y , O c t o b e r - 2 8 - 1 4



Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

(a) To be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;

(b) To retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and

(c) To have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not valid.



The bold and the underlining are mine. If you read the section you are quoting you will see that it does not apply to you. You are not under arrest or detention. The meaning of the word counsel is defined in the case law as meaning a lawyer. Mr. Harris is not a lawyer. The commission does not have the jurisdiction to hold a habeas corpus hearing and you are not detained in any event so no court would grant you a habeas corpus hearing. In short, s. 10 has no application to the case at hand.

Similarly, your insistence on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and what you call the ‘Great Writ (Habeas Corpus) are both equally inapplicable to your present case before the BCSC.

The allegations against you and your fellow respondents are serious. You should realize that if you are found liable by the Commission, staff will be seeking very significant penalties against you. Please get some legal advice from someone competent to give it to you. Legal advice may seem expensive but it will not be as expensive as going without it. If you have a defence you should lead it. Talk to a lawyer.

On 28/10/2014 3:38 PM, Christopher Burke wrote:

Ms. Banks,

Thank you for the clarification that you are NOT a Supreme Court and BCSC has no such jurisdiction to proceed in such a manner. This means however that as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the highest law in the land that all other laws, bylaws and acts both civil and criminal must fall within these guidelines unless a specific act of CANADIAN Parliament States otherwise.

Thus the BCSC under the Securities Act must operate within the confines of the law. BC Supreme Court Civil Rules allow me the right to choose any person I deem to speak and act on my behalf. The Canadian Bill of Rights again allows me to choose any party as I see fit to represent myself.

The Honourable Wally Oppal, QC . Boughton Law Email message exchange be tween BCSC and Echo P a r t n e r s L t d . Oc t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 t o Oc t o b e r 23, 2 0 1 4

P a g e 7 o f 8 F r om: P e t e r Ha r r i s T u e s d a y , O c t o b e r - 2 8 - 1 4



Essentially if you are saying that your court does not have the authority regarding previously mentioned law then certainly your court being lesser then the Supreme Court of Canada and British Columbia does not have the right nor authority to tell me who may or may not represent me. Since I have no money for a lawyer and BCSC approved lawyers have no interest in justice in the first place and can clearly be seen as in collusion with the commission (Hence the instance upon one) I authorize Peter D Harris to speak on my behalf in all matters pertaining to the BCSC.

Power of Attorney documents will be produced to affirm said notion. And for the record an email IS now considered a legal document I may use as valid proof in a court of law.

Regards,

Christopher Andrew Burke

WE CALLED AND CALLED BUT NO ONE WANTED TO TALK TO US

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:

Re: June 2013 * Shareholder Interim Report

Date:

Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:38:24 -0700

From:

peterh@echopartners.ca <echopartnerskelowna@gmail.com>

Reply-To:

peterh@echopartners.ca

To:

Sydney Lansdowne - BCSC <Inquiries@bcsc.bc.ca>

Hi Sydney,

I hope this message finds you well.

I'm starting to get concerned in regards to BCSC lack of action.

Should I be concerned?

When will I hear from BCSC?

Cheers

Peter

SP-128

24-03-2014

ENTRAPMENT.

 

KEY MESSAGES REGARDING OUR INITIALLY CONTACTING THE BCSC

SPYru Inc. Key E-mail Messages

at start-up requesting

the BCSC for assistance

02-02-2014 3:45 PM

Peter D. Harris

250-765-8213

Date

02-Feb-14

As we indicated we are open to a dialog with the agency and we are prepared to pay any fines levied against us that

the agency deems fit. We are seeking an early resolve to protect our investors and save unnecessary expenses.

You will note that by the exchange of the below messages, once the agency got all it wanted from us, things changed, the

and even jail time.

a better understanding of what occurred at the beginning and that we ready to cooperate if give the opportunity of a

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

mutual dialog with the agency.

As you could gather by my messages last week I was not a happy camper, we feel we have been setup by the agency.

attorney, not realising we had been setup and thinking the attorney is required to workout on our behalf a solution

You will notice that all of my messages to the agency are courteous, straight forward and extremely cooperative,

please take a moment at your convenience to review the below messages between myself and the agency.

To insure you're completely informed of what occurred in the early weeks of our communicating with the agency,

Dear Ms. Mitchell-Banks,

Thank you for your letter of Friday January 31, 2014 ordering me to appear at your offices Monday February 3, 2014

As stated in my official notice, I respectfully decline to appear in front of your inquiry. However, we are open to a

Ms. Banks, I know you have a job to do, but off the record, you will see by the messages the agency was not honest

I'm not an unreasonable person Ms. Banks, but I do not like to be intimidated, when I've done nothing wrong and we

agency no longer wanted us to communicate with them, they rapidity recommended we contact an accredited securities

with the agency to protect our investors and hoping we would have an early revolve, we retain legal services.

We are extending the Olive Branch, lets talk rather than sending messages, I'm confident after we speak you will have

with us, they made us feel like they were going to helps us. What the agency has done is not right, it's not ethical

not to mention our eagerness to work with the agency for an early resolve to protect our investors.

and it is certainly morally wrong. How would you feel, if you contacted a government agency thinking the agency

is going to help you and now that same agency is making intimidating comment such as contempt of court, heavy fines

totally cooperated with the agency until we realized we had been had by the agency, no one likes to be taken as a sucker,

especially when we went to the agency for help in good faith and with complete transparency.

1 of 7

SP-122

24-03-2014

THIS IS NOT ABOUT SECURITIES - ITS ABOUT DUE PROCESS AND THE RULE OF LAW

   

 What happened to due process and the Rule of Law? U-GO Brands directors have been denied any due process and adherence to the Rule of Law in regards to their dealings with the BC Securities Commission. We have been told repeatedly by public officials and lawyers that theres not much they can do since its a "Securities" issue. Our problem with that is that this is simply a blind excuse to let the BC Securities Commission act in an arbitrary and malicious manner when prosecuting the U-GO Brands directors. Are the financial markets now deemed free from the rule of law??
 The BC Securities Commission has the power to seize assets and prosecute people under Criminal Law as well as under Civil Law through its Tribunal Process.
If the BC Securities Commission is going to have these types of powers, the power to destroy some ones life they had better ensure due process and the rule of law are key in every investigation and judgement rendered or they themselves will be legally compromised and in no position to make a credible ruling.
 Our case is exactly such a case. This is not simply a question of a Securities infraction, this is a matter of civil rights.
 We have the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, Securities market or not.
 The BCSC did not extend us that right when it published defamatory material it knew to be false when printed.
The following exert is from our lawyer and a conversation with investigator Lindsey Donders in early 2014  in which Lindsey Donders mentions that the BCSC was aware that Lorne Cire and Peter Harris did not take the money in question yet continued to try to prosecute them for it.
 To this day we still have a disgorgement fee facing us of $650K, disgorgement fees by legal definition are only applicable in cases of fraud where ill gotten gains were retained.
In our case the BCSC could prove neither because we are as innocent as we were the day we went to them for help.

 Notice this is in April 2014, why did the prosecution continue to try and pin a crime on Lorne Cire and Peter Harris when they knew them to be innocent?

 In another flagrant contravention of Law the BCSC held two hearings, one on October the 8th and the other on Oct 31st 2014. It has withheld the transcripts from both hearings insisting they do not exist even though we all had to say our name for the stenographer who was there and recorded the entire process. The following is a direct quote from Ms Mitchell Banks where she states there is no record of the Oct 8th 2014 hearing when we asked for the transcript.
 The thing here is even if she were telling the truth and we all imagined the stenographer present the BC Securities Commission would still be in contravention of Supreme Court Law which demands they record such hearings even if they are preliminary.

  How can the BC Securities Commission be trusted to act in a fair and unbiased manner when making any legal decisions if this type of behavior is commonplace?

 These are just a couple examples of the BC Securities Commission and its complete disregard for the rule of law and justice.

 We simply do not trust the BC Securities Commission as they have been nothing but deceptive, vindictive,  and malicious during the entire prosecution. Why all the lies? What does the BCSC have to hide?

 Christopher Burke
 Peter Harris

PETER HARRIS TO FARRIS LAW "IT HAS A VERY STRONG SMELL OF COLLUSION!"

Good day Trevor,

Again, I’ve reviewed the commission’s guidelines in order to quality as an investor in a private company.

Trevor, honestly, do you mean to tell me that you agree with the below set conditions? They are dictatorial and they discriminate against individual’s rights that do not meet the commission’s guidelines.

There are no Federal or Provincial laws on the books other than the “commission” that impose pre-conditions for an individual to be allowed to enter in a commercial or private contractual agreement.

