In a shocking turn of events down at the good ole British Columbia Securities Commission, it looks like SCUMBAG NIGEL CAVE is quitting his position – despite giving himself a “retention bonus” not to do so. We have recently discovered via this fancy press release that Cave is done at the end of the year – and according to the BCSC website – this 365 days before the Expiry of his Appointment. It looks like the quitter is starting a cushy highly paid job in the private sector with Stern Partners.
Cave sat on a board at the Commission that actually voted (in the fiscal 2017-2018 year) to give himself (and about 9 others) the retention bonuses. Cave received a bonus of $104,640 – some 32% of his gross salary of $327,000. Do you think the average BC resident is able to pay himself a 32% bonus in order to NOT quit their job?
Source: Facebook
To be clear, Cave (and others) on a panel voted to give themselves the retention bonuses as they were concerned staff would leave during a transitional period. As you can see in this article, the Vancouver Sun talked to former BC Finance Minister Mