Month: December 2016

When reading this simple email to Staff Litigator Legatt, it becomes apparent the frustration the Respondent was feeling for the process at the BCSC.    Facts are, they were forcing us into a corner buy telling us to put our Settlement Offer on paper and then would not even take it to the only person that could make the decision.   The process appears to be a game – a game that is so rigged against the Respondents (and the former investors) that it is impossible to make headway.

The email sent to Legatt on January 16, 2014 pleaded with her to at least point the Respondent in the right direction to having the hearing avoided and having the investors participate in the real estate project.   Time was running out and I was not able to wait another 7 weeks (as was the case in the last email correspondence).    We eagerly awaited another response from her…

[Click on Link…]

January 16, 2014 – RESPONDENT to LEGGAT

In November 2007, the Developer of the Falls Resort approached me and asked if I knew of anyone that might purchase a unit in the Deercrest Townhomes, located on the property.    He had Unit 101 that was available for sale and the Respondents indicated they would ask around.   I called one of the investors in Edmonton and asked if he wanted to buy and he indicated he would.

Shortly there later, a commission cheque in the amount of $24,292.75 arrived made payable to West Karma Ltd.    I placed the cheque into the WKL bank account and NEVER wrote a cheque to myself personally.   Looking at the bank account statements for WKL for the following 10 days, $20571.61 was spent directly on business expenses for WKL and FCC and $5,801.49 was used for personal expenses.

THESE WERE NOT INVESTOR FUNDS YET PAID FOR BUSINESS RELATED DIRECTLY TO THE WKL AND FCC.

That’s fine – people place funds into their business accounts on a regular basis as shareholder loans.     IF the BCSC’s Executive Director (and his Staff) wanted to bring accurate allegations in their Notice of Hearing they needed to complete a proper accounting and bring in a proper number into the allegation….but let’s see what Lead Investigator Elizabeth Chan had to say during the cross examination during our hearing in April 2014:

Q Can we put up, pull up Exhibit 00240? Can you please read this letter for the panel?

A Just the body of the letter, like, —

Q Just —

A — after the “re” line?

Q Just lead the letter please, from who it’s addressed to, and who it’s from and the body of the letter, sure, please.

A Okay. So, I don’t think this is a document that I obtained. Uhm, it says:

West Karma Ltd., BC
Dear Sirs/Mesdames:
Re: Sales of 101-51096 Falls Court, Chilliwack, BC (the “Property”) by Blackburn
Developments Ltd. (the “Seller”) to -REDACTED-  (the “Buyers”) effective November 23, 2007 (the”Completion Date”). As notary for the seller, we enclose our firm trust cheque drawn in your favour, in the amount of $24,292.75 representing payment in full for the Commission with respect to the above transaction. Please provide our office with a receipt for payment at your earliest convenience. We trust you find the foregoing and enclosed to be in order, however, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the writer or Shirley MacKillop of this office.
Yours truly, Simpson & Simpson. And the name there says, “R. Dean Simpson” and the letter, the date, November 23, 2007.

Q Thank you. And have you ever seen this document before?

A Uhm, I didn’t obtain this document during the course of my investigation, but I did see it in the binder of materials of materials contained in documents that you were intending to rely on.

Q That’s the first time you saw it though?

A Yes.
Source: Hearing Transcript, April 11, 2014 (pages 23-25)

This is the testimony of Staff’s most important witness – a Certified General Accountant with a degree from the University of British Columbia in Bachelor of Commerce?    That she never saw items going into the bank account that were relevant IF they wanted to bring an accurate number into the hearing room.   Elizabeth Chan is a highly paid Senior Investigator with the BCSC – it is HER job to find out the numbers used in the Notice of Hearing are accurate!   There is NO excuse for the sloppy work Staff completed in this matter!

How is this even possible is the onus was on the Executive Director to bring in clear and compelling evidence to prove the allegations in the Notice of Hearing?   Was the Respondents not entitled to a fair hearing with accurate numbers as the BCSC boasts on their website?

Spineless BCSC Litigator Olubode Fagbamiye continues to prove he is one of the biggest cowards working at the British Columbia Securities Commission as he repeatedly refuses to respond to our questions regarding his very unprofessional conduct while working on our matter…..

My goodness Mr Fagbamiye – on what planet do you think your actions are OK?   How can you repeatedly hide behind those walls in your office?    Do you not have any desire whatsoever to stand behind the work you completed on behalf of your employer?   How can you possibly feel good about yourself when you think of your actions – both back in 2014 and today?

Never was it my intention but searching  your name (on the internet) now leads directly to negative results from this blog – are you not ashamed of being called a coward in public?  Your family must be so proud of you!