As a Canadian I certainly take very serious objection to the “commission” being this involved in individual personal finances, when these people have never asked for the commission’s involvement or help.

Trevor, to be honest with you this is a bunch of SMOKE and MIRRORS on the part of the “commission” and it has a very STRONG SMELL of COLLUSION.

Let me point out an item THAT REFLECTS THIS VIEW;

In all of my years of dealing with attorneys where you have a plaintiff and an accused, I have never been told by the firm representing me that they cannot advise me or comment on my file until the firm representing me confirms to the plaintiff that they have been paid in advance and that now they will proceed to represent me: REALLY!?

Conclusion

I’ve discussed the “commission” with my fellow directors and we have come to the conclusion that the “commission” has no intention of helping us or cooperating with us to settle this off-shore to main land investor transfer and the issuing of new and legal Canadian share certificates. It has been made clear to me that I cannot meet with the “commission” face to face. What has happened to people’s rights to meet face to face to settle conflicts? As we all know Trevor, personal meetings often result in amicable solutions when repeated e-mails cannot. What has happened to the human factor?

Trevor, we have not come to a final decision in respect to the “commissions” handling of the “URGENT” SPYru case now going on for more than three months and this situation IS URGENT, Trevor.

As for U-GO Brands, we are compliant with all of the exemptions listed by the “commission”. In terms of appropriate documentation, we changed our “Subscription Agreement forms” and our “Investor Ledger” as per the commission’s requirements. If we exceed the 50 investor cap, we will be compliant and again process the information, as per the requirements of the “commission”.

SP-065

21-03-2014

In closing, Trevor we are not sure if we want to continue on in this fashion, thus we are strongly considering cancelling our agreement with FARRIS and dealing with the “commission” directly.

As I forewarned you of the impending flood gates opening, well it’s happening. My friends in Montreal have made Christy Clark’s office aware of the situation with the “commission’ and also the Vancouver Sun is now in the fold.

Please understand Trevor, that our actions are reflecting our desperation to protect our investors AT ALL COSTS, as the investors and U-GO Brands directors are victims of a fraud perpetrated by Mr. Klaus Glusing. Why is it that no one seems to understand this?

I will revert late Monday or Tuesday.

Respectfully,

Peter

OPEN QUOTE

The securities commissions say the following for someone to qualify as a “close personal friend”:

  

“For the purposes of both the private issuer exemption and the family, friends and business associates exemption, a “close personal friend” of a director, executive officer, founder or control person of an issuer is an individual who knows the director, executive officer, founder or control person well enough and has known them for a sufficient period of time to be in a position to assess their capabilities and trustworthiness. The term “close personal friend” can include a family member who is not already specifically identified in the exemptions if the family member satisfies the criteria described above. The relationship between the individual and the director, executive officer, founder or control person must be direct. For example the exemption is not available to a close personal friend of a close personal friend of a director of the issuer.

An individual is not a close personal friend solely because the individual is:

(a) a relative,

(b) a member of the same organization, association or religious group, or

(c) a client, customer, former client or former customer.”

CLOSE QUOTE

BC SECURITIES THE SURVEILLANCE FILES TWO - SPY GAMES

 

THE SURVEILLANCE FILES, TWO - SPY GAMES

 

A couple weeks before Christmas around the time the BCSC made their announcement about their judgement against us for U-GO Brands they really stepped up the Black chopper game, choppers every day for me over the house or where I went.

 Went for a hike on a Monday watched the chopper take off and come right to me, Ang was with me we were on knox mountain.

 Wedsnday the chopper flew directly over Lornes house 20 minutes before a conference call with Lornes Lawyer. Ang was with me we were just taking a quick walk at Kalamoir park before I met the boys as Lorne lives right there.

 Thursday it flew over the house while I was writing emails to the press and public officials. They actively hack my computer deleting shit as I go. I am in a constant battle. Have learned a lot about security. Set myself up in a more secure position digitally ya know.

Friday that week was the same thing the chopper flew over while I was writing emails.

 I sent a very harsh email detailing everything happening including a surveillance net on me run by a team of at least ten or twenty ex-military types that I have been aware of for some time.

Within an hour I had a reply from CBC Investigate Vancouver who said they were interested but only did exclusives so they did not want us to share the story with other press until they got back to us. I spent the night feeding them evidence and narrating my experiences and how its all attached. I gave them a time frame to get back to me, they did not respond.

 Went for a hike in gallaghers canyon the next morning on a Saturday. Midway through the hike the black chopper showed up that had visited me all week. I told Ang that it was day six or seven in a row of black choppers for me and she admitted it was definitely an odd coincidence but would not be convinced because it had not really come to close. No sooner did she say that then the chopper came directly across our path very low just above the trees. There was no mistaking who it was looking at. I waved, I shouldn't have.. Ang was trying to get a picture but it ducked into tree cover instantly.

 

 After all this happened I realized the need to escalate the fight and rid myself of these fuckers once and for all. I began additional preparations beyond the fallbacks I already had.

 It was time to do some good old fashioned detective work and get a little dirty. I took measure to add the type of evidence that can bury these criminal types such as Ms. Mitchell Banks or Brenda Leongs or even their secret operative teams to everything we already have.

 I wont tell you every thing as I don't want to compromise my fail-safes but an example is a photograph I took on New Years eve day of one of their surveillance vans near my house. It had a cardboard cut-out in the window with eyeholes in a direction to be able to watch me do most of my running around in Rutland. It had double pane dark grey glass as the partition between back and front.

 

 

 So much more to say.. may have been an attempted abduction that I ducked. Break in attempts, threats on my life from ex-military type people who randomly approach.

 

 These are some of the dudes that keep or were keeping a 'net' on me shots are unfortunately at a distance with an expendable camera.

 

 

In the next one I walk into city park throught the tunnel walkway under the Bennett Bridge with the guy in this pic above behind me by maybe 500 yards on the south side standing by the beach. There was a woman who was a member of the net above standing by the highway pretending to talk on her phone. (Nobody stands by a busy highway to have a conversation for any length of time.) She was able to warn the man who you can barely see in the distance who got out and stood in front of the one of the vans I wanted to sneak up on in City Park.

 

 

 

The van pictured here also kept a perimeter that morning, keep in mind it was a Sunday, no one was working on any of the construction sites around the area.

 An odd number off work vans hanging out around me all things considered.

The one above continued down the street and around the corner, I pursued but could only find a large well dressed (shoes were shining in the slush and snow)

battle scared man standing around the corner. He quickly fell in pace walking behind me about twenty feet as I continued down the street for a block or two before I stopped at a beach access to let him continue as I had a smoke.

 I watched him continue down the street two blocks where he was picked up by someone in a green Mini Cooper and left. 

 

These are just tidbits of the story..

They threatened sue me for talking to CBC and the New York Times last week.. I told them go right ahead I wont show up to court. Good luck putting me in prison. Have the BCSC not already tried to arrest Peter and I? I hear they did..

 

I have since then doubled the amount I talk to the press and havn't heard from them.

 I have developed a ton of pictures, last week they finally got to the London Drugs and got to the photos I was developing.. Some had pics of agents faces, vehicles etc. I have done a lot of counter espionage.

 They flew a black chopper overhead when I arrived at the London drugs to pic up the pics some of which mysteriously vanished. they left me some negatives nothing good. Good news is as I told them, I was waiting for them to show up for a long time. I have been aware that they always have a net on me and all mine and my friends communications are compromised. I let them know that everything they have listened to or found online, on our computers etc. is everything I wanted them to know. I asked them if they thought that all this shit would scare me or anger me more and give me more evidence to take them down with. They then switched chopper colours but still flyby.

 

 

This is the same model of chopper as the black one that had harassed for a week before Christmas. They do have paint that sprays on and peels off. I had started calling them on their choppers. The one part they couldn't paint over was the little black ball section on the back underside containing their radar and tracking equipment.

 If you think its all to crazy to be true remember my friends the truth is always stranger then fiction.

 

 

 

Regards

Christopher Burke

Peter Harris

 

 

 

 

 

THE BC SECURITIES COMMISSION IS A CRIMINAL RACKET

My Dear Canadians; Dec 18/15

                                  The BC Securities Commission is a Criminal Racket

In the matter of the BC Securities and their malicious illegal prosecution of Christopher Burke and the rest of the respondents including U-Go Brands I hereby notify the Judith Downes and Audrey T Ho that they have opened themselves up for Criminal charges of Accessory and Conspiracy, Obstruction of Justice, and Breach of Trust as a public official. The decision rendered may be used as evidence against you of a continued malicious prosecution that is riddled with Federally indictable offences.

