BRITISH COLUMBIA SECURITIES COMMISSION - Brenda M. Leong, Chair and CEO

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

"The void created by the failure to communicate is soon filled with poison, drivel and misrepresentation."

— C. Northcote Parkinson

ARE WE LIVING UNDER AN OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT?

IT SEEMS THAT CANADA IS NO DIFFERENT!

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

The Honourable Michael de Jong, Q.C.
BC MINISTER OF FINANCE  
PO BOX 9048 STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E2

BRITISH COLUMBIA SECURITIES COMMISSION
Brenda M. Leong, Chair and CEO 
701 West Georgia Street
P.O. Box 10142, Pacific Centre
Vancouver, BC V7Y 1L2

Reference: Letter sent to Mr. de Jong dated March 9, 2016 

Subject: BCSC Wrong Doing

Dear Mr. de Jong,

Why are you not responding to my request for a private audience with you regarding the BC Securities Commission’s abuses and ethical wrong doings? 

It is disheartening to find out that living in British Columbia, Canada is no different than living under a dictatorial and oppressive government. It is immoral when a citizen is denied the right to be heard by his/her Government. I can appreciate the fact that an MP cannot influence the courts or any tribunals administering the law. 

However, what happens when an Independent Government Agency is operating outside the law and violating its own Code of Ethics in order to generate revenues as the BC Securities is a self funded government agency. Mr. de Jong, how can the government explain that an independent enforcement agency be self-funded and its only source of income, is to impose Disgorgement and Administrative fines? Just imagine if the police departments operated in this fashion?

It is immoral when a citizen is denied the right to be heard by his/her Government. I can appreciate the fact that an MP cannot influence the courts or any tribunals administering the law. 

However, what happens when an Independent Government Agency is operating outside the law and violating its own Code of Ethics in order to generate revenues as the BC Securities is a self funded government agency. Mr. de Jong, how can the government explain that an independent enforcement agency be self-funded and its only source of income, is to impose Disgorgement and Administrative fines? Just imagine if the police departments operated in this fashion?

Our allegations against the Commission are extremely real and factual about are being railroaded by the Commission investigators and litigators. From day one, when I contacted William Ting to advise him that we had been defrauded by an offshore partner, it was wrongfully assumed that since Klaus Glusing was my mentor and I knew him for forty years, the investigators wrongfully determined that Cire and Harris were guilty by association, this is not the way to conduct investigations and ruining people's lives.

Now that the Commission Panel has rendered its decision this past December 2015, why can you not grant us our request to meet with you in good faith? 

The only problem we see, is that the Commission registered the Panel’s decision with the BC Supreme Court, we have not been advised that the Commission plans to take us to Court or just supress you from taking any action by leaving the case file open and this way your office cannot interfere. I call that being set-up!

As a matter of fact, Mr. de Jong, its been well established that the Commission messed-up big time and that you Sir and Ms. Leong are playing the time card hoping by your silence and not interacting with Christopher Burke and myself, will result in our giving up and going away. 

The fact that Ms. Mitchell-Banks is no longer with the Commission and that Ms. Pivnenko is on leave of absence, again we can only ascertain that the Commission is in “Big Time Damage Control”. This is why Ms. Leong is not communicating with us, she has lawyered up and on the advice of legal counsel she is not to communicate with us. If that’s the case, then provide us with legal counsel’s coordinates so that we can proceed.

Mr. de Jong, your silence and refusal to work with us, is immoral, unethical and just out and out mean! Your silence is condescending and not right. How would you feel if you heard about a friend or a family member being mistreated by a government agency? What would you do? 

All we are requesting is to resolve this ongoing dispute to are mutual benefit, the Commission has to be held responsible and accountable for the wrong doings and malicious methods its employees perpetrated against us. 

Mr. de Jong, lets stop the time and silence card and let’s site down and workout our differences. 

For your information, we have been made aware that a few weeks ago the Commission did lose three appeal cases at the BC Supreme Court on the basis of abuse of power. 

Mr. de Jong, we have no interest in fighting with the Commission, but if we have to, we will, all we want is for the Commission to admit to its wrong doings and pay the price for ruining over four hundred investors lives that the Commission should have protected. Unfortunately, the investigators went on a witch-hunt and personal character assassination.

Mr. de Jong, we will not go away, the Commission plaid us and now it’s time for reckoning! 

