Author: Rodbct

It looks like the definition of a CHICKEN SHIT COWARD continues to be the BCSC’s junior litigator Olubode Fagbamiye!   In repeated request for Fagbamiye to answer our questions, he continues to cower and hide from answering any of them (or even denying our allegations).    As you are aware, we sent him a formal letter on December 7, 2016 after our phone call to his office.  During the phone call on December 5, 2016 he specifically says to write the questions down and communicate via written correspondence.   Was he just saying that to get off the phone?  It now appears so!

According to our friends at http://bcsccriminalcharges.blogspot.ca , this would put Fagbamiye in breach of a “Statutory Requirement for a government department to reply to all written correspondence within 14 days…”.    If true, how does this continue to happen at the British Columbia Securities Commission?   How are they above the law?

Mr. Fagbamiye – how does it feel to look in the mirror and know that you are part of the issues that continue to haunt the BCSC?  How does it feel to be such a coward and fail miserably at your job?

Can someone working at the BCSC go down the hall way and make sure he is awake?   Perhaps he naps throughout his days and has issues with getting his job done?   Who knows?

This continues to get more and more ridiculous!  Wake up Fagbamiye!!

Staff at the Law Society of British Columbia have made it very clear they have no intention of assisting us in our plight to get answers from the Staff at the British Columbia Securities Commission.  They too, have decided to keep their heads in the sand and the fact they will not even investigate our complaint would lead us to believe they too are in on this massive cover-up!

In a recent letter sent to us – the Law Society acknowledge they have received our candid emails sent in December 2016 and the early part of January 2017 but indicate they would like to be removed from our email list.

This is most unfortunate considering they exist because of instances like this – they are there to make sure their lawyers act accordingly as defined in their Act and their Code of Professional Conduct.   One can easily see that they have a portion of their office that is there to investigate complaints regarding lawyers in the Province of BC.   We have a complaint and these people have elected to not do an investigation!   What a joke!

And to be clear, we formally complained about the actions of Staff in 2015 (specifically Staff manipulating the evidence in our case and why Staff did not take our Settlement Proposal to the Executive Director of the BCSC).  That was then – this is now!

Our latest letters focused on the fact that the BCSC’s Cracker Jack Lawyer (Olubode Fagbamiye) has not responded to our numerous letters demanding answers to our simple questions.    This is completely separate from our initial complaint but it appears some flunky named Lynne Knights of the Law Society of BC, is easily confused or she had not read the emails I sent to her.    And we can see that she has opened files in the past – a complaint of a non-practicing lawyer that killed a neighbors rabbits was opened by Knights in 2010.   I guess our complaint just doesn’t make the sniff test down at the Law Society these days – or the bozos at the Commission are immune from accusations of wrongdoing!  This whole system at the Law Society is broke and needs to be fixed!   And it should start with the immediate termination of the incompetent Lynne Knights!

The Law Society of BC’s website boldly states, “The legal profession takes seriously its commitment to maintain high ethical standards.”  but they will not investigate a complaint from a citizen concerned with the actions of one of their members?    This reeks of “protecting their own at any cost” or they are just another agency run by a bunch of misfits.

For any of the former investors in FCC or DCF that want to contact Ms. Knights directly to lodge a complaint about Mr. Fagbamiye, please do so at her email address:

lknights@lsbc.org

She can’t ignore all of us!

As recently reported by http://bcsecuritiescommissionasham.blogspot.ca  – it appears that the British Columbia Securities Commission (‘BCSC”) physically regulates corporations that they have physically invested into via their public sector pension and retirement operator (the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (“BCIMC”).

On the website operated by BCIMC it states, “With a global portfolio of more than $121.9 billion, bcIMC is one of Canada’s largest institutional investors within the capital markets. We invest on behalf of public sector clients in British Columbia. Our activities help finance the retirement benefits of more than 538,000 plan members, as well as the insurance and benefit funds that cover over 2.3 million workers in British Columbia.  Based in Victoria, British Columbia and supported by industry-leading expertise, we offer our public sector clients responsible investment options across a range of asset classes: fixed income; mortgages; public and private equity; real estate; infrastructure; and renewable resources. Our investments provide the returns that secure our clients’ future payments and obligations.”  

As you can see (below) in a portion of the BCSC’s 2015-2016 Annual Service Plan Report, we see that the BCSC holds just over $20.3 million in bcIMC investments.

In the section below – again taken directly from the BCSC’s 2015-2016 Annual Service Plan Report (and supposedly written by Brenda Leong) the writer outlines the BCSC mandate with respect to their investments.   One can immediately notice there is no disclosure that they regulate their own investments.  In the wording (underlined in red) we can see they indicate “Our investment policy allows us to buy units of the following bcIMC pooled funds….”  but again fail to acknowledge anything that can/and should be considered offside.

And in the underlined section above we see that in “their” opinion, their “investments do not expose the BCSC to significant credit or material market risk because we invest in liquid, high quality money market instruments, government securities, and investment-grade corporate debt securities.” 

IS THIS BECAUSE THEY REGULATE THEIR OWN INVESTMENTS AND THAT THEY WOULD NEVER SANCTION COMPANIES IN WHICH THEY HAVE INVESTED?

Turning our attention now back to the bcIMC website, we have found their end of March 2016 Investment Inventory List (Click on link).  At a simple glance, we see hundreds and hundreds of names of companies – some are well known and others many have never heard of.  There are literally companies from all over the world and some are located right here in British Columbia.

Here is where it gets interesting, there are names on this list that the BCSC has battled (or is currently battling) as it combats securities fraud, mis-representations, excess fee’s violations and other regulatory issues.

But that is all fine – I imagine there will be people that say, “Who cares, I am sure the IF one of these companies committed some sort of a securities crimes or had some sort of regulatory issue – I am sure the BCSC would conduct themselves in a professional manner…”

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the BCSC vs HSBC , known as 2016 BCSECCOM 185 – a matter that presented itself to the BCSC.  It seems that a division of HSBC had over-charged their own clients excess fees “Due to inadequate controls and supervision, it did not apply this policy consistently, which resulted in some clients paying extra fees.”   For their trouble, the Respondents (who’s head office is the Worlds’ 6th largest bank worth $2.4 TRILLION dollars) had to pay $300,000 CDN and costs of the investigation of $20,000.  And they had to pay just under $7.1 million of the fees the OVERCHARGED back to their clients. CASE DISMISSED!!

It is important to look at the timing of this matter – it was during a stretch of time AFTER former Executive Director Paul Bourque was fired or quit and BEFORE present BCSC Executive Director Peter Brady was put into the position.   You guessed it – BCSC Chair Brenda Leong approved this Settlement Agreement.

This definitely needs a closer look by a government watchdog organization!  Why is there no disclosure in the BCSC financial overview that the public reads that they in fact regulate companies in which they have investments into.

Bizarre days indeed at the BCSC!

SHAME ON YOU BCSC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PETER J. BRADY!

On March 8, 2017, one of the former investors in FCC emailed the British Columbia Securities Commission, pleading with them to answer questions pertaining to the Settlement Offer that was presented by the Respondents before the hearing in April 2014.  This was the same Settlement Offer that we discussed in our March 7, 2017 blog post .

    Peter J. Brady

SOURCE:  smallbusinessbc.ca

Despite our sending the BCSC our Declaration at 10:43 AM on the morning of March 8, 2017, Mr. Peter Brady has once again used the same old regurgitated bullshit response in his reply email to Mr. Schacher.   And lets be clear – Mr. Schacher received the reply AFTER we had sent our email to Staff at the Commission (including Mr. Brady) our permission to freely and openly discuss the Settlement Offer with the former investors.

Brady appears to be a two-time BCSC career guy that has bounced back and forth between his cushy government position and the private sector.    Brady makes well over $300,000 per year in his latest roll at the Commission and its time he starts earning that paycheck – ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS AND STOP PLAYING THESE BULLSHIT GAMES!   Case in point…

What are they hiding?  They won’t talk to me – they won’t talk to the former investors?   Who will they talk to?   Can one not conclude they are a bunch of overpaid, over-zealous cowards at this point?

The BCSC Staff cost the investors any opportunity to participate in the Deercrest project and WE want to know why they did this.    They should have maintained their corporate mandate and had the interest of the investors at heart – they should have at least ‘entertained’ the Settlement Offer and then chose to accept it or decline it.  Better yet – they SHOULD have told the investors about it and allowed them to accept or decline it!     WHY DID THEY NOT DO THIS?

We need more of you to contact them?  We need to find out why!  They cannot ignore all of you!    Please send correspondence to them immediately!   We need answers BEFORE we can move on with our lives!

****PUBLIC RECORD****

Executive Director PETER BRADY at the BCSC has indicated to a former investor that he is NOT able to discuss the Settlement Offer brought forth by the Respondents BEFORE the hearing that would have seen the investors participate in the Deercrest project with NO involvement from Wharram or the other Respondents.   In his email to the investor, he cites a confidentiality clause that permits him from discussing the details of our Settlement Offer.   In that we (as a Respondent that WROTE the Settlement Offer) have been ignored by the Staff at the BCSC for many months now – we are hoping the former investors in FCC and DCF will now be able to get answers from the good people at the BCSC.

Today, as at 10:43 AM, I have sent the following email to the Commission:

The declaration sent to the BCSC is as follows:

We wish the former investors well in attempting to get answers from the BCSC – answers that believe it or not – we (the Respondents) have not been able to get from them.     They have been silent for far too long and it is time they answer why they did not  even internally discuss the settlement (that would have helped the former investor recoup funds lost in the investment).   As we blogged (click on link) in the past, the BCSC did not even have a discussion with respect to the settlement offer – they only wanted me to plead guilty to ALL allegation and pay fines and disgorgement in the amount of $5.8 million dollars!

Thank you all for your support!

Recently, many of you have asked to see proof of the Settlement Offer that we had sent to the British Columbia Securities Commission in November 2013 – some 5-6 months BEFORE the hearing.

As we have indicated in the past, the BCSC had made an order in June 2013 indicating we had to resign from any and all companies that relied upon securities regulations.   They seized 5 bank accounts that had approximately $63,000 in them.    This too, occurred BEFORE we had the hearing.

By November of 2013, Primex (the Lender) was becoming very impatient and needed the Deercrest property to move forward one way or another.    I approached Kerkhoff Construction and they agreed (with many other terms) to allow the investors in both Falls Capital Corp and Deercrest Construction Fund to participate as non-voting shareholders.  This would have seen the investors participate in net profits of the Deercrest property as it was developed.

As you will see below, the Settlement Agreement focused on the well-being of the former investors and allowed light at the end of the tunnel in terms of possibly seeing funds put back into their control.

As of the summer of 2016 – the Deercrest property has completed and sold the 12 partially completed  units and have begun the necessary steps of completing the remaining 40-50 units that will occupy the site.   From what can be easily determined – the property would currently have very little debt and the remaining units will have substantial profits.   The investors would have received 35% of this profit until to projects completion.   The market has exploded in Chilliwack and the units are in very high demand.

We sent the BCSC our Settlement Offer on November 7, 2013 – and they did not even respond until December 31, 2013 – some 7 weeks later.    And again – the Staff Litigators (C. Paige Leggat and Olubode Fagbamiye) indicated they would not take the Settlement Offer to the Executive Director (the only person that could accept the Settlement Offer) – instead, they said they would need me to agree to ALL of the allegations and pay fines and disgorgement of over $5,800,000.   This is extortion!    No where in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does it indicate a person must plead guilty to all allegations before a court will entertain a settlement.  In fact, we would think there is protection of actions like this in one would read it.

Our Settlement Offer looked like this:

NOTE:  ^ This document contained a typo – the shares allotted to the former investors was 35% – not 25% as mentioned above.

Former Investors – do you think it is OK that the Staff at the BCSC did not even take the Settlement Offer to their boss?   Or do you think that the BCSC should have done something to uphold their mandate which is to “uphold investor confidence”?     BCSC Mission Statement (Click here)

If for one minute you do NOT think this is OK – we think you should contact them at inquiries@bcsc.bc.ca or at their main switchboard at 604-899-6500.   Ask for Peter Brady (Executive Director), Brenda Leong (Chair), or Douglas Muir (Director of Enforcement).    Don’t expect a phone call back as they seem to be hiding under their desks – afraid to answer these very important questions.

Of note – one of the former investors did have contact with Peter Brady a while back and he would not answer her questions – citing that there was a confidentiality clause that prohibits him talking about any case to a Third Party.  As this directly affects the former investors – I would suggest that this is NOT a Third Party situation…

THAT BEING SAID, ANY OF THE FORMER INVESTORS THAT WOULD LIKE ME TO SIGN A DOCUMENT INDICATING YOU HAVE FULL AUTHORITY TO DISCUSS THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH ANY BCSC STAFF MEMBER LET ME KNOW AND I WILL ARRANGE TO HAVE IT PREPARED!   

Does anyone find it extremely ironic that they cite not being able to talk to the investors about their and our matter – but then they will not talk to me either?   They are a complete joke run by incompetent people!

Many of you have recently asked how I (with NO legal assistance) was able to have the majority – some 94% of the allegations against me dismissed by the Panel.    You have to remember that during the hearing I was by myself with no help whatsoever.   Staff for the Commission had two lawyers, an assistant, a law library, RCMP officers, Court Ordered Summons, and other Staff members (that lurked in the gallery) for the time leading up to the hearing, during the hearing, and after the hearing – all to strengthen their case.  In addition, the hearing days would go to roughly 4 PM daily and I had to face rush hour traffic on the 90-120 minute drive home every day.   The hearing lasted 7 days from April 7 – 16, 2014.

For those that do not know the standard procedure – at the conclusion of the oral hearing the Panel instructed both parties to submit Written Submission on Liability with the Executive Director releasing their’s first, then ours, then the Executive Director has an opportunity to reply to our submissions.

On May 16, 2014, the Executive Director via their Staff Litigators issued their Submissions on Liability – again this was a summary of their case against me and I was to defend myself against whatever was in this document.   This is the same document at PARAGRAPH #10 that we allege that Staff (C. Paige Leggat and Olubode Fagbamiye) manipulated evidence in an attempt to persuade the reader into believing their theory of the allegations against us.    Their document is here:

Executive Director’s Submissions on Liability-2014-05-16

Now. for the first time, I am going to release the Respondent’s Submissions on Liability document that I wrote after the hearing to fight my side of the matter and to fight against the bullshit story the Executive Director desperately tried to prove.   It is our opinion that our writing this document (and exposing the bogus attempts by Staff) that allowed the BCSC Panel to dismiss the $5.45 million fraud they tried to pin on us.    Our document is here:

FINAL – July 6, 2014 – Submissions on Liability

Understanding that it is a long read, we encourage you to read it a couple of times – again this document was completed with NO legal assistance and completely blew the Staff’s $5.45 million fraud allegation out of the water!   Even though the damage was done via their slanderous press release that caused the Vancouver Province to run with the headline, “INVESTORS MILLIONS EVAPORATE” – despite that being the farthest thing from the truth.

People have asked me how I was able to have the most significant allegations against me thrown out by the Panel – my answer is always the same – “I told the truth and exposed (in our opinion) an attempt by Staff at the Commission to deceive the Panel by manipulating the evidence to suit a theory that was NOT correct.”

Thank you for your support!  You know who you are!

Fantastic news coming from the official BCSC Twitter account today.   We are very pleased that the BCSC indicates they have an “Inquiries Group” that is “here to answer your questions and concerns related to the securities industry”.  

We are extremely please that finally someone down at the BCSC has taken the time to appoint this team that will answer the public’s questions and alleviate concerns.   

Truly a fantastic day!  I am expecting correspondence from them quickly!  Stay tuned – I will keep you posted!

Proving once again the complete incompetence of the Chair of the British Columbia Securities Commission, Brenda Leong has finally responded to our Freedom of Information request from October 18, 2016 – some 132 days ago!

 BCSC’s Brenda Leong

As we blogged last fall, we had inquired as to the job status of the inept Elizabeth “Liz” Chan – the self-described Senior Investigator at the Commission that was the lead investigator in our matter.  We had noticed that she was not on a list of BCSC employees that was put out by the local Vancouver Sun.

We submitted to the FOI office at the BCSC our request and have repeatedly received the run-around by Staff at the BCSC for months now.  With respect to these delays, it is abundantly clear that Staff at the BCSC (including Associate General Counsel Alan Keats) appear to have delayed getting this information to us within legal time frames administered under the FIPPA Act.   I mean really – how does it take 132 days to do what should have taken 30 days.

This is the BC Government again – showing that the applicable laws are just simply words in their mind – and that they have no intentions of playing by the rules and regulations!   Time for a switch down on Georgia Street and over at the Legislation building in Victoria.   One can only hope….

A couple of days ago we entered into a “Twitter War” with Paul Henderson – a local deadbeat writer for the Chilliwack Progress.     We have written previously regarding our discontent with the way he (and others) handled the “reporting of our story” during our issues with the BCSC.  To be clear, we just simply wanted a reporter to report the story from both sides WITHOUT biased opinions.   We still don’t think this was too much too ask.

Today, when I checked my Twitter account I received the following post from Henderson:

Of course I replied back to him….lol!

There you go – it appears Henderson feels its appropriate to attack a person and accuse them of something they did not do WITHOUT having any proof that I tried to hack into his Facebook account?  On what planet does he think this is OK?  This is a clear cut case of Libel and he seems to think he is above that.    Henderson made this post public on my Twitter feed which is most unfortunate.

Moments after I posted my reply he blocked me from his Twitter account – kinda says it all don’t you think?  Another spineless keyboard tough guy that wants to promote his own agenda – no matter the facts.

Seems to be too much of that going on nowadays – what happened to the good ole days where reporters reported on stories – and did not try to spew their own bullshit opinions that really no one wants to hear or read.

Paul Henderson’s Former Employer’s Building (Circa 2015)

In the time leading up to the investigation by the BCSC into my company, we had met Chilliwack Times journalist Tyler Olsen (“Olsen”) on a couple different occasions – he was always civil and we talked about different things including a common bond we had in hockey – namely the Chilliwack Bruins – a WHL hockey team that played in Chilliwack from roughly 2006-2011.

          Tyler Olsen (Reporter)

Source:  Facebook

When the BCSC brought forward their allegations on June 14, 2013, understandably Olsen wrote a very negative article which he took from the biased press release sent out by the BCSC.   Olsen did make contact with me and asked if I wanted to make a comment with regard to the allegations.   I provided him a letter that indicated the allegations were just that – allegations and that we were very much focused on a settlement of some sort that would see the investors in FCC and DCF still participate in the project at the Falls.    This should sound VERY familiar to many of you reading this knowing that we did everything to get the Staff at the BCSC to accept the Settlement Offer.  See earlier post in this blog for proof.

I didn’t see/hear from Olsen again until the first day of the hearing (April 7, 2014) when I noticed him lurking around the hearing room like a human parasite.

After that first day of the hearing, he approached me as I was exiting the hearing room – I remember wondering why a little 2nd rate reporter from a small newspaper would travel all the way to Vancouver and he replied he had been hired freelance by the Vancouver Province to further update the story – that he had written on the previously June.

We talked as we entered the elevator and I asked him directly if he was going to cover the rest of the hearing and he said that the Province had only paid him to cover the first day of the hearing that was scheduled for 10 days.   I told him that was unfortunate because the fraud allegations against me in the amount of $5.45 million were extremely inaccurate and I told him about the Settlement Offer that I had desperately tried to get ANYONE at the Commission to even review (let alone except).    I asked him to please come back to my hearing and report on the extensive cross-examination I had planned for the flunky BCSC investigator Liz Chan – I told him that I thought I was going to be able to get to the bottom of her accounting of the $5.45 million fraud and that I would do so by conducting an extensive cross-examination of Chan.   He said that he would need to be “paid” to do that.   I literally remember thinking the guy was a complete scum bag for saying something so very inappropriate.

By this time, I was beginning to see the slant this bozo was going to put on the story – I mean, how can you write an article that is not biased if you only know ONE side of the story based on a slanderous press release put out by the BCSC and refuse to listen to both sides unless you are paid?

As we walked through the lobby on the ground floor of the building – we finished our conversation and he says, “Oh, I forgot something and I have to go back this way…”.   I didn’t give it much thought and continued on my way out of the building.

As I walked out the front door and entered the sidewalk – some scum bag photographer (named Arlen Redekop) from the biased media walked up to me and started taking my picture.   Again, it became more and more abundantly clear the slant/angle these people were going to take and I expected the worse…

On the second day of the hearing, I made my way to Vancouver and just as I entered the hearing room I received a phone call from a friend asking me if I had seen the paper – I said I had not and he told me I was on the front cover with a headline that stated “Investors Millions Evaporate”.   I read the article and it was pathetic – he actually made fun of the way I presented my opening statement by opening the article with, “Just like his investors’ millions, Rodney Jack Wharram’s way with words seemed to evaporate Monday at the start of a hearing that could see him banned from the B.C. investment industry.  Wharram, who is representing himself at the B.C. Securities Commission hearing, frequently stumbled over his words as he faced allegations around $9.3 million he is alleged to have raised from investors between 2007 and 2010.”  I was nervous as I had NEVER been in a hearing room before (as a defendant) and I certainly did not know what to expect but I certainly did not stumble over words and I was NOT at a loss for words. Reviewing the transcripts of that day – I asked the Panel Chair several questions regarding procedure as I did not understand many aspects of presenting my evidence.    Considering I only spoke for about 5 minutes that entire day, I fail to see his logic in his reporting.