Only you can stop this – pull your head out of the sand and answer me!   What are you hiding?

A while ago, we posted a challenge to Brenda Leong and the Staff at the BCSC – but they refused to accept the challenge and instead hid like cowards in their big fancy office building!  

As 2017 quickly approaches, we again place the same challenge on their lap in an attempt to FINALLY get answers to our questions.   Maybe this time they will find the courage to answer very simple questions regarding our matter – or in turn sue us for defamation/libel in an attempt to silence what we call “the truth”…

TO:  ALL STAFF AT THE BCSC

On May 18, 2016, and every day since that we have written on this blog, we have challenged you to answer simple questions regarding the matter we had before the BCSC.   To date, NOT one of you have bothered to reply, or even defend our allegations against the BCSC Staff.   For that, one could say you are very spineless and act without merit and we think you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

The BCSC appears to have two sets of rules and will only reply to something that supports their set agenda.   In addition, it appears they have the newspaper reporters in their pockets because not one of the slimy writers will write a story against the “government machine” in fear of wrinkling the wrong feathers.  They had NO problem reporting on day 1 of our hearing when the case was presented by the BCSC, reported a very biased one-sided story and did not cover the balance of the hearing when we presented our case and had 94% of the allegations (dollar amount) thrown out by the Panel.   

To ANYONE who doubts what is being said in this blog and that we are not telling the truth, we say this….

“Why isn’t one of the most powerful government agencies in BC, with unlimited funds to fight legal battles, suing us for defamation?  After sending out letters from your lawyer to Peter Harris and Christopher Burke – Why are you not suing them for defamation after threatening to do so?”    

In our opinion, there are 2 reasons for them cowering up and putting their heads in the sand:

1.  They are not able to sue for Libel/Defamation because we are not saying anything that is not true.  Our blog posts contain facts and have not exaggerated the events or allegations made against their Staff.  We have merely presented questions to the grossly incompetent BCSC Chair Brenda Leong and the person who appointed her, Premier Christy Clark.  Neither of these women will respond to our repeated request.  Items like BCSC staff manipulating evidence, not presenting the settlement offer, and the BCSC staff bringing assumptions into the hearing room ARE factually correct.  The have no reply because they have NO defense.     

2. Secondly, they do not want to argue against us, offer us another hearing, or answer our simple questions because they know the moment they do – they will be incriminating themselves and going down a road they definitely do not want to take.   THEY DO NOT WANT THE TRUTH TO COME OUT IN A REAL COURTROOM.   It would appear they don’t want to step outside their domain and have a real judge (outside of their precious Kangaroo Court) telling the world what is happening within their walls.  They will not answer Former Investors questions as to why they did not accept the Settlement Offer because they know the former investors will NOT like their answers and more than likely sue them for acting in bad faith.  And don’t forget (as posted earlier in this blog), we applied, through a Freedom of Information request, all correspondence from staff litigators to/from the Executive Director with respect to the Settlement Offer.    There was NOTHING – these bozo’s (Staff Litigators Olubode Fagbamiye / C. Paige Leggat and Executive Director Paul Bourque) didn’t even have a discussion with one another regarding the investors opportunity to recoup some (if not all) of their funds!   Incompetent!   

Now, we will issue you three FORMAL CHALLENGES:

CHALLENGE #1:   WE CHALLENGE YOU TO HAVE YOUR FLASHY LAWYERS  SEND US A LETTER DEMANDING WE SHUT DOWN OUR BLOG FOR BEING INACCURATE AND/OR SLANDEROUS;  

CHALLENGE #2:   WE CHALLENGE YOU TO SUE US FOR DEFAMATION/LIBEL IF FOR ONE MOMENT OUR ALLEGATION OF BCSC STAFF ACTING IN BAD FAITH (WHEN MANIPULATING EVIDENCE IN THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST US) IS NOT TRUE;

CHALLENGE #3:   FINALLY, WE CHALLENGE YOU TO FORMALLY ADDRESS THE SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL (AS OUTLINED EARLIER IN THIS BLOG) THAT THE FCC AND DCF INVESTORS WOULD HAVE BENEFITED FROM. 

IF YOU IGNORE US OR DO NOT HAVE YOUR COUNCIL COMMENCE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST US IN THE NEXT 14 DAYS – WE WILL ASSUME THE ALLEGATIONS WE HAVE MADE AGAINST YOU TO BE VALID AND TO BE NON-CONTESTED.  WE WILL PUBLISH YOUR RESPONSE (OR LACK OF) IN THIS BLOG 15 DAYS FROM NOW.  

 We are begging for you to finally act – it has NOW been 223 days (and counting) since my blog started and you have all had your head in the sand.   It his time people hear the truth.   We want to go to court against you so we can start the process of people hearing the truth consisting a facts and not some slanderous, biased press release issued by your incompetent staff, followed up by being rail-roaded by your inept lawyers in the hearing itself, and then having employees that work in the same office as the litigators making a decision as some “independent” panel.    Don’t forget, we have have a witness  (brought in to testify FOR the BCSC) agreeing with our side; and the Panel still found that Staff proved this allegation.   It is easy to conclude you people are all incompetent.

This is a telling time – the people are waking up and standing up to government agencies all over the World – specifically ones that appear to be corrupt!    The BCSC is an agency that desperately needs an overhaul.  It (like many of the agencies Clark’s government has touched) appears to be tainted.

Eagerly awaiting your reply Brenda!   Time for you to wake up…or time for the people of this Province to have you immediately replaced by a competent business executive.

The Respondents sent their time-sensitive Settlement proposal to Staff on November 7, 2013.   Finally after 7 weeks of waiting the Respondents were very eager to receive the reply from the Litigator at the BCSC.     As the attachment was opened, eagerness turned to frustration as Staff indicated they did not even take the Settlement Agreement to the Executive Director for approval (or even a review/negotiation).  The reason the offer was time sensitive is the builder and lender were anxious to move the project forward in a timely fashion.   There was NO reason ever given why Staff took this amount of time to reply.

Instead Staff indicated the only way they would take a Settlement Offer to the Executive Director is IF pleaded guilty to their long list of allegations and agreed to pay $5.8 million dollars in fines and disgorgement.

The BCSC website indicates all Settlements must be paid in full at the time the Settlement Agreement is agreed to – this was impossible for the Respondents, let alone the FACT that many of the allegations in the Notice of Hearing were NOT accurate.

ON WHAT PLANET DOES A PERSON HAVE TO PLEAD GUILTY TO ALL ALLEGATIONS OUTLINED IN A NOTICE OF HEARING AND THEN PAY A “RANSOM” OF NEARLY $6 MILLION DOLLARS JUST TO GET THEIR SETTLEMENT OFFER NEGOTIATED?   THIS IS BORDERLINE EXTORTION!

The parties could have avoided a long, lengthy, expensive hearing IF Staff Litigators and the Executive Director would have even looked at the proposal and actually thought about the investors.   In hindsight, it appears that the BCSC did not have the investors best interest at stake as their website promotes – nor was it a fair system for all parties.  Please read for yourself, the reply from Staff and ask “WHY DID THE BCSC NOT TAKE THE TIME TO EVEN REVIEW THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHEN SO MUCH WAS AT STAKE FOR THE INVESTORS?”   

We encourage anyone affected by the Settlement Offer not even being put onto the Executive Directors desk for a review to contact the BCSC at 1-604-899-5600 during regular business hours.  Maybe you can get an answer – the Respondents have certainly not been able to do so.

As most of you saw, on December 5, 2016 we called BCSC litigator Olubode Fagbamiye in his office and asked a series of very simple questions.    And unfortunately, many of you that have been waiting for months for these questions to be answered were extremely disappointed when Fagbamiye literally walked away from the phone’s receiver without utterly barely a word.

Before he turned coward, he did ask me to put my thoughts down on paper and that he would reply via written correspondence.    We wrote him the following letter, and too date, have not heard a peep from this sorry excuse for a lawyer…

letter-to-olubode-fagbamiye-december-7-2016

One of the problems we have with this whole matter is that IF I was a lawyer and was contacting the Commission with questions, comments, or concerns they would reply almost immediately.   In that we are self-represented somehow the Commission feels they don’t need to respond?   The BCSC has known for months (and even years) that we are self-represented – they should be MANDATED to respond considering what is at stake for the investors in our case – and in many others.

Mr Fagbamiye, we can see you view our blog on a regular basis and we know you are reading this!   Why are you such a coward?  What are you hiding?  And why have you not protected the investors (by at least forwarding on the Settlement Offer that may have helped the investors) to the Executive Director for his review?    

You should be extremely ashamed of your actions!   People are starting to see what really happened and are going to demand answers from you – time for you to get you head out of the sand….

On October 18, 2016, we sent a Freedom of Information (“FOI”) request to the BCSC in an attempt to determine the employment status of the former BCSC Investigator Elizabeth “Liz” Chan (“Chan”).   You can see in a previous post in this blog, we were uncertain of her employment status at that time.

We have since determined that Ms Chan left the BCSC in April 2014 and went to work at the offices of the Chartered Professional Accountants of BC.    She left there in August of 2015 and her currently employment status is unknown.

As you can see above, the FOI request asked a VERY simple question – whether Chan still worked at the commission, and if she did not, we asked when her employment ended.   That’s it!

We waited the standard 30 business days for a reply from the FOI division at the BCSC – on November 29, 2016, we we received the following email from a Mr. Alan Keats (Associate General Counsel at the BCSC).   As you can see it appears Mr. Keats wants to kick the can down the road a little further before he will answer simple questions that does not endanger the third party – the flunky investigator Ms Elizabeth Chan. 

Another 30 days before they will answer something as simple as to whether an employee still works at the Commission?  Really?   My goodness, these people can’t be for real.  Talk about lawyers really putting in extra billing justify their wages.     As you can see by our response – we are on to Mr Keats game and have called him out in no uncertain terms.

Just in recent weeks we have the following:

BCSC Chair Brenda Leong – will not respond to emails and request for information.

BCSC Litigator Olubode Fagbamiye – will not respond to questions over the phone.  Said to send written correspondence.

BCSC Associate General Counsel Alan Keats – will not answer simple FOI request in a timely fashion.

Does anyone see a pattern here?   It appears to many that the BCSC (and their staff) are hiding from any confrontation that will see any bit of truth come to fruition.   They don’t want you to know the truth – as one would think MANY of them would be standing in the unemployment line.

We are not going anywhere – the numbers are up on our blog as we now have 100’s of people per day viewing our blog.   We have former investors that have contacted the BCSC and have received comments back from Staff.  Once again, we see a failure in ANY questions being answered with regards to events at the Commission that have contributed in many investors losing an opportunity to recoup some of their investment back.

In an unbelievable article recently published in the Lethbridge Herald, less than 4% of Canadian men and women are properly registered to sell securities in Canada.   The Small Investor Protection Association (“SIPA”) claimed that an astonishing “96 per cent of Canada’s ‘financial advisors’ are evading provision of the their province’s securities legislation.   They’re not registered as financial ‘advisers’ offering impartial advice in their clients’ best interest.” 

The numbers are staggering – the article adds, “With nearly 122,000 Canadian men and women registered to sell securities, the consumers’ organization says just 4,076 were legally registered (by September) as an “advising representative” or an “adviser.” That “e” is the legal distinction.    All the rest are simply sales “advisors,” the report says. They’re paid to sell the financial products their employer prefers.”

And it seems is doesn’t matter what province in Canada you are located.   Nationwide, the report points out, “Seven out of 10 Canadians believe they are working with a financial expert with a legal obligation to look out for their best interests, but many are wrong, and the organization warns it can cost some Canadians half their life savings.”

“They can profit from the greater rewards of selling you substandard or higher-fee investments because they are salespersons, not professional advice givers with the agency duty and legal obligation to look out for your best interests.”

Also taken from the article, Lethbridge resident Larry Elford, who retired from the investment industry so he could warn the public about its practices, says “no Lethbridge-area investment agents are registered as “advisers.”    He has checked in his home city (a city in Southern Alberta with a 2016 population of nearly 100,000 people) and concludes, “there are currently none in Lethbridge area who possess the registration required to call themselves an ‘Adviser’”.

That simple spelling variation, he says, allows them to “remain outside the jurisdiction of Alberta’s securities legislation.” What’s worse, he suggests, “neither the province’s securities officials nor the provincial government seem interested in increasing consumer protection for Albertans saving for their retirement. The Alberta Securities Commission is on record of ignoring this violation of Alberta law, in favour of paycheques as high as $700,000 to those at the top of this regulatory agency.”

But surely the Government agencies in place to protect the investors are stepping up to the plate to do something about this frightening situation?    According to Elford they are NOT – and they have not been for a very long time.   Again, talking purely of his experience in Alberta, he goes on to state, “And neither the New Democrats nor the Progressive Conservatives saw the need for change, I have spoken to Alberta finance ministers as far back as Shirley McClellan, right up to Joe Ceci of today’s government,”  He adds, “Each one has simply taken the stance of not wanting the public to be made aware of these violations of law, as well as violations of Albertan’s financial security.”

We have questioned this subject previously in this blog – they system is broken and until ELECTED politicians get rid of this double standard in the securities markets Canadians are at risk.    Only citizens of this incredible country are going to be able to change this because it appears the current regiments are NOT interest in protecting investors.

What an joke the Securities Agencies in this country have become – we have to start asking how these people can year after year allow Canadians to lose millions and millions of dollars.    Most of them boldly claim they are self-sufficient and don’t rely on tax payers for operational funding.  After collecting fees from transactions of thousands of unregistered financial planners of course they are not – why do they not have to play by the rules?

It is time to start following the money – these agencies are NOT interest in protecting the fine people of this country and it appears collecting fees (money) is placed far ahead in priority.    Shame on them!

Source:  Lethbridge Herald