I truly hope we can start a communicating and respecting each other to reach an amicable resolve.

Respectfully Submitted,

Peter Harris

“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty” Thomas Jefferson.

BC SECURITIES COMMISSION EMPLOYEE RETENTION

WHERE ARE ALL OF YOUR COMMISSION EMPLOYEES DISAPPEARING TO?

Sunday, March 13, 2016

British Columbia Securities Commission 

Brenda M. Leong, Chair and CEO

701 West Georgia Street

P.O. Box 10142, Pacific Centre

Vancouver, BC V7Y 1L2

Reference: Teresa Mitchell-Banks, Director of Enforcement and Mila Pivnenko, Litigator

• Cached

WHERE DID THE HEAD OF CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT DIVISION TERESA MITCHELL-BANKS FROM THE BCSC GO?
WHY IS THE BCSC HIDING THE REASON SHES GONE?
HOW CAN THE BCSC MAINTAIN MARKET INTEGRITY WHEN THEY ALWAYS HIDE THE TRUTH?

Dear Ms. Leong

It would seem that you are having employee retention problems. Could that be directly due to the Commission’s wrongful prosecution and criminal actions towards the U-GO Brands case?

Media Announcement dated November 27, 2015

Teresa Mitchell-Banks, a high-profile former Crown prosecutor hired by the BC Securities Commission in 2012, is no longer with the BCSC, but it’s not clear whether she quit or was fired.

“Teresa was a valued colleague, and we wish her well,” Richard Gilhooley, media relations officer for the BCSC, said in an email. “As this is a personnel matter, we will not be commenting further.”

Normally, when a high profile employee earning almost $300,000 per year, who has been under employ as the Director of Enforcement since only 2012 and there has not been any announcement from Ms. Mitchell-Banks as to the effect that she was moving on to another career, I can only deduce that she was in fact fired. This assumption of mine, my having spent decades in high level corporate management, has been corroborated by our confidential source inside the BC Securities Commission. This source has confirmed that Ms. Mitchell-Banks was in fact terminated due to her mismanagement of the SPYru Inc. and U-GO Brands investigation. As stated by Nigel P. Cave, Vice Chair, Executive Commissioner, the SPYru Inc. investigation and the U-GO Brands investigation should never have been co-joined, as they were two separate identities and the U-GO Brands Directors never held any official capacity in SPYru Inc.. SPYru Inc. was solely owned and directed by the now deceased Klaus Glusing of Providencials, Turks and Caicos Islands.

Now, let’s move on to Ms. Mila Pivnenko, Litigator. Why did she accept the position of lead litigator in this case, knowing that the investigators compromised the investigation from day one? Normally, in dealing with a large important case as the Commission made us out to be in their official 2014 “BCSC Roundup” as one of the 3 most serious cases of the year, the Senior Litigator in this case Mr. James K. Torrance, Senior Litigation Counsel – BCSC should have been the litigator in charge and spearheading this case. It is beyond comprehension as to why two experienced Officers of the Court (attorneys) would accept this case in first place which was so corrupted by the many ethical, civil and criminal wrong doings by the Commission investigators.

I refer to the following link: Mila Pivnenko - ON LEAVE

BC Government Directory, Mila Pivnenko - ON LEAVE

dir.gov.bc.ca/gtds.cgi?...Pivnenko...LEAVE...

The fact of the matter is that I can only surmise why Ms. Pivnenko is on a leave of absence.  

Normally, the Commission would have made some sort of announcement, as Corporations and Commissions do, regarding key employees being on leave and the reason(s) why.

May I surmise Ms. Leong, that the fact that these two valuable employees are no longer with the Commission and due to the past reckless investigation and prosecution of U-Go Brands and its Directors, that it seems obvious that the Commission is in damage control, otherwise these valued employees would still be at their posts in the Commission.

Again, Ms. Leong, every day that goes by, your employee moral and efficiency is declining and your position becomes more vulnerable as we look to the future.

I will not be redundant in my closing statement pertaining to a communication breakdown from your office.  We have come to expect your silence regarding every attempt by me to communicate with you for a resolve.

 

Respectfully,

Peter Harris

Why Did the BC Securities Commission Tamper With Evidence?

U-GO Brands Seeks Court Injunction - Why Did the BC Securities Commission Tamper With Evidence?

Press Release - Feb 1, 2016

Why did the BC Securities Commission tamper with hearings transcripts in its case against U-GO Brands? What is the BC Securities Commission hiding?

Kelowna BC, February 1, 2016 (Newswire.com) - Accused: British Columbia Securities Commission
Plaintiffs: U-GO Brands, Board of Directors and Shareholders
Seeking Court Injunction
tampering
withholding evidence
June 24, 2015
Kelowna law court
1355 Water St,
Kelowna, BC V1Y 9P4
This brief is in regards to the missing hearing transcripts for October 8th and October 31st 2014, preliminary hearings. The British Columbia Securities Commission insists no such transcripts ever existed and it is not standard practice for one to be recorded for a preliminary hearing. At these preliminary hearings there was a stenographer present all day and we all had to state our name for the record at the beginning of the hearings. All other hearings and interviews had transcripts produced including the hearing preceding these two hearings in October. Why would there not be a transcript for these hearings? Even if they are preliminary hearings? There is a transcript for the march 13/14 2014 preliminary hearing and we will attach it as proof. Why would the next hearing even if 'preliminary' not be recorded?
Either the British Columbia Securities Commission is lying and withholding the transcript, or the transcript was destroyed.
For arguments sake let’s pretend we didn't see the stenographer and nothing was really recorded then this would beg the question how can the BCSC claim to operate as a court with all the authority of a supreme court as it is so fond of informing us it has. The British Columbia Securities Commission mandate is to operate in a fair, just and impartial manner yet its court proceedings are so far from impartial and just that it is a miscarriage of justice. I have copied a section of the commissions own policy on hearings. The commission believes since the securities act does not outline specific instructions on how to run its court proceedings that the commission may proceed as it sees fit and create its own procedures.
<<< Exert from commission policy on hearings>>>
Part 2 Hearings
2.1 procedures – the commission conducts hearings less formally than the courts. The act
And regulation prescribe very few procedures the commission must follow in hearings.
Consequently, except for these, the commission is the master of its own procedures. In deciding
Procedural matters, the commission considers the rules of natural justice set by the courts and
The public interest in having matters heard fully and decided promptly.
<<< end of exert>>>
How can the BCSC claim to operate as a court of law yet operate in such an arbitrary manner? By its own admission if it is to follow the rules of natural justice set by the courts then certainly everything should be on record including a preliminary hearing.
The commission and its agents have repeatedly stated that the commission is not governed by the Canadian constitution nor is it obligated to operate in a manner that is in accordance with the procedures and rules of the Canadian Supreme Court. This is contrary to the constitution which clearly states that unless specific provincial legislation outlines otherwise, all laws, regulations, rules, courts, tribunals shall operate in accordance with the constitution act of 1982;
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.

BC Securities Policy is not Federal or Provincial Legislature that allows it to ignore due process and the Rule of Law. Nothing in the Securities Act of British Columbia legalizes or validates such arbitrary and malicious behavior as we have experienced.
Either the transcripts were destroyed or withheld or there never were any in the first place as the BCSC insists. Whichever answer is true it is our position that the BCSC has lost all credibility as it operates in contravention of either the Canadian constitution and the guidelines for supreme court or the criminal code. Neither of these positions would support any supposed authority the BCSC operates with. It has compromised its position and is not fit to regulate the securities market in British Columbia as it does not operate in accordance with the principles of justice and the rule of law.
The British Columbia Securities Commission is guilty of either withholding/destroying evidence or a breach of the Canadian constitution. Either way the BCSC is compromised.
 Also see how BC Securities Act legislation as no protection for a massive string of willfully committed Criminal Offenses.

http://www.bcsecuritiescommissionasham.blogspot.ca/2016/01/no-protection-under-section-170-of.html

 Also see the following for more info..

http://markets.post-gazette.com/postgazette/news/read?GUID=31453431

http://finance.dailyherald.com/dailyherald/news/read/31486859/How_Are_Fake_FBI_Agents

www.bcsccriminalcharges.blogspot.com


Christopher Burke
Peter Harris
U-GO Brands Nutritional Product Inc.

HOW MUCH MONEY HAS THE BCSC SPENT ON THE U-GO BRANDS PROSECUTION?

HOW CAN A GOVERNMENT AGENCY REFUSE TO COMMUNICATE WITH US AFTER IMPOSING OVER $3,000.000 IN FINES WHEN NO FRAUD WAS COMMITTED BY U-GO BRANDS DIRECTORS?

 

Thursday, March 10, 2016

BCSC Investor Impact Statement Forms

On 23/10/2014 8:00 PM, Peter D. Harris - Echo Partner Ltd. wrote:

Mr. Terrance,

Can you explain as to why Ms. Donders has been sending out BCSC Investor Impact Statement Forms to our U-Go Brands shareholders and the SPYru investors?

With all due respect Sir, a Victim Impact Statement is used to provide the victims of fraud once a conviction has been made that allows them to document losses for possible restitution. 

The Victim Impact Statement is provided to the victim by the plaintiff of the criminal fraud case, which is usually a governing authority.

Mr. Terrance, we respectfully request that Ms. Donders send us all of the BCSC Investor Impact Statements she received by no later than this coming Monday October 27, 2014.

Sincerely,
Peter Harris

BY HOOK OR BY CROOK, THE BC SECURITIES COMMISSION WILL BE PROSECUTED FOR ITS CRIMES..

 

Monday, March 7, 2016

DO YOU THINK THE BC SECURITIES IS TRYING 

TO SWASH U-GO BRANDS WITH ALL THE BELOW ALLEGATION?

Monday, March 07, 2016

British Columbia Securities Commission
Brenda M. Leong, Chair and CEO
701 West Georgia Street
P.O. Box 10142, Pacific Centre
Vancouver, BC V7Y 1L2

Dear Ms. Leong,

I am not sure if my earlier emails to you didn't reach you or you just haven't had time to answer yet, but I do need to hear from you, I can appreciate, you have inherited a nightmare that was created by some Commission employees and now you have no choice but to deal with this catastrophic event.

As a matter of fact, why is Ms. Teresa Mitchell-Banks no longer with the Commission? Ms. Banks certainly was the main contributing factor as to why we feel that we have been railroaded and we do not trust the Commission as a result.

Just for the record I have extracted “The Employee Core Attributes” from the BCSC Website:

BCSC Employee Core Attributes
Our performance management system rewards the following four behaviours we believe employees must demonstrate for the organization to be effective:

• Drive for results - seek efficient and effective outcomes and accept responsibility
• Effective communication - communicate professionally and clearly
• Teamwork and cooperation - be cooperative but independent
• Problem solving - think critically

Unfortunately, none of the above “Employee Core Attributes” where ever bestowed to U-GO Brands, the investigators had U-GO Brands and its Directors guilty from the moment I contacted William Ting in June 2013. This goes without mentioning that the Commission employees violated our Civil Rights.

Now that we know the RCMP and the local Kelowna Crown will not proceed against the Commission and its staff as the local Crown has determined that our differences with the Commission are civil and subsequently, no criminal charges will be laid.

This comes as to no surprise as we are very aware that the RCMP and the BC Courts can be and are heavily influenced by Independent Government Agencies such as the BC Securities Commission. However, it does not alter the fact that U-GO Brands has solid evidence that proves without a doubt, that the Commission employees are responsible for committing criminal and civil offenses against U-GO Brands and its Directors.

We are considering the route of “Private Prosecution” as per Canadian Law:

Canada is a federation and therefore has both federal and provincial offences which can be privately prosecuted. Federally, there are Criminal and statutory offences, and provincially there are provincial and municipal.

The seditious conspirators in the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 were tried by state-funded private prosecutors. The funds were disbursed from the War Appropriation Act and are evidenced in the Auditor-General's reports of 1921 and 1922.

A committee chaired by Mr. Justice Allen Linden of the Law Reform Commission of Canada produced a Working Paper on Private Prosecutions in 1986. UBC Law Professor (and later Dean) Peter T. Burns wrote a paper in 1975 for the McGill Law Journal entitled "Private Prosecutions in Canada: The Law and a Proposal for Change"; he was later the Principal Consultant for the Law Reform Commission. Swaigen, Koehl and Hatt in 2013 summarised efforts to prosecute privately torts in the environmental domain.

Criminal offence procedure for private charges

Very basically, a citizen or organisation approaches a justice of the peace to present evidence on each element of the alleged offence. The justice then sets up a hearing with a Judge to determine whether there is evidence on each element of the offence, and if approved, and if the Crown does not intervene and terminate the charge, called Staying the charge, then it is allowed to proceed to and go through court via the criminal procedure.

Provincial offence procedure for private prosecution

Each province in Canada deals with private prosecutions of provincial offences in their own way. Below is a list of the various provinces and how private prosecutions are dealt with in them.

Ms. Leong, we need to resolve this situation, your silence does not negate the fact that the Commission has a major problem on its hands and we will not make it go away.

We are aware of the corruption within the BC Government and we know that a lot of the Commission’s victims have just given up rather than standing up for their civil rights. I refer you to the below website that certainly makes one wonder about the people that are here to protect the citizens:

The WaterWarCrimes Have Been Called Canada's Greatest Scandal http://www.waterwarcrimes.com/

Ms. Leong, let me make it very clear, we are not interested in a long political battle with the Commission, however, if this becomes the only option, I assure you we will carry on with vigour.

We are willing to work hand-in-hand with you in the strictest confidence to indemnify that the surveillance evidence we have can be conditionally turned over to you personally. Remember, the surveillance activates victimized Christopher Burks father, mother, sister and several brothers, these individuals are victims of criminal harassment.

·      Mr. Leong, just think, if this was happening to your parents or your best friend, how would you feel about the way they are being treated by the Commission?

·      Whatever your opinion is about us Ms. Leong, do you not think we are owed some courtesy and respect?

·      Or, are your actions founded on instructions from legal counsel?

·      If this is the case, let us communicate with your legal representative.

Ms. Leong, I refer to a section of your November 6, 2014, speech to the FCAC Conference in Vancouver.

Open Quote

We see investment fraud close up. Through national research, we have also looked closely at how it impacts victims, their families, and whole communities. And I can tell you that those impacts are as devastating as for violent crime. People who have lost their money in an investment fraud may lose their health, their trust in themselves and their community, and very often their closest relationships. Investment fraud destroys marriages, can lead to depression and, in the very saddest cases, even suicide.

Close Quote

I’m not sure if you realise or are aware that all of the U-GO Brands Directors have experienced some of the above life difficulties you mentioned in your speech. It is mental cruelty the way we are being processed by the Commission, a murderer has more rights than we do.

It is immoral and just not right what is happening and in your heart you know it, but you have a job to do and that is protect the Commission. However, this does not mean you cannot take action, it all depends on how mush you are influenced by the hidden puppet masters, or are you your own person?

By the way, with all due respect to you, I am going to hold back from posting this letter on our Blog pending your timely reply no later than Monday March 7, 2015 your office close.

Respectfully,
PETER HARRIS

U-GO BRANDS WAS TRANSPARENT WITH THE INVESTIGATORS FROM DAY ONE

THERE CANNOT BE ANY SETTLEMENT UNTIL ALL RESPONDENTS, HAVE ADMITTED ALL THE ALLEGATIONS

APPEAL FOR SETTLEMENT BASED ON HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS PURSUANT TO MANAGEMENT HEARING - OCTOBER 31, 2014

 

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

U-GO BRANDS WAS TRANSPARENT WITH 

THE INVESTIGATORS FROM DAY ONE

DECLARATION OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES

Wednesday, June-12-13

Subject: BCSC Inquiry Log: 38849 * June 2013

PARADOX DISTRIBUTOR (1992) LTD.
Lorne Cire Cire and Peter Harris D. Harris
Kelowna, BC

SPYru Inc.
 Mark Klaus Glusing – Past Chair & CEO (Decease October 2011)
 Klaus Gunther Glusing – Present Chair & CEO (Decease November 2013)
Both residents of Providenciales, Turks & Caicos Islands (TCI)

PERSONAL OBJECTIVE
Peter Harris D. Harris and Lorne Cire Cire
 To salvage three years of hard work and protect our Canadian investors
 Our goal is to set-up a Canadian Incorporation and assign our SPYru shareholders New Canadian Share Certificates

To Meet Canadian Business Legal Standards and Requirements
We must report to the following Canadian Agencies especially the BC Security Commission as to our corporate activities in the Turks and Caicos Islands since March 2010 and our request to assign new shares to our investors.
 Alberta Securities Commission
 British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC)
 British Columbia Taxation Office
 Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)
 Ontario Securities Commission
 Saskatchewan Securities Commission
 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
 German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority

PROVINCIAL SECURITIES COMMISSIONS
As of May 2013, we’ve stop signing-up new investors pending the BCSC. We did contacted PORTER RAMSAY LAWYERS of Kelowna, for legal advice in regards to our position towards the BC Security Commission, they did state PARADOX violated some Securities guide lines. We’re still in the process of seeking an American law firm to deal with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

CORPORATE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
 We toke Mark’s idea from just an action plan and created, developed and sold some 80,000 SPYru bottles in Canada and the United States
 Kelowna signed some 450 private investors (Canada and the USA)

GENERAL OVERVIEW and HISTORY
First Approach by Klaus Glusing

In late 2009 Klaus Glusing approached Peter Harris to form a new shipping line operating out of Quebec City to Amsterdam, the company was called ICON SHIPPING and our task was to raise $2M to cover the start-up expenses for the ship charters, container leasing and so on.

Since Peter Harris worked with Lorne Cire at PARADOX as an independent, Peter Harris recruited Lorne Cire to raise investment funds for ICON SHIPPING.

For six month Peter Harris & Lorne Cire contacted Canadian and American corporate executives, professional team owners to promote ICON SHIPPING with no success in raising any capital.

Personal Relationships and Working History
Kelowna's decision to work with Klaus was based on Peter Harris’s 17 years of working on and off with Klaus back in the 70’s at CAST LINES in Montreal and over the years Klaus became Peter Harris’s mentor and we had no reason not to trust Klaus.

Lorne Cire and Peter Harris have been best friends for the last 20 years and have been working on and off together for the last 15 years.

Second Approach by Klaus Glusing

By late 2010, Klaus asked if PARADOX would be willing to help his son Mark muster-up investors for his new venture called “SPYru Uberwater”, the nature of this business is to create and produce a water base drink infused with “Spirulina”. According to Mark he only needed $175,000.00 to get SPYru up and running, this was only going to be a short term assignment. Over time after Mark’s passing in October 2011, red flags started popping up and as a result from October 2012, Kelowna recognizing Klaus had a hidden agenda and this was to constantly badger Kelowna to sign-up new investors and not focus on the commercial development of SPYru and its success.

PARADOX/SPYRU - Money Transfers to Mark Glusing
Since this was going to be a short-term assignment and Kelowna had no intentions of being involved with SPYru on a full time basis, Klaus suggested Kelowna use Western Union and MoneyGram to transfer investor funds to Mark for the SPYru venture.

PARADOX/SPYRU – Bank Transfers to Klaus Glusing
Having no success with the ICON SHIPPING campaign, it was decided by all parties to focus our attention on developing SPYru. Base on this decision at first all investment funds collected by Kelowna were deposited in Lorne Cire’s personal bank account and forwarded on to SPYru.

Both Lorne Cire and Peter Harris approach Klaus insisting SPYru be transferred from Providencials, TCI and set-up in Canada or the United States and the transferring of cash money had to stop. In addition Kelowna insisted that all accounting duties be transferred to Kelowna, our request was belligerently rejected by Klaus.

In the meantime Lorne Cire switched the banking from his personal account to the PARADOX business account, pending our approaching corporate attorneys to investigate our legal position in Canada versus the Turks and Caicos. Our objective is to salvage our work to date on this project and protect our loyal investors.

It became noticeable Klaus had no intention to get SPYru Uberwater to market, Kelowna realised this when it was confirmed to Kelowna by major retailers they would not carry SPYru Uberwater due to the chemicals it contained.

Mark and Klaus were aware of this from the very start and never past on this information. Thus, Kelowna came to the conclusion the Glusing’s were only interested in razing cash for their personal benefit.

CONFRONTING KLAUS GLUSING 

FOR MISS-MANAGEMENT OF SPYRU IN.

Board Meeting – October 2012
Both Lorne Cire and Peter Harris traveled to Providencials to express our dissatisfaction on how the company was being run by Klaus, we confronted Klaus with the following questions:

Q. We want to see the company minutes registered in Providencials, TCI?
A. No need for you to see the company minutes, I sent you the Director confirmation.

Q. How many shares does SPYru Inc. have in total?
A. No need for you to be concerned, just keep the investors coming and we’ll make it.