Second rate journalism is the ONLY way to describe his wording.   When the findings came out in February 2015, the Vancouver Province completely scrub the article written by Olsen – and who can blame them?  This is because the headline and story they (and the BCSC) tried to go with was NOT accurate.  To this day, the only place you can find it is here.  It is pretty ironic that they decided to go with this headline on the front page of the paper and then have an unrepresented defendant blow most of the allegations out of the water, including the money aspect.   Facts are – Investors Millions DID NOT evaporate as they tried to stuff down their readers throats.   It must have been very embarrassing for them ALL!

Fast forward to February of 2015, Olsen either lost his job with the local Chilliwack Times (or was transferred) to to an associated paper in Abbotsford, BC.   His replacement (in Chilliwack) was another so-called investigative journalist named Paul Henderson (“Henderson”).  My issues with Henderson are simple – he NEVER once tried to contact me for my side of the story before he wrote a very slanderous article in December 2015 – after the BCSC issued their decision.

The day this article hit the papers, a friend called me and informed me of the story – I immediately went to the Chilliwack Times to confront him.  I asked why he was not telling both sides of the story and that we had 94% of the dollar amount of the fraud allegations dismissed.  I explained I did not have a lawyer and tried to explain to him what was happening down at the BCSC with Staff not even presenting the Settlement Agreement to the Executive Director – this alone could have protected the investors in the project which IS their mandate!

He went back and edited a small portion of the article that hit the on-line edition of the Chilliwack Times – his story that went physically to press was different than the one that was on the internet – complete gong show!  He couldn’t even co-ordinate that properly – which again leads to questioning his professionalism.

I reached out to Henderson one final time (in May 2016) after I started this blog and asked if he was willing to meet – he made up some excuse of being too busy and said he could meet some time later the following week…I never heard back from him.  Like I said, I feel I have every right to question his professionalism.

Paul Henderson   

Source:  Facebook

A simple search of the internet and one can easily find a very derogatory photo which contains a comment regarding Henderson.   What a terrible thing to have written about you – whether it is true or not.  Albeit, one may conclude the graffiti (on his office wall)  was more than likely done by someone in retaliation for some biased article he wrote in an attempt to sell papers – it questions why citizens would go to this extent to write something so horrible about this man.

   Graffiti outside the Chilliwack Times 

Source: Facebook

In closing, we look at the facts and it is no wonder that the state of “media” is the way it is in this country when we see two reporters like these two who have no desire to get BOTH sides of a story before they go to press with their slanted theory of events.   When I went to Henderson’s office to confront him, he even spun what I said to him in private (off the record) into his story – and when I confronted him on that – he said, “nothing you said to me was private”.

A real investigative journalist should want to get to the bottom of a story and give independent details to inform their reader so that reader can form their own opinion – again, its no wonder people are not reading newspapers the way they use to.  Which leads to the likely reason why so many of these ‘propaganda spewing regurgitating robots’ are losing their jobs across the country.

Recently, we had one of our former investors reach out to ANYONE at the BCSC in an attempt to have her questions answered with respect to the Settlement Offer that would have benefited ALL former investors in FCC and DCF.

As per our suggestion in a previous blog post, she eagerly sent an email to the BCSC’s and awaited a reply.  As you will see in the following emails in this blog, she certainly did NOT get the replies that one would think she would be entitled to – considering what was at stake AND the mandate of the BCSC to protect the investors in the jurisdiction of British Columbia.

In the first email below, you first see newly appointed Executive Director Peter Brady attempt to answer (or as we will call it – deflect) her questions.   Of note, he does reply,

“…However, I can assure you that our policy is to consider all settlement offers…”

We will remind ALL readers that we tried desperately to get our Settlement Offer into the hands of the Executive Director (at the time it was Paul Bourque) but in written correspondence, the lawyers (C. Paige Leggat and Olubode Fagbamiye) acting for the BCSC said they would only present the settlement offer to the Executive Director IF Wharram admitted all wrong-doing alleged in the Notice of Hearing and paid fines and disgorgement of $5.8 million.  

Mr. Brady dances very swiftly around answering the questions – some of which have NOTHING to do with what was inside the settlement offer.   The investor is NOT asking the terms of the settlement agreement – she was simply asking IF there was one and why staff litigators did NOT show it to the Executive Director at the time.   I really don’t think she cared about the “terms” of the settlement offer.

Now, she decided that she did not like the answer she received from Mr. Brady so she decided to email him again – and AGAIN Mr. Brady abruptly shuts down ANY questions regarding the settlement offer and hides behind some sort of confidentiality policy the commission may or may not adhere to.  His response is as follows:

Do any of you now see that these people are hiding something?  ALL former investors in FCC and/or DCF have a right to know why a settlement offer that was presented by Wharram to the BCSC that would have benefited you in NOT none of your business.   These people are hiding behind one of the biggest mistakes made in the history of the BCSC.

In closing – they won’t answer me and I am not part of some confidentiality policy and NOW they wont answer  one of the investors?    Who are they accountable to?  Who will they answer?

 BCSC Executive Director Peter Brady

Source:  Small Business BC

At least we know now what type of man newly crowned Mr. Peter Brady truly is – he fits in with the rest of the spineless amoeba’s down at the good ole BC Securities Commission.

Answer the question Mr. Brady – Why did Staff not take the Settlement Offer (that would have seen the investors in FCC and DCF prosper) to the Executive Director for even a review; instead of trying to extort $5.8 million in fines and disgorgement from Wharram? 

Former Investors – contact the BCSC and demand an answer to this question – it may have caused you the ability to receive a portion (if not all) of your money back out of the Falls project.   Contact them – 604-899-6500!

The hearing into our matter started on April 7, 2014  – on March 24, 2014 (only 2 weeks earlier), Staff sent correspondence to numerous investors in FCC and DCF asking for them to fill out an Investor Impact Statement (“IIS”).    Along with this request, in many instances investors were sent links to the very slanderous press release where the Respondents were WRONGLY accused of not advancing the majority of the funds to the Developer – some $5.45 million dollars.

The problem with sending the IIS in March was the Respondents had not even stepped foot in the hearing room – and we would like to have thought we were innocent until proven guilty – not the other way around! But it does not appear this is the case when one goes up against the BCSC.

And the problems with the IIS statements as a document are MANY – first of all there is NO disclaimer indicating the allegations have yet to be proven.  The document literally using wording such as “the offence” and “the securities violation” in their questions.   This is PRE-LOADING an investors response – putting it in their minds that the Respondents committed the allegations. Take a look:

Investor Impact Statement – Blank

Imagine your being an investor who had just been told that someone you placed money with had committed a $5.45 million fraud, bought his wife a grocery store, and had personal vehicles restored – and then being asked to fill out a document asking you how you felt?   Many of the IIS we received were very one-sided with angry language.   We must admit, we would feel the same way if we only knew half of the story or were told untruths by the government regulator.

There is NO reason to do this before the hearing –  there are many days/weeks/months  to obtain them after the Findings document was made public by the Panel.   Speaking of the Panel, we argued in our written submissions that there should be little to no weight put on the IIS for the very reasons outlined in this blog.    What did they think?

We were pleased they agreed with us!  But we think that the Panel missed the point raised in our submissions.   The investors that appeared at the hearing appeared to be bitter and were angry at the one-sided story they had been told.  This affects the way the hearing was “heard” by the Panel and created a bias in the hearing room that was very difficult for the Respondent to overcome.   There is NO doubt that the press release and inciting the investor to immediately put their thoughts down on paper influenced our hearing.   How could it not?

But it just shows again how strong Staff at the BCSC thought their case was against the Respondents when it was not.   It’s items like this that really show the pathetic methods ensuring they gain the victory in a hearing room – not appearing to care about ethics.

Inciting the investors to turn against the Respondent BEFORE the hearing is as low as it can get and truly shows this agency feels they are above the law when preparing for a hearing.

Thank you again for reaching out to us….

As for your questions/comments, our answers are as follows (answered in order in which we received them):

1.  No, that is not an option for obvious reasons;
2. Possibly – but we will have to meet you face to face to discuss in detail and this is dependent on the details to be discussed at the meeting;
3. Yes!!!;
4. Yes..but again, we would like to meet in person to discuss;
5. Brenda Leong, C. Paige Leggat, Olubode Fagbamiye, Paul Bourque and Teresa Mitchel-Banks;
6. No;
7. Yes.

We look forward to hearing back from you in the same manner.

Regards,

RW

Today, we attempted to call BCSC Litigator OLUBODE FAGBAMIYE and he hung up the phone like a scared little parasite…

I thought I had seen it all – this might just take it all for the win!   I bet you he nearly jumps out of his seat every time his phone rings!!  What a joke – this is the type of spineless amoeba that the Law Society of BC continues to protect?

It is official – the BCSC (and its Staff) are the laughing stock of Vancouver!!   I mean really – hanging up the phone – I thought only 15 year old little girls did that!!   LOL!

Talk to you soon Mr. Fagbamiye!!

Staff at the Law Society of British Columbia have made it very clear they have no intention of assisting us in our plight to get answers from the Staff at the British Columbia Securities Commission.  They too, have decided to keep their heads in the sand and the fact they will not even investigate our complaint would lead us to believe they too are in on this massive cover-up!

In a recent letter sent to us – the Law Society acknowledge they have received our candid emails sent in December 2016 and the early part of January 2017 but indicate they would like to be removed from our email list.

This is most unfortunate considering they exist because of instances like this – they are there to make sure their lawyers act accordingly as defined in their Act and their Code of Professional Conduct.   One can easily see that they have a portion of their office that is there to investigate complaints regarding lawyers in the Province of BC.   We have a complaint and these people have elected to not do an investigation!   What a joke!

And to be clear, we formally complained about the actions of Staff in 2015 (specifically Staff manipulating the evidence in our case and why Staff did not take our Settlement Proposal to the Executive Director of the BCSC).  That was then – this is now!

Our latest letters focused on the fact that the BCSC’s Cracker Jack Lawyer (Olubode Fagbamiye) has not responded to our numerous letters demanding answers to our simple questions.    This is completely separate from our initial complaint but it appears some flunky named Lynne Knights of the Law Society of BC, is easily confused or she had not read the emails I sent to her.    And we can see that she has opened files in the past – a complaint of a non-practicing lawyer that killed a neighbors rabbits was opened by Knights in 2010.   I guess our complaint just doesn’t make the sniff test down at the Law Society these days – or the bozos at the Commission are immune from accusations of wrongdoing!  This whole system at the Law Society is broke and needs to be fixed!   And it should start with the immediate termination of the incompetent Lynne Knights!

The Law Society of BC’s website boldly states, “The legal profession takes seriously its commitment to maintain high ethical standards.”  but they will not investigate a complaint from a citizen concerned with the actions of one of their members?    This reeks of “protecting their own at any cost” or they are just another agency run by a bunch of misfits.

For any of the former investors in FCC or DCF that want to contact Ms. Knights directly to lodge a complaint about Mr. Fagbamiye, please do so at her email address:

lknights@lsbc.org

She can’t ignore all of us!

At the conclusion of our hearing, the Panel Chair NIGEL CAVE instructed both parties to complete Written Submission on Liability.  These documents argued the points brought up during the hearing and gave the parties the ability to prove (or disprove) the allegations brought forward in the Notice of Hearing.

One of the key documents involved in the hearing was the Offering Memorandum(s) (“OM’s”) used by the Respondents to raise capital.  For those that invested with the Respondents, you will remember this document as one you were given at the time you invested.    The BCSC (and other securities jurisdictions) allow an OM Exemption when raising capital in the securities market.

On May 16, 2014, the Respondents received the Executive Directors Submissions on Liability and began reviewing the points brought forward by Staff.    Staff Litigators Olubode Fagbamiye and C. Paige Leggat prepared the document on behalf of the Executive Director.

We read them from cover to cover a couple of different times and soon noticed something very particular….

Unfortunately, at paragraph #10 of their submissions, Staff resorted to physically changing the appearance of the document.   We feel they did this to suite their theory (and main allegation) that the Respondents did not forward the MAJORITY of the funds to the Developer.   This was the big $5.45 million fraud allegation that was ultimately dismissed by the Panel.   Let’s take a look at paragraph #10 as it appears in their submissions….

And now, for those of you that don’t have the FCC or DCF Offering Memorandums in front of you, this is how the document looked – keep in mind this document was relied upon at all times to raise capital for the projects, and Staff were suppose to have the onus of proving the case as alleged in the Notice of Hearing:

Staff (in paragraph 10) took Section 1.2 on page 5 of the FCC OM, merged it with Section 2.2 which is 2 pages later.  They then highlighted both portions they manipulated (in yellow) to give an appearance that they were from the same section.  In the first highlighted yellow box it states, “The Corporation is raising funds pursuant to this Offering for the purpose of lending the majority of the funds raised hereunder for the purpose of meeting its financial contribution obligations as set forth in item 2.2.3 below (the “FCC” Loan”).   The catch here though is they placed the portion from 2.2 above section 1.2 in their submissions.  Section 2.2 includes the word ‘hereunder’ which the reader would automatically think was the second yellow highlighted box.   The second box then uses the words “majority of proceeds” and “financial obligations”.   They complete their manipulation by omitting the title “Use of Net Proceeds” all together.

For those of you that do not understand the significance of these actions of Staff, we will try to explain it this way…originally when the Executive Director brought forward the allegations of fraud, they took a simple grade 2 math equation (the amount of the cheques written to the developer AND the amount of commission paid to sales people were subtracted by the total amount of funds raised).   They did not consider ANY other of the valid business expenses incurred by the corporation that were allowed under the OM’s.   In their allegations, they stated the Respondents did not advance the majority of the funds to the Developer which was wrong!    The Respondents (who did not have a lawyer) proved this allegation to be wrong by repeatedly asking the Lead Investigator (the flunky Elizabeth Chan) questions during the cross examination.   It is VERY apparent that Staff relied on basic, summary evidence that was only a small portion of the actually story – these were very complex, intertwined companies and Staff had all the information (bank records, credit card statements, etc.) but failed to bring strong compelling evidence to the hearing.

To this day, we are not sure why Staff’s Bigshot Litigators felt they needed to manipulate the evidence they had before them.  We have had people speculate that once the hearing was over they realized their case was not as strong as they had once thought so they needed to resort to something like this.   That maybe because the Respondents were self-represented, they thought they might be able to sneak this past.

Either way, this shows the playing field one faces when going against an internally run regulator.    Nobody seems to be accountable – as an example, during the hearing the Respondents asked repeatedly (IN FRONT OF THE PANEL) for the litigator (Olubode Fagbamiye) to explain his actions to which he did not even acknowledge the question.    We still question WHY the Panel Chair did not stop the proceedings and ask the litigator IF my our allegations were true and/or WHY they did this.    The Commission for intense and purposes appears to be a Kangaroo Court – where the judge, jury and executioner all work in the same office space.

Interesting enough, right after the Respondents submitted their Reply Submissions on Liability (in July 2014  where we accused them of manipulating the document) the other Staff Litigator who’s name is on the document (C. Paige Legatt) resigned.    She resigned and we have never had the chance to ask her whether or not she takes credit for manipulation.     Again, what are these people hiding?  Complete scumbags!     If they would have come in with a reasonable number there is a great chance we would have been able to negotiate a settlement and could have had our investors participate in the Deercrest development without any involvement from us.

Shame on the BCSC!!

A while back one of you contacted me regarding so called “confidential” information you said you knew about regarding my hearing – in your wording you indicated that “Staff at the BCSC acted in bad faith while preparing for our hearing in April 2014.”   And that you (after reading this blog) had information regarding this that you thought I should be made aware of.

First of all – Thank you very much for contacting me – it is nice to see there might just be someone at the BCSC with ethics!

You indicated you would like to meet and discuss things in person and said that you would contact me again – PLEASE do so in the same manner and I promise your confidentiality will remain in tack if that is your wish.    I would very much like to meet with you as per your suggestion.

I look forward to hearing from you ASAP!  Do not let these alleged practices (mentioned in your message) continue at the BCSC!   One could very easily conclude that many people (specifically the FCC and DCF investors) were possibly affected by the actions of certain BCSC Staff members during the relevant time.

RW

Crooked Christy Clark continues to get negative comments from major new outlets regarding her “PAY TO PLAY”functions – this time from Canada’s Globe and Mail.

In the article it states, “While these “pay-to-play” events have been denounced across the country, Ms. Clark has been steadfast in her support of them. And why wouldn’t she? Her party benefits enormously from the current rules. Last year alone, the Liberals took in more than $12-million in donations, with the vast majority coming from corporations and the rich.”

It truly is sad that people of this Province are not doing something about this – she has lost at virtually every level – take the latest BC Hydro fiasco out lined in this article.

Okay, let’s get this straight – B.C. is currently paying millions of dollars to independent power producers to NOT produce power because there’s such an oversupply.  Meantime, BC Hydro is busy building a $9 billion dam while arguing that B.C. needs more power?    Does this make sense to anyone?  Even the biggest Liberal people I know are not agreeing with this!     WAKE UP PEOPLE!

This is also the same government that pays the failing BCSC Chair BRENDA LEONG nearly $500,000 per year to run the BCSC.   Brenda Leong can only be seen as failing at her job when her staff have collected under $200,000 of the nearly $350,000,000 in fines they have ordered over the years.   That only .0004590 cents on the dollar.   If you or I had this little success doing our jobs we would be terminated instantly!

    Brenda Leong

It looks like the definition of a CHICKEN SHIT COWARD continues to be the BCSC’s junior litigator Olubode Fagbamiye!   In repeated request for Fagbamiye to answer our questions, he continues to cower and hide from answering any of them (or even denying our allegations).    As you are aware, we sent him a formal letter on December 7, 2016 after our phone call to his office.  During the phone call on December 5, 2016 he specifically says to write the questions down and communicate via written correspondence.   Was he just saying that to get off the phone?  It now appears so!

According to our friends at http://bcsccriminalcharges.blogspot.ca , this would put Fagbamiye in breach of a “Statutory Requirement for a government department to reply to all written correspondence within 14 days…”.    If true, how does this continue to happen at the British Columbia Securities Commission?   How are they above the law?

Mr. Fagbamiye – how does it feel to look in the mirror and know that you are part of the issues that continue to haunt the BCSC?  How does it feel to be such a coward and fail miserably at your job?

Can someone working at the BCSC go down the hall way and make sure he is awake?   Perhaps he naps throughout his days and has issues with getting his job done?   Who knows?

Our friends at bcsecuritiescommissionasham.blogspot.ca have recently uncovered a doozy and allege that “someone” at the BCSC seems to have expunged documents in the summer of 2016.

Taken directly from their blog site, they report:

Tuesday, 17 January 2017

WHAT ARE YOU HIDING BRENDA LEONG – WE KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER

 Hi Brenda,

Hows it going at the BC Securities Commission today?

 I was hoping you could help me find a file..
 

B.P. and R.P. vs BCSC, its that case where the Appeal Court Judge found that the BCSC had made misrepresentations and acted contrary to public interest by judging hundreds guilty without trial and publishing their names.

It seems to have been erased from your records.. do you know who would do such a thing or why they would do it? 

 Some people might say it doesn’t exist but we have evidence that it does/ or did exist and happen.

 

Why does your agency claim to be transparent and ethical when this is a complete lie?

See file attached..

 

How come we cant find any record of this on your website any longer? 

What are you hiding? -END-

The Gong Show at the “BRITISH COLUMBIA SECURITIES COMMISSION” continues with NO reply to our repeated requests for our questions to be answered.

If we had legal representation the BCSC would have to reply to the lawyer requesting answers – but because we are self-represented they feel they don’t need to reply?   COWARDS!

As we reported last week, the actions of Crooked Christy Clark’s government have garnered international headlines – specifically with a New York Times reporter who called British Columbia the “Wild West”.

This week, David Ball (a reporter from Metro News in Vancouver) contacted the NYT and interviewed reporter Dan Levin.    Ball article states, “New York Times reporter Dan Levin never expected his visit to British Columbia to earn him rebuke from the province’s leaders.

Q: The fact that the New York Times is looking at us has made you a bit of a celebrity here.

A: The New York Times looks at the whole world. It’s a free press. There are amazing things about Canada, but unfortunately what’s happening in B.C. is not one of them. Checks and balances are important, and hopefully this will spur British Columbians and other Canadians to take a closer look at how their governments behave.”

Why does nobody in this Province seem to care what Clark’s government continues to do?   Why do they seem to have free reign over shoddy business dealings, crazy travel expenses, and a “pay-to-play” system of doing business.

It is time we wake up people!

It has now been over 5 weeks since we contacted Mr. Fagbamiye by phone (and then by letter) and he continues to hide from answering simple questions that would allow the former investors in both FCC and DCF to hear first hand whether or not staff at the BC Securities Commission acted in bad faith when preparing legal documents in our matter AND whether or not they erred in not taking the Settlement Offer to the Executive Director of the BCSC (whom we were told was the ONLY person at the BCSC that would be able to accept our settlement offer.

Mr. Fagbamiye (as we have seen for weeks now) appears to be a coward and will not answer our questions – despite even telling me to put my questions down on paper and that he would answer them accordingly.    And on Saturday, we tried AGAIN in vain to get Fagbamiye to answer our questions…

Mr. Fagbamiye is hiding something and we need to get to the bottom of it once and for all.   I am calling on all former investors in FCC and DCF to call, write, email, fax, text, etc. Fagbamiye and ask him to answer these questions.

They are going to have to answer them sooner or later – the walls at the BCSC are NOT going to allow them to not answer these questions for much longer.   Our story is getting bigger by the day and as certain politicians that are appearing to aid the staff at the Commission are replaced – those that have acted in bad faith are going to be exposed.

CROOKED CHRISTY CLARK has made the BIG TIME! – in a recent article in the New York Times, reporter Dan Levin writes, “As the premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark is on the public payroll, pulling down a salary of 195,000 Canadian dollars in taxpayer money. But if that were not enough, she also gets an annual stipend of up to 50,000 Canadian dollars — nearly $40,000 — from her party, financed by political contributions.   Personal enrichment from the handouts of wealthy donors, some of whom have paid tens of thousands of dollars to meet with her at private party fund-raisers? No conflict of interest here, according to a pair of rulings last year by the province’s conflict-of-interest commissioner — whose son works for Ms. Clark.”

Who has had enough of this vial piece of garbage?   It is time to #DRAINTHESWAMP in the Province of British Columbia!  Treason, breach of trust, fraud – you name it!  Throw the book at her!

As indicated in an earlier blog – as part of an FOI request, we asked the BCSC to provide a copy of the original Fraud Fighter video they launched on November 6, 2014 as part of their renewal of their “award winning” campaign against securities fraud.

As you will see, at the time we were very concerned with the overall message sent out to the average investor – the video shows a character “Jean” doing a punch of stupid gymnastic moves in a park and ends with her going to the residence of “David” where it implies she physically attacked him.

Now, before you watch the current version, we want you to watch the version we saw for the first time on Nov 6, 2014 (and that was just obtained via a FOI request) – this was AFTER our hearing but before final oral submissions were made on November 21, 2014 in our matter.

ORIGINAL VIDEO:      https://youtu.be/rzoz-E4T1u8    (Please watch now)

As  said, this video was launched by BCSC Chair Brenda Leong at a conference – a copy of her speech where she calls the video “fun” and “entertaining” can be found here:

Brenda Leong Speech – November 6, 2014

On November 21, 2014, we appeared in front of the Panel at the hearing and before we began our arguments we opened with the following:

WHARRAM: Before I begin today I would like your permission to read a brief statement I’d like to make for the record. Can I do that?

THE CHAIR: I don’t know what you’re about to say, so I don’t really have any comment about that, so carry on.

WHARRAM: In the last week I’ve been approached at my residence by nothing short of what I would call a hoodlum. The hoodlum in no certain terms told me they wanted their friend’s money back that I scammed. I have made a police report of the incident with a Constable Nishin (phonetic) of the Chilliwack RCMP and have been issued a police file number. Recently I had an opportunity to watch what the British Columbia Securities Commission in another glamorous press release calls an entertaining video. In the video the main character, the mother of a victim of fraud, attacks an alleged fraudster with physical violence that I will call a vigilante act. The video is a sick, pathetic attempt to make the people of BC aware of securities fraud. This would be equivalent of the Vancouver Police Homicide Department making an entertaining video promoting family members of murder victims to attack an alleged perpetrator. On November 6, 2014 Brenda Leong, the chair of the British Securities Commission, calls the fraud fighter video fun in a speech that she did at the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada’s 2014 national conference. I’m concerned if anything happens to my family or myself, I think this video is — and if anyone hasn’t seen it in this room I encourage you to see it, it is actually sick, made me sick to my stomach when I first seen it. I just want to bring it to the panel’s attention, public’s attention. I think it’s important that people like myself are protected out there. Thank you.”

Source: November 21, 2014 Hearing Transcript

By the time we got back to Chilliwack at about 6 PM that night the video had been scrubbed with a message saying a new version would be available shortly.     A few days later, the following video was put up on the BCSC’s YouTube page where it remains today.   This is a pathetic waste of money…of time…and shows what the people at the BCSC seem to stand for – encouraging people to take the law into their own hands is NEVER warranted.   It is hard to believe that in an office full of lawyers not one of them said, “Hey, I think this is a little much, maybe we shouldn’t have characters taking the law into their own hands and attacking others at their home.”    

 Here is the revised version that was slapped together and re-posted back onto their YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aWiyj65aIk

What an extreme waste of money!

The overall theme at the BCSC is becoming more and more apparent on a daily basis – and it is time that people in this Province wake up to their actions!   Call the BCSC and find out who was responsible for producing this horrible video campaign – you have a right to know!

604-899-6500 in their main line!

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

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.

[Click on the link…]

December 30, 2013 – LEGATT to RESPONDENTS

In the time leading up to the investigation by the BCSC into my company, we had met Chilliwack Times journalist Tyler Olsen (“Olsen”) on a couple different occasions – he was always civil and we talked about different things including a common bond we had in hockey – namely the Chilliwack Bruins – a WHL hockey team that played in Chilliwack from roughly 2006-2011.

          Tyler Olsen (Reporter)

Source:  Facebook

When the BCSC brought forward their allegations on June 14, 2013, understandably Olsen wrote a very negative article which he took from the biased press release sent out by the BCSC.   Olsen did make contact with me and asked if I wanted to make a comment with regard to the allegations.   I provided him a letter that indicated the allegations were just that – allegations and that we were very much focused on a settlement of some sort that would see the investors in FCC and DCF still participate in the project at the Falls.    This should sound VERY familiar to many of you reading this knowing that we did everything to get the Staff at the BCSC to accept the Settlement Offer.  See earlier post in this blog for proof.

I didn’t see/hear from Olsen again until the first day of the hearing (April 7, 2014) when I noticed him lurking around the hearing room like a human parasite.

After that first day of the hearing, he approached me as I was exiting the hearing room – I remember wondering why a little 2nd rate reporter from a small newspaper would travel all the way to Vancouver and he replied he had been hired freelance by the Vancouver Province to further update the story – that he had written on the previously June.

We talked as we entered the elevator and I asked him directly if he was going to cover the rest of the hearing and he said that the Province had only paid him to cover the first day of the hearing that was scheduled for 10 days.   I told him that was unfortunate because the fraud allegations against me in the amount of $5.45 million were extremely inaccurate and I told him about the Settlement Offer that I had desperately tried to get ANYONE at the Commission to even review (let alone except).    I asked him to please come back to my hearing and report on the extensive cross-examination I had planned for the flunky BCSC investigator Liz Chan – I told him that I thought I was going to be able to get to the bottom of her accounting of the $5.45 million fraud and that I would do so by conducting an extensive cross-examination of Chan.   He said that he would need to be “paid” to do that.   I literally remember thinking the guy was a complete scum bag for saying something so very inappropriate.

By this time, I was beginning to see the slant this bozo was going to put on the story – I mean, how can you write an article that is not biased if you only know ONE side of the story based on a slanderous press release put out by the BCSC and refuse to listen to both sides unless you are paid?

As we walked through the lobby on the ground floor of the building – we finished our conversation and he says, “Oh, I forgot something and I have to go back this way…”.   I didn’t give it much thought and continued on my way out of the building.

As I walked out the front door and entered the sidewalk – some scum bag photographer (named Arlen Redekop) from the biased media walked up to me and started taking my picture.   Again, it became more and more abundantly clear the slant/angle these people were going to take and I expected the worse…

On the second day of the hearing, I made my way to Vancouver and just as I entered the hearing room I received a phone call from a friend asking me if I had seen the paper – I said I had not and he told me I was on the front cover with a headline that stated “Investors Millions Evaporate”.   I read the article and it was pathetic – he actually made fun of the way I presented my opening statement by opening the article with, “Just like his investors’ millions, Rodney Jack Wharram’s way with words seemed to evaporate Monday at the start of a hearing that could see him banned from the B.C. investment industry.  Wharram, who is representing himself at the B.C. Securities Commission hearing, frequently stumbled over his words as he faced allegations around $9.3 million he is alleged to have raised from investors between 2007 and 2010.”  I was nervous as I had NEVER been in a hearing room before (as a defendant) and I certainly did not know what to expect but I certainly did not stumble over words and I was NOT at a loss for words. Reviewing the transcripts of that day – I asked the Panel Chair several questions regarding procedure as I did not understand many aspects of presenting my evidence.    Considering I only spoke for about 5 minutes that entire day, I fail to see his logic in his reporting.

Second rate journalism is the ONLY way to describe his wording.   When the findings came out in February 2015, the Vancouver Province completely scrub the article written by Olsen – and who can blame them?  This is because the headline and story they (and the BCSC) tried to go with was NOT accurate.  To this day, the only place you can find it is here.  It is pretty ironic that they decided to go with this headline on the front page of the paper and then have an unrepresented defendant blow most of the allegations out of the water, including the money aspect.   Facts are – Investors Millions DID NOT evaporate as they tried to stuff down their readers throats.   It must have been very embarrassing for them ALL!

Fast forward to February of 2015, Olsen either lost his job with the local Chilliwack Times (or was transferred) to to an associated paper in Abbotsford, BC.   His replacement (in Chilliwack) was another so-called investigative journalist named Paul Henderson (“Henderson”).  My issues with Henderson are simple – he NEVER once tried to contact me for my side of the story before he wrote a very slanderous article in December 2015 – after the BCSC issued their decision.

The day this article hit the papers, a friend called me and informed me of the story – I immediately went to the Chilliwack Times to confront him.  I asked why he was not telling both sides of the story and that we had 94% of the dollar amount of the fraud allegations dismissed.  I explained I did not have a lawyer and tried to explain to him what was happening down at the BCSC with Staff not even presenting the Settlement Agreement to the Executive Director – this alone could have protected the investors in the project which IS their mandate!

He went back and edited a small portion of the article that hit the on-line edition of the Chilliwack Times – his story that went physically to press was different than the one that was on the internet – complete gong show!  He couldn’t even co-ordinate that properly – which again leads to questioning his professionalism.

I reached out to Henderson one final time (in May 2016) after I started this blog and asked if he was willing to meet – he made up some excuse of being too busy and said he could meet some time later the following week…I never heard back from him.  Like I said, I feel I have every right to question his professionalism.

   Paul Henderson

Source:  Facebook

A simple search of the internet and one can easily find a very derogatory photo which contains a comment regarding Henderson.   What a terrible thing to have written about you – whether it is true or not.  Albeit, one may conclude the graffiti (on his office wall)  was more than likely done by someone in retaliation for some biased article he wrote in an attempt to sell papers – it questions why citizens would go to this extent to write something so horrible about this man.

   Graffiti outside the Chilliwack Times 

Source: Facebook

In closing, we look at the facts and it is no wonder that the state of “media” is the way it is in this country when we see two reporters like these two who have no desire to get BOTH sides of a story before they go to press with their slanted theory of events.   When I went to Henderson’s office to confront him, he even spun what I said to him in private (off the record) into his story – and when I confronted him on that – he said, “nothing you said to me was private”.

A real investigative journalist should want to get to the bottom of a story and give independent details to inform their reader so that reader can form their own opinion – again, its no wonder people are not reading newspapers the way they use to.  Which leads to the likely reason why so many of these ‘propaganda spewing generic robots’ are losing their jobs across the country.