For the record Mr Nigel P Cave, the Vice Chair is the only one in the entire Commission with any integrity and we hold no blame or malice towards Mr. Caves. I commend Mr. Caves for doing what is not easy as it is evident the rest of the BCSC is a sham in addition to being an extortion racket against the BC population.

The remainder of the Panels choice to overlook the clear evidence of BCSC prosecutors Perjury is a blatant disregard for the Law and is clear evidence of Conspiracy and Accessory. In addition you are aware of the fact that the BCSC is withholding or destroyed Hearings Transcripts which we know existed as we all had to state our name for the record to the stenographer. How can prosecution continue when this series of indictable offences have occurred, offences of which you are all aware. The entire case is built on Lindsey Donders affidavits yet she clearly perjured herself under oath!!

Every word all of you speak is a lie.

Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, Tampering/Withholding Evidence, Theft, Breach of Trust, Fraudulent Concealment, and Entrapment are just a FEW of the indictable crimes that you have all witnessed occur.

The BCSC insists that we did not turn ourselves in, we merely turned Klaus Glusing in in the hopes we would look good and that the Commission would take it easy on us.

This could not be further from the truth as we clearly stated early on that we understood that we may have committed some regulatory offences but we were prepared to step down and pay any associated fines. Our sole concern was the share holders and the well-being of U-Go Brands. We hired more then one law firm to retain legal advice in order to co-operate with the BCSC and be legally compliant.

Instead of operating an a fair, transparent, ethical and just manner the BCSC deceived us from the start and entrapped us and in the process destroyed numerous lives including investors and directors. In addition the BC economy is robbed of a viable operation that would be at the very least a $100 Million Dollar company by now.

The BCSC states it that it could find no evidence of wrong doing on the part of Klaus Glusing yet as we later discovered the BCSC themselves found Mr. Glusing guilty of Fraud several years back and knew he was a scammer.

How can a Regulatory Agency operate in fairness with such indictable offences being a regular occurrence? Understandably the BCSC has some legal protection such as Section 170 of the Securities Act however this only applies if the BCSC acts in good faith.

How can the BCSC act in “Good Faith” if the BCSC exists on a conflict of interest within the Law?

The BCSC receives its funding by creating Rules and Regulations that need to be broken in order for the BCSC to levy fines and fund its continuation. It does so under the guise of protecting the public interest but as our evidence shows this is far from the truth.

The BCSC exists on conflict of interest that is contrary to the Canadian Constitution, this fact only fosters and promotes an environment where Criminal abuse is routine.

How can a Regulatory Agency with the power to seize all of peoples assets and press criminal charges operate seemingly outside the Rule of Law?

Are these laws only applicable when our bank accounts are not big enough? Known fraudsters pay the cost of “compliance” and continue business very day while viable businesses that would build a strong Canada are shut down illegally.

We have literally hundreds if not thousands of pages of documents that provide evidence to back up our position and the Commission has seen most of them. The current decision by the Panel (with the exclusion of Mr Nigel P Caves.) is a blatant decision to disregard justice and proceed with committing further criminal offences.

The Commission would be well advised to meet face to face with the Respondents in order to come to an amicable and JUST settlement.

Failure to do so will result in the destruction of any credibility the BCSC has left.

I promise I will use every legal avenue possible to destroy the BCSC.

If myself or anyone related to me has an accident, disappears, dies or has any other ill misfortune happen to them in the manner that several other individuals whom your Agency has prosecuted seem to have left this earth then the repercussions will be far more reaching then the current charges everyone at the BCSC is facing.

Do not think there are not fail-safes in place should anything occur.

I know that other Indictable Criminal offences have been committed by the BCSC that neither one of us has yet brought up.. The Honourable Jody-Wilson-Raybould would most likely be very interested as to what the BCSC gets up to after hours. Every name will go out. Including the lawyers. Every incident in detail will go to every Law Society, every judge, news agency, shareholder, corporations and politician in the G-20.

I have only just begun to fight for my rights, I promise you I will not stop until justice is done and your agency can no longer prey on the hard working good people of this province. If I have to start a civil rights movement I will. I know a few hundred shareholders that will help get us off to a great start.

This statement will be shared around the Country so that everyone knows the truth. I am done with the constant attempts by the BCSC to undermine our rights as citizens and human beings.

In respect for Canada and respect of the integrity of the Rule of Law,

Christopher Andrew Burke

Peter Harris