Q. How many shares do you have now since Mark’s passing?
A. It’s none of your business, let’s move on.

Q. What happens to SPYru if you die?
A. A lawyer will be appointed by the court

Q. Do you not have a lawyer to take care of business?
A. No, I don’t need one.

Q. How do we protect our investors since SPYru is an off-shore company?
A. Don’t worry about it, I’ve been running off-shore companies for years, they are protected.

Q. If the investors are protected, can you explain why we cannot transfer SPYru to Canada or the USA to insure regulations are adhered to?
A. As you know I’ve been researching the possibilities with an Atlanta law firm to possibly setting up SPYru in the USA. I certainly do not want to incorporate in Canada for tax reasons.

Q. We asked why SPYru is not supplying PARADOX with monthly expenditure reports and bank statements from the funds PARADOX is sending to SPYru/Klaus Glusing.
A. You don’t need to worry about that, besides I’m taking care of the books. In the TCI’s we don’t have to submit a financial report to Canada since we’re a private company and off-shore.

Total Funds Not Accounted for: $805,515.13
 Mark Glusing: $213,759.99
 Klaus Glusing: $591,755.13

We have no plans to pursue Klaus for these funds, our only resolve is to insure investor protection and security. Action taken to transfer Shareholder Base from Providencials, TCI to Kelowna, BC

Effective March 2013 PARADOX DIST. terminated its business agreement with SPYru Inc. and Klaus Glusing.

Our principal objective is to protect our investor base from losing their private investment and taking into consideration Klaus refusing to provide PARADOX with monthly financial statements of all funds transferred from Kelowna to Providencials, TCI.

Through our corporate attorneys, FARRIS LLP, Kelowna, BC and through Mr. Kevin Kingston we now have a BC Corporation listed as: ECHO PARTNERS LTD. We have instructed Mr. Kingston not to assign new ECHO PARTNERS and or U-GO BRANDS share certificates pending BC Securities approval.

ECHO PARTNERS LTD. – Profile

Nature of Business

 A funding company dedicated in the development of all natural products with dynamic health and environmental sustainability.

 Our mandate is distribute proprietary products and their trademarks under our subsidiary U-GO 

Shareholder Base - Profile

With the exception of about five investors, from March 2010 to present, PARADOX signed “Four Hundred and Fifty Four” (454) SPYru Investors. A great deal of our shareholder base consists of the Cire Family and friends. The other two major contributors to our shareholder base are, Michael Kwasnek and John Thibert, as a result we have a substantial amount of Medical Doctors as shareholders. John Thibert is a retired Optometrist from Ottawa and is very well known in the Okanagan Valley, Mr. Thibert has brought a substantial amount of local business men to our investor base.

We only sold shares to friends, family and business associates. We never promoted or solicited the general public, all investors came referred.

RECENT ACTION TAKEN BY KLAUS GLUSING SINCE 

THE MARCH 2013 TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT

Ever since the termination of our agreement with SPYru, Klaus has been virtually canvasing via e-mail messages and by phone some SPYru shareholders for more investment funds and criticizing Paradox, no one in Canada has responded to Klaus.

For your reference, the above mention e-mail messages can found in the “Klaus Glusing Corresponded in this folder.

In addition Klaus contacted Dr. Michael Kwasnek, John Thibert to offer them a position in SPYru selling shares in Canada, both have not responded to Klaus.

Present SPYru Inc., Canadian Agent, Representing Klaus Glusing

Dan London

SUNRISE SOLUTIONS INC.

Tel. 604.818.8162

Fax. 604.385.2042

E-mail: dan@sunrisesolutions.bc.ca

Website: www.sunrisesolutions.bc.ca

CONCLUSION

We do understand ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

However, in our defence if Mr. DeGroote, one of Canada’s leading business man and philanthropist can be taken by Klaus Glusing, just imaging? We never stood a chance…

Peter Harris

THE BCSC STATED THAT PETER HARRIS NEVER COOPERATED OR SHOW ANY RESPECT TOWARDS THE COMMISSION..

THE BCSC STATED THAT PETER HARRIS NEVER COOPERATED

OR SHOW ANY RESPECT TOWARDS THE COMMISSION

DOES THE BELOW WRITING FROM HARRIS

APPEAR TO BE DISRESPECTFUL?

Friday, March 07, 2014
BRITISH COLUMBIA SECURITIES COMMISSION
Teresa R. Mitchell-Banks QC - BCSC

Subject: Your letter dated January 30, 2014 - Summary of our e-mail exchange

Dear Ms. Banks,

I hope you had a pleasant vacation.