Did the Alberta Securities Commission (“ASC”) protect the investors in a recent matter they allowed to be “settled” without going to a hearing?  Allegations of misleading/untrue statements to investors, illegal trading, and FRAUD were brought forward in a November 2015 Notice of Hearing against Douglas Vermeeren of Calgary, Alberta.

Looking at the math in the Vermeeren  Settlement Agreement, we see he raised $735,000 from 43 unsuspecting investors.      David Linder (the Executive Director for the ASC) went on to state that Vermeeren “co-mingled funds in the Respondents personal bank account and corporate accounts controlled by the Respondent.  Some funds from these accounts were used for personal expenditures and to pay investors.  The Respondent did not keep adequate accounting records making it difficult to determine the precise scope of the fraudulent use of the investors funds.”   Furthermore, later in the same document, Linder goes on to state, “Some of the Investors funds were used for third-party lending.”

Of the $735,000 raised, only $382,971 (a mere 52%) was paid back to the investors – leaving a balance of $352,029 not returned.

HERE IS WHERE PEOPLE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO SHAKE THEIR HEADS – the ASC went on to negotiate a settlement of only $120,000 for ALL wrongdoing plus charge him a meager $10,000 to cover the cost of the investigation into his businesses.    They went on to issue him a 10-year ban from securities market but allowed him, “in his personal capacity, and for the benefit of his family to trade in or purchasing in exchange listed securities…”

Let’s get this straight – this man was alleged to have committed fraud, took $735,000 from the public, paid back only 52% of the money to his investors – and then only has to come up with $130,000 and sit on the sidelines for 10 years?  The investors are out 48% of their money but the ASC gets their $130,000?  What happened to the other $352,000 the investors are out?   Who is protecting these people and who is going to get their money back?

This is insane! It appears the ASC are run just the same as their sister-affiliation to the west – the “wonderful” BCSC.   They do not have the best interest of the investors – this is very clear!

Looking back at another matter before the ASC, we see that this is NOT the first time ASC Executive Director David Linder has been very liberal giving out punishment  – we blogged back in June 2016 that the ASC handled another matter regarding the business dealings of League Financial in an atrocious manner  – where investors reportedly lost $370 MILLION and the people behind the company were fined a dismal $250,000 by the ASC.

Alberta really is the WILD, WILD WEST!

NOTE:  Looking quickly into Vermeeren, we see he is jet-setting to places in both the USA and the United Kingdom applying his trade – stopped in Alberta but still going strong in other areas it would appear.  We wonder if he still has the same book keeping skills this time around?

https://youtu.be/rzOn4F3lyMQ

https://www.facebook.com/douglas.vermeeren

As indicated in an earlier blog – as part of an FOI request, we asked the BCSC to provide a copy of the original Fraud Fighter video they launched on November 6, 2014 as part of their renewal of their so-called “award winning” campaign against securities fraud.

As you will see, at the time we were very concerned with the overall message sent out to the average investor – the video shows a character “Jean” doing a bunch of stupid gymnastic moves in a park and ends with her going to the residence of “David” where it implies she physically attacked him.

Now, before you watch the current version, we want you to watch the version we saw for the first time on Nov 6, 2014 (and that was just obtained via a FOI request) – this was AFTER our hearing but before final oral submissions were made on November 21, 2014 in our matter.

ORIGINAL VIDEO:      https://youtu.be/rzoz-E4T1u8    (Please watch now)

As  said, this video was launched by BCSC Chair Brenda Leong at a conference – a copy of her speech where she calls the video “fun” and “entertaining” can be found here:

Brenda Leong Speech – November 6, 2014

On November 21, 2014, we appeared in front of the Panel at the hearing and before we began our arguments we opened with the following:

WHARRAM: Before I begin today I would like your permission to read a brief statement I’d like to make for the record. Can I do that?

THE CHAIR: I don’t know what you’re about to say, so I don’t really have any comment about that, so carry on.

WHARRAM: In the last week I’ve been approached at my residence by nothing short of what I would call a hoodlum. The hoodlum in no certain terms told me they wanted their friend’s money back that I scammed. I have made a police report of the incident with a Constable Nishin (phonetic) of the Chilliwack RCMP and have been issued a police file number. Recently I had an opportunity to watch what the British Columbia Securities Commission in another glamorous press release calls an entertaining video. In the video the main character, the mother of a victim of fraud, attacks an alleged fraudster with physical violence that I will call a vigilante act. The video is a sick, pathetic attempt to make the people of BC aware of securities fraud. This would be equivalent of the Vancouver Police Homicide Department making an entertaining video promoting family members of murder victims to attack an alleged perpetrator. On November 6, 2014 Brenda Leong, the chair of the British Securities Commission, calls the fraud fighter video fun in a speech that she did at the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada’s 2014 national conference. I’m concerned if anything happens to my family or myself, I think this video is — and if anyone hasn’t seen it in this room I encourage you to see it, it is actually sick, made me sick to my stomach when I first seen it. I just want to bring it to the panel’s attention, public’s attention. I think it’s important that people like myself are protected out there. Thank you.”

Source: November 21, 2014 Hearing Transcript

By the time we got back to Chilliwack at about 6 PM that night the video had been scrubbed with a message saying a new version would be available shortly.     A few days later, the following video was put up on the BCSC’s YouTube page where it remains today.   This is a pathetic waste of money…of time…and shows what the people at the BCSC seem to stand for – encouraging people to take the law into their own hands is NEVER warranted.   It is hard to believe that in an office full of lawyers not one of them said, “Hey, I think this is a little much, maybe we shouldn’t have characters taking the law into their own hands and attacking others at their home.”    

 Here is the revised version that was slapped together and re-posted back onto their YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aWiyj65aIk

What an extreme waste of money!

The overall theme at the BCSC is becoming more and more apparent on a daily basis – and it is time that people in this Province wake up to their actions!   Call the BCSC and find out who was responsible for producing this horrible video campaign – you have a right to know!

604-899-6500 in their main line!

As most of you know, we have recently encouraged former investors to contact the BCSC and ask them 5 questions  that we think are very important for Staff at the Commission to answer.  The answers to the questions (in the link above) are the right of everyone that was affected by the actions of both the Respondent and the Commission in our matter.  We feel we have answered many of the questions asked of us by the former investors in this blog – IT IS NOW TIME THE COMMISSION DOES THE SAME THING!

Recently, we received a phone call from one of our former investors indicated that they had contacted the Commission in an attempt to get answers to their questions.    To their shock and disbelief, the person they talked to at the BCSC said they would not comment on “past hearings” and then physically hung the phone up on them.

Is this what we want from these government appointed civil servants?   They answer to the PEOPLE, not the other way around.

She did not get the name of the person she talked to – only that it was a woman.   Please people – remember this – when you call them please make sure you get the particulars of the phone call including the time, date, and WHO you spoke to.    IF you can, tape record the call or have someone in the room with you that can take notes of what is being said.

Additionally, you can email them at the inquiries@bcsc.bc.ca  email account – and while you are at it, CC the email to all of the following (surely someone there can answer questions):

AGarrone@bcsc.bc.ca; ahamilton@bcsc.bc.ca; ARichardson@bcsc.bc.ca; BAdema@bcsc.bc.ca; bleong@bcsc.bc.ca; CColter@bcsc.bc.ca); COMMSEC@bcsc.bc.ca; dmackay@bcsc.bc.ca; dmcfadden@bcsc.bc.ca; eaddleman@bcsc.bc.ca; finreport@bcsc.bc.ca; jtorrance@bcsc.bc.ca; jwhately@bcsc.bc.ca; ldonders@bcsc.bc.ca; levans@bcsc.bc.ca; lliu@bcsc.bc.ca; lrose@bcsc.bc.ca; MAsfaw@bcsc.bc.ca; mcastillo@bcsc.bc.ca mchen@bcsc.bc.ca; mdcook@bcsc.bc.ca; mpivnenko@bcsc.bc.ca mpwong@bcsc.bc.ca; OFagbamiye@bcsc.bc.ca; olam@bcsc.bc.ca); pbourque@bcsc.bc.ca;pbrady@bcsc.bc.ca; pcouper@bcsc.bc.ca; PFasihi@bcsc.bc.ca>; pleggat@bcsc.bc.ca; RDifonzo@bcsc.bc.ca; rkirwin@bcsc.bc.ca; rleon@bcsc.bc.ca; rsik@bcsc.bc.ca; scorrigallbrown@bcsc.bc.ca; smccolm@bcsc.bc.ca; sneale@bcsc.bc.ca; ssharma@bcsc.bc.ca; varmstrong@bcsc.bc.ca; wting@bcsc.bc.ca; EMak@bcsc.bc.ca; LStreu@bcsc.bc.ca;

NOTE:  Brenda Leong (at bleong@bcsc.bc.ca ) is the Chair of the Commission – we have been emailing her for months now and she will not reply – so one can expect to NOT hear anything back from her.   She is probably out spending her $500,000 per year salary or producing videos that promote vigilante justice!

If the BCSC does not reply back to you within 14 days, feel free to let us know.  We think it is VERY important to document this all for various reasons – including the next election.   Brenda Leong was appointed to her post by BC Premier Christy Clark -who, ironically enough, has failed to answer any questions about the BCSC in the numerous letters we have sent to her.

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 been 152 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!

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.

[Click on the link…]

December 30, 2013 – LEGATT to RESPONDENTS

Interesting read from the Insurance and Investment Journal after they had conducted an interview with the former Commissioner of the Ontario Securities Commission, Glorianne Stromberg.   Ms. Stromberg does not hold back and gives her thoughts on the current state of the Canadian Securities Administrators.

““I don’t want to be unduly critical of the regulators, but they have dropped the ball,” she says, adding, “Their mandate is investor protection and yet the investor, the individual investor, is the last person on the totem pole that they ever think about”

She goes on to add, “They hold themselves out as offering advice, but it’s all a sales transaction. Their compensation structures are designed to force those so-called advisors or representatives to deal in those products (proprietary products or those underwritten by the company), or they’re without a job. They’re setting up irreconcilable conflicts of interest on all sides of every transaction.” It’s a situation she says most investors know very little about. “Then they talk about managing conflicts. ‘There’s nothing wrong with conflicts.’ But you know what? There is. There’s a lot wrong with them.”

Despite the article being written in November 2012, it still rings true in today’s Canadian Securities markets.  The system truly is broken and in need of a large overhaul.

We find many different articles across the internet that different individuals (both everyday citizens and members of the press) have written with regards to their opinion of the BCSC.  We found this one today…

Strangulation by regulation: The death knell for B.C. jobs

Email to Christy Clark – July 18, 2016

As you see by the link above, we reached out to the Premier of British Columbia, Ms. Christy Clark, in another attempt to see if she would get to bottom of our allegations against the BCSC.   We continued to be very courteous towards Ms. Clark and show her respect towards what must be a very difficult time – this despite her office not responding to any attempt we have made to get answers.   Answers that are very important to the 250 investors (and their families) that put hard earned dollars in with our companies.    As we have stated before, we are NOT deflecting away from some of our actions but there is a BIG difference between the allegations that the BCSC brought forward and reality.