In reference to your letter I’m compelled to address your deceptive comments and allegations. For your convenience I’ve attached your letter our exhibit SP-018 for your convenience and reference.

Page one, paragraph two, line 1 to 3
Glusing Investigation

You indicate the commission has investigated the Glusings thoroughly. We know this not to be true. First, the only research the commission did was to retrieve from the TCI Gazette website the probate notice for Mark Glusing, your exhibit 03.

If you refer to our exhibit SP-005, pages 7 to 9, it clearly illustrates the commission never did verify and confirm our allegations about fraud perpetrated by the Glusings. We did confirm to the commission we retained Harbor Investigations of Vancouver and they provide us with the following lawsuits filed against Klaus Glusing in Bermuda Supreme Court, the plaintiff was MICHAEL G. DEGROOTE is a Canadian businessman and philanthropist from Hamilton, Ontario and he sued Glusing for $872,602.00. The next lawsuit was file by Mr. Andrew. 

Outerbridge, the co-plaintiff,
The Butterfield Bank of Bermuda, they sued for $2.3M.
The last lawsuit we filed by CAST (1983) LTD. for $903,000.00.
All of the above lawsuits are based on misappropriation of funds.

What we find misleading on the part of the commission, is if you refer to our exhibit SP-019, your message dated February 6, 2014, you state, since Klaus Glusings has past way and that the commission has no authority or jurisdiction in the BWI, how can you say the commission investigated the Glusings? Moreover, your message revealed that the commission cannot help the SPYru Investors. Why where we not told of this fact in June 2013?

Page one, paragraph two, Line 4 to 5

Glusing Investigation is closed

We cannot apprehend why the commission would say the investigation can move no further since the Glusings are now deceased? This is not a valid justification on the part of the commission, your investigations are based on DOCUMENTATION, paper trails and it’s apparent the commission has failed in acting fairly and in an impartial manner pertaining to the Glusings.

Page one, paragraph two, Line 6 to 8

Knowledge of Klaus Glusing’s death

You declared the commission only found out January 23, 2014 about Klaus Glusing passing away. I find it hard to believe the statement made in your letter, when we notified Farris Law October 29, 2013, please refer to our exhibit SP-020.

Page one, paragraph two, Line 9 and 10

Klaus Glusing TCI bank account

We passed along information to the commission that Klaus Glusing only had $300.00 in his bank account when he died, even so this information is only hearsay from our contacts on the island. I would guess to say the commission has no idea as to what bank Klaus Glusing was dealing with.

Page one, paragraph two, Line 12 and 14

Assessment of our Fraud complaint against the Glusings

It’s difficult to comprehend the commission stating that our complaint and allegations against the Glusings is absent of new and meaningful evidence. This is totally incorrect, we sent the commission internal messages between Lorne Cire, myself and the Glusings that clearly shows the Glusing ran and were in control of the company, and in fact we were not even officers of SPYru Inc. We refer again to our exhibit SP-005.

Page two, line 1 and 2

You remark my obligation to appear under Summons

We find the statements made in your message to be misleading, deceptive and untruthful. In the message you say and I quote: You are legally compelled to attend and give evidence under oath. My question is, why would I agree to give evidence against myself? In a court of law, my defense attorney would strongly advise me not to testify on the stand.

Page two, line 2 and 3

Assessment of our complaint to the commission

You announce that after your investigation of our complaint against the commission not willing to meet with us face to face, you have come to the conclusion our complaint is non-warranted. With all due respect, how can the commission permit an involved investigator in our complaint to review our grievances? This is undoubtedly a conflict of interest, not to mention the legitimacy of the internal review.

Page two, line 4 to 5

If you do not comply and Contempt of Court

In reference to your filing a Petition in Supreme Court for Contempt of Court is again miss-leading and not truthful. You know very well no Judge will sign a Contempt of Court order against us, when the commission clearly stated we are not obligated to attend.

Please refer to our exhibit, SP-021, you confirms that our presence at the hearing is not mandatory. Do you not think this is a complete contradiction of statements and is untruthful?

As we have cited before, it’s deplorable the commission’s unwillingness to work with us. However, we will fight for what is right and we will protect our investors.

Peter Harris