This BC government wants the people of BC to think they are doing a wonderful job – this Tweet from the BC Finance Minister late last week boasts they have successfully manufactured a $730 million dollar surplus for the fiscal 2015/2016 year.

But, unfortunately for this same BC Liberal government, lets look at some other facts released on the same day as Mr. De jong’s rhetoric propaganda hit the street…

TOP 10 FACTS THE BC GOVERNMENT CHOSE NOT TO HIGHLIGHT IN TODAY’S RELEASE OF THE 2015-16 PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
…
1. The provincial debt has risen from $45.15 billion in 2011 to $65.29 billion in 2016. But at least the budget is balanced. 🙂

2. The BC government’s contractual obligations have risen from $80.17 billion in 2011 to $101.4 billion in 2016.

3. John Dyble, Premier Christy Clark’s former deputy minister and head of the public service, was bumped out of his spot as the highest-paid public employee in the B.C. government by Craig James, Clerk of the B.C. Legislature.

Dyble who had held the spot for three years in a row took home $323,416 last year, while James earned $331,825 up from the $257,988 he was paid for the fiscal year ending 31 March 2013.

4. The long-term debt for the Transportation Investment Corporation, operators of the Port Mann bridge, has taken a wee jump from $2.029 billion in 2013 to $2.885 billion in 2016. The corporation lost $82.466 million last year.

What the government should really do is put these folk in charge of another major infrastructure project, like the Massey Tunnel replacement. Oh, right, they already have. 🙂

5. On top of their salaries, the provincial cabinet billed an additional $308,405 in capital city living allowances. Premier Christy Clark was the lowest at $1,216 and top spot went to Peter Fassbender at $20,064.

Before jumping to the conclusion that Clark is a bargain, keep in mind she commutes daily to Victoria when the legislature is in session (by air).

6. The cabinet billed $929,486 for travel last year, with three breaking the $70,000 mark: Bill Bennett ($72,682), Mike de Jong ($78,090) and John Rustad ($80,122).

7. Deputy ministers pulled down $8,625,809 in salaries last year and billed $864,417 in travel. In 2011, they earned $8,580,383 and billed $786,168 for travel.

Top three travellers were Wesley H. Shoemaker ($46,043), Athana Mentzelopoulos ($49,878) and David J. Nikolejsin ($55,416).

8. The number of full–time equivalent (FTE) employees at taxpayer–supported Crown corporations and agencies (see thread for list) rose from 4,423 in 2011 to 4,803 in 2016. It had been 3,764 in 2006.

9. The government paid out $3,823,728 in severance settlements last year and $537,721 in grievance settlements.

10. Bob Plecas was paid $76,402 for his report on the Ministry of Children and Family Development last year

Maximus BC Health was paid $62,371,509 to administer the MSP billing system.

And Canada’s Big 5 accounting firms did alright: Grant Thornton ($714,664), Pricewaterhousecoopers ($1,263,841), Ernst & Young ($1,507,877), KPMG ($2,625,347) and Deloitte ($25,674,832).

Source:  IntegrityBC Facebook page (July 21, 2016) 

Speaking of Facebook, we also came across this page this week – just by glancing over a small portion of the page we think it is safe to say MANY people are fed up with the BC Liberals!!   Glad to see many are waking up to some of the horrible decisions being made in this Province and that the propaganda they are trying to spew (surplus, great economy, etc.) are being exposed!

We understand running a Province like BC is a monumental task and that Ms. Clark is more than likely pulled daily into many different directions.   However, the facts of the matter are we have hundreds of former investors in our company that are now forced to sit on the sidelines because the BCSC came to the table with an allegation that was factually inaccurate.    They have not addressed our allegation that Staff at the BCSC manipulated evidence to prove their case and they did not even look at our Settlement Agreement (see other postings in this blog) that would have seen these same investors participate in a valid real estate project WITHOUT the involvement of WKL, FCC, DCF or myself personally.

This is NOT acceptable by ANY public servant!  Time to WAKE UP, Christy!

In a recent article in Canada’s national newspaper, the Globe and Mail,  they candidly discuss self-regulation (and the problems incurred) with such agencies in Canada – this would include the BCSC.

We will cut and paste of portion of the article and highlight some very important sections.  The article states inter alia…

“The Real Estate Services Act gave the Real Estate Council the mandate to “uphold and protect the public interest in relation to the conduct and integrity of its licensees.” But the real estate profession is not the only profession that was given the right to self-regulate its members.

In B.C. alone, foresters, lawyers, architects, land surveyors, engineers, social workers, chiropractors, dentists, nurses, opticians, optometrists, physical therapists, doctors, psychologists, veterinarians, notaries and other professions have governing bodies established by legislation that are required to license their members, regulate their professions and exercise their powers in the public interest, rather than in the specific interest of their members.

But what is the public interest? In short, it’s putting the interest of the public ahead of the specific interest of the people and the profession being regulated. By virtue of the practices described in the independent report on B.C.’s real estate industry, the public interest was not being protected by the council, despite the group’s legal obligation to do so. The government rightly acted to restore public confidence in an industry where there was a loss of public trust.

“The real estate sector has had 10 years to get it right on self-regulation and they haven’t,” Ms. Clark said. “The point of regulation is to protect people, to protect consumers.”

This action may be a shot across the bow for other regulatory bodies in Canada that are charged with the licensing and regulation of their professions, as well as disciplining their members when there is misconduct. Every self-regulated profession needs to keep in mind that the public interest must be given paramount attention. Otherwise, they risk the same fate as the Real Estate Council of B.C.”         -END OF ARTICLE-

We find Christy Clark’s comments very profound (highlighted above) – we wonder if we can hold her to these words – “THE POINT OF REGULATION IS TO PROTECT PEOPLE, TO PROTECT CONSUMERS”.

We agree Christy – we agree!!

This just came across our desk.   Mr. Romolo Di Fonzo  has been an employee with the BCSC since 1998; most recently as Lead Investigator in the Enforcement Division.

    Romolo Di Fonzo

Mountain Star Gold – Press Release

We can say we know nothing about this matter – but nonetheless it just goes to show that there are others that are having issues with this so-called regulator.

Why are so many people coming forward with allegations of wrongdoing by BCSC Staff??   This is becoming a daily occurrence and AGAIN it is time for these people to become accountable for some very questionable decisions being made – and it appears to be coming from the top.

Mr. Martinsen,

As I stated in the original post in this blog, I fully understand that some people are going to have negative opinions towards me and that is fine – I respect their opinions and can/and will live with that.

Now, I have dealt with your outright silly phone calls (you know the one where you wished I was raped in prison), I have dealt with your emails (see below) where you hope I am broke and get visited by Bubu, you have shown up at the Falls Golf course unannounced and were very rude to their staff when they told you I did not work there, and we have recently received posts to this blog where you now call me a loser and issue a VERY slanderous opinion on the matter we faced with the BCSC.

When I look back at the history of negativity you have exhibited towards me I cannot help but determine it started after a series of phone calls in 2011 and 2012.   I remember having very distinct conversations with you regarding Deercrest and you telling me you came from a construction back ground.   You told me (in lieu of getting your money back) you would take a unfinished Deercrest unit, finish it, and then sell it.   I explained to you many things would prevent this from happening including New Home Warranty issues and the fact that Primex Investments had a blanket mortgage on all of the units and would not discharge a small portion of their loan.

Also, and more importantly, I told you I was not able to do that because I could not show “favoritism” to one investor over another.    You didn’t like my answers and by the summer of 2013 your inappropriate phone calls began to my cellular phone line.

In March 2015, you and I had what I thought was a very candid conversation – I explained to you several things including the key things that were uncovered during the hearing and other current, legal ways I was looking at having the former investors participate in the Deercrest project.    I ended the phone call by asking you if you had any questions and that I would be happy to answer them for you.   You stated you just wanted you money back – and that was it.  I told you I understood that and that I wanted my money lost in the project back as well.

A short while later, I followed our phone call up with an email in an attempt to recap our conversation and to thank you for taking my call.    I also (explained in writing) the frustration I incurred with the BCSC trying to get the Settlement Agreement in their hands.   I sent you this email because I thought it was important to recapped our conversation and to have it for my records.   And for you to try to understand there was definitely two sides to this story.

A few weeks later (and for no apparent reason) you sent me a reply to my email where you hoped I was broke, that I lost my house and that you wanted me to say hello to Bubu…which again I believe  relates to some sort of a weird sexual reference you seem to be obsessed with for whatever reason.  If you deleted the email or can’t remember what you said, please find it here:

Martinsen email – June 18, 2015

Brian, I know you know how to use a phone, a computer, and certainly know how to speak.   Instead of directing all your energy towards something that will literally take you no where  – why don’t you call the BCSC and ask them why they did not even look at the Settlement Offer I presented to them in 2013.   And when they blow you off and refuse to answer your questions – call back again and get someone higher up to answer your questions.    Your questions are important and their answers are part of the reason you are not currently receiving funds out of the very successful Deercrest property.  The 12 units are fully completed and occupied as of approximately March of 2016.   The owners of the property (Kerkhoff and Primex) are now going to continue building the balance of the units.

The number of the BCSC  is 604-899-6500 or you can email them at inquiries@bcsc.bc.ca .

You as an investor in the Province of British Columbia are entitled to answers from the people down at the BCSC- they are the ones that were to protect you and earn your confidence during all times you were part of the FCC and/or DCF investments.

I encourage you to ask them:

1.   Did the Respondents (RW, WKL, FCC, and DCF) send a Settlement Proposal to the BCSC on November 7, 2013?
2.   Did the Settlement Proposal allow for participation (as shareholders) for all investors in FCC and DCF?
3. Why did it take Staff Litigators 7 weeks to respond to such a time-sensitive email?
4. If the BCSC’s Mission if to “protect the public interest by fostering  a securities market that is fair and warrants public confidence  is to look”  – then why would you not a least explore the opportunity the Respondents placed before you?
5. Why did you Staff Litigators not even show the ONLY person that could have accepted the Settlement Proposal (the Executive Director)?

Brian, I understand your frustration and certainly understand that losing hard earned money is something that is not good for anyone.   I don’t blame you for being angry – from what I can see you had frequent contact with Liz Chan (and others at the Commission) and I can only imagine what you were told.

You were told to read the press release where the BCSC hides behind words like “alleged” and “unproven” yet convicts people in the public domain.   They filled your head with all the allegations and immediately afterwards got you to fill out an Investor Impact Statement.     You became enraged and decided (before I got a day in court) that I was guilty.

You were told the Respondents did not advance the majority of the funds raised to the Developer but you were NOT told that Staff relied on a very simple grade 2 math calculation that was not in context with what the Offering Memorandum(s) dictated.   It was only after the hearing that Staff realized they did not have enough information to prove their case – they then manipulated a very significant portion of the OM to suite their theory – again in an attempt to make me look like I absconded with $5.45 million dollars in investor funds.   THIS IS NOT TRUE!

I am going to continue to tell the truth – it is people like you that motivates me to bring the truth to the forefront.   And just maybe one day you will realize focusing all your anger towards me and calling me immature names will NEVER get your money back.   And quite frankly is a huge waste of your energy!

For the record, I wish you the best and wish things were different with respect to your investment in my company.

RW

P.S.      And Brian, yes I did lose my house and many of the other material things I had gathered over the years – and yes, I am currently financially ruined.   I have lost a very key relationship with someone I would literally die for and a friendship with a person I truly admired.   But, the actions of the BCSC and their pathetic attempt to brand me something I am not will NEVER define me as I will not let it – I just don’t keep score that way.

More heat coming for the BCSC!   This is becoming VERY common down on Georgia Street in Vancouver!!  We cannot wait to read this company’s press release that is coming very soon!

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=123297571

Another hard hitting investigative report  on the investment industry in Canada.  These are the big banks and “professionals” that Canadians have placed a TRILLION dollars.    Why will no one in charge talk to the reporters?

What is most concerning about this video is the last 20 seconds of the video where the reporter indicates that NONE of the so-called REGULATORS “that oversee this industry would talk on camera…”    

In that the reporter was standing a street corner in Vancouver, one would think they would have contacted the BCSC.    We are in the process of verifying this but in the meantime – let’s ponder WHY a government office that is responsible for protecting investors in BC would not openly discuss the topic with the press.    Would they not want to make things better in this industry?   To adhere to their mandate posted on their website?  Isn’t this their fricking job?

Something is not right with our regulators – and it is time to start finding out what is going on!  We, as Canadians, need to start making these people accountable for their actions – or possibly in the case of this advisor fiasco – their LACK of actions!

We encourage people to start phoning them – IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR CONCERNS ABOUT REPORTS LIKE THIS ONE BY THE CBC – CONTACT YOUR LOCAL REGULATOR AND ASK THEM TO EXPLAIN.   This is your right as a Canadian!

ALBERTA 
Alberta Securities Commission
Suite 600, 250–5 Street SW
Calgary Alberta T2P 0R4

 
BRITISH COLUMBIA 
British Columbia Securities Commission
P.O. Box 10142, Pacific Centre
701 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC   V7Y 1L2

 
MANITOBA 
The Manitoba Securities Commission
500 – 400 St. Mary Avenue
Winnipeg, MB   R3C 4K5

 
NEW BRUNSWICK 
Financial and Consumer Services Commission
85 Charlotte Street, Suite 300
Saint John, NB   E2L 2J2

 
NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR 
Office of the Superintendent of Securities,
Service Newfoundland & Labrador
2nd Floor, West Block
Confederation Building
P.O. Box 8700
St. John’s, NL   A1B 4J6

 
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES 
Office of the Superintendent of Securities
Department of Justice
Government of Northwest Territories
1st Floor Stuart M. Hodgson Building
5009 – 49 th Street
P.O. Box 1320
Yellowknife, NT   X1A 2L9

 
NOVA SCOTIA 
Nova Scotia Securities Commission
Suite 400, 5251 Duke Street
Halifax (Nova Scotia) B3J 1P3

 
NUNAVUT 
Nunavut Securities Office
1st Floor, Brown Building
P.O. Box 1000 – Station 570
Iqaluit, NU   X0A 0H0

 
ONTARIO 
Ontario Securities Commission
20 Queen Street West
22nd Floor
Toronto, ON   M5H 3S8

 
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND 
The Office of the Superintendent Securities
Consumer, Corporate and Insurance Services Division
Office of the Attorney General
95 Rochford Street, P.O. Box 2000
Charlottetown, PE   C1A 7N8

 
QUEBEC 
Autorité des marchés financiers
800, Square Victoria, 22e étage
C.P. 246, Tour de la Bourse
Montréal, QC   H4Z 1G3

 
SASKATCHEWAN 
Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority
of Saskatchewan
6th Floor 1919 Saskatchewan Drive
Regina, SK   S4P 3V7

 
YUKON 
Office of the Yukon Superintendent of Securities
307 Black Street,
1st Floor,
Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 2N1

This article needs to go viral!  Another fantastic piece by Albertan Larry Elford.   Elford’s writings ring true in so many ways and really strike at the heart of some of the biggest issues in the securities market in Canada.

We encourage you to watch the video as well – its a tad bit long and has some strong language but is equally eye-opening as Elford’s writings….

As you have read in this blog – we sent 4 emails to Brenda Leong (the Chair of the BCSC) in an attempt to get answers to some fairly simple questions.  As you may recall, one of those involved the blatant manipulation of evidence performed by Staff Litigators C. Paige Leggat and Olubode Fagbamiye.    It goes on record today, that we have NEVER received an email back from Ms. Leong for whatever reason.

So…we have decided to go another route and sent an email DIRECTLY to the offices of the Hon. Premier Christy Clark and Finance Minister Hon. Michael De jong.    Maybe they can get the answers from the BCSC as to why the Litigation Staff at the BCSC are able to manipulate evidence in a matter as significant as ours WITHOUT recourse.

Letter to Hon. Christy Clark and Hon. Michael Dejong REDACTED

As you see, we took the courtesy of copying our email and sent it to both Brenda Leong and the Executive Director, Paul C. Bourque.   In Mr. Bourque’s position of Executive Director, he is in charge of bringing allegations to the Respondents  by issuing a Notice of Hearing; and he is also the one that could have accepted the Respondents Settlement Offer that would/could have helped the former investors in FCC and DCF.

We NOW blame him in many ways with allowing Staff (trying to prove the case he brought forward) to manipulate the evidence relied upon.   And for certainly not looking at our Settlement Opportunity brought to him in early 2014.

Oddly enough, only moments after sending today’s email we received this ever-so-odd email reply from his desk…

BOURQUE Email Reply

EDIT:   We have found out Mr. Bourque has left the BCSC to pursue a job with the Toronto-based Investment Funds Institute of Canada (“IFIC”) as their new big shot President and CEO.

Hopefully, the new, yet-to-be-named Executive Director of the BCSC will look seriously at Settlement Offers that affect hundreds of investors;  and brings matters to a hearing room that are PROPERLY investigated with allegations that are accurate.

Shocking article we came across from June 2014 – investors in this project (on Vancouver Island) lost $370,000,000 dollars.

They are “pushing for more accountability from regulators” and feel “the regulators who were put in place to protect us, really dropped the ball.”    

Can you blame them?   On August 14, 2013, the BCSC issued a Notice of Hearing against the company for “Disclosure Violations” and by October 1, 2013 entered into a Settlement Agreement with the 2 directors of the company – fines totaling a mere $250,000 and they had to take a securities course….raise $370 million and have to pay the BCSC a $250,000 fine???   That’s not a bad deal if you are these two directors!

Now the interesting part – on October 18, 2013 (less than 3 weeks after settling with the Commission) their company (and associated companies) apply for and receive an Order under the Companies Creditor Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) leaving most of the investors with nothing.

From what is reported in the article (above), investors placed funds into a pool (known as a MIC) and thought the fund managers were going to use those funds to buy revenue producing properties – soon afterwards, they started straying from that business model and started developing project – which they did not have expertise in doing.   Losses occurred and they were not able to stay afloat.

It is the investors opinion that this is something the BCSC should have been able to see – during the investigation and before the Settlement was accepted.

Good thing the BCSC got their measly $250,000 first….do you think they will give any of that to the investors who lost over a quarter of a billion dollars?

Me neither!

Searching through the web and even YouTube, it doesn’t take long for some very powerful videos to surface – none more compelling than the work of a gentleman named Larry Elford, who lives in Alberta.    His videos seem well researched and spot on for many of the difficulties the BCSC (and the other 12 provincial regulators) seem to be dealing with on a regular basis.

Government Regulators Help “Launder” Your Money…Gone!

Securities Commission Distraction

The “Douche-iary” Investment Advisor

Trust Me I am an Advisor…(And I…AM Lying…Twice)

We think you get the idea…

The System is broken and needs an overhaul.   We used several sales agents that told us they were financial planners, brokers, and/or advisors/advisers.   In our dealings with them (from 2007-2010), it was very apparent that many of them only cared about the commission being offered and not about the best interest of their clients – some of which were even family members.

We thought we would take a moment to see the current status of most of financial experts who raised capital for either (or both) of the FCC or DCF offerings.     Bear in mind, the Respondents only met approximately 12-15 (out of 250) of the investors in FCC and DCF.

You can verify the information below by visiting the Canadian Securities Administrator (“CSA”) website.    Here we go…

DUKE, James (Jim) – NOT REGISTERED WITH THE CSA  (Owner of Duke Wellington)

RICK UNRAU – NOT REGISTERED WITH THE CSA

ROD BURYLO – NOT REGISTERED WITH THE CSA 

LANG, David K – NOT REGISTERED WITH THE CSA

WING, Fredric – NOT REGISTERED WITH THE CSA (Former Partner/Founder at Strategic Brokerage Services West LP (“SBS West”), instrumental in bringing the Falls project onto the shelf at SBS in 2009 as well as an avid golfer)

CHAN, Alex – NOT REGISTERED WITH THE CSA  (Former Partner/Founder at SBS West, has CHS – Certified Health Insurance Specialist; CFP – Certified Financial Planner; CPCA – Certified Professional Consultant on Aging; EPC – Elder Planning Councilor; CFSB – Certified Financial Services Broker).

HEINRICH, Adam S – REGISTERED WITH THE CSA (Sent a very long list of questions during his due-diligence of the Falls project – very professional and detail orientated)

ANDREWS, Miriam – REGISTERED WITH THE CSA – (Introduced by SBS West Staff.   Came to Falls property and completed her own due diligence before placing funds into project.  Very Professional)

MACKAY, Robin – NOT REGISTERED WITH THE CSA – (Introduced by SBS Staff. Owner of Drake Wellington in 2010).

McARTHUR, Ian (Peter) – REGISTERED WITH THE CSA – (Introduced by SBS Staff.   Asked several questions in his review of the project – very professional.)

LAI, Loretta – REGISTERED WITH THE CSA 

TOEWS, Jeff – REGISTERED WITH THE CSA (Registered under Raintree Financial and currently calls himself the CEO and Strategic Wealth Planner at Drake Wellington.)

PAQUETTE, Susan – NOT REGISTERED WITH THE CSA 

Just looking at this very simple list – it appears (in our experience) the sales people that have been registered with the CSA were far more diligent in their preparation of putting clients money into the Respondents projects – with exceptions of course.

It would be interesting to see how they currently spell ADVISOR/ADVISER…

…something to think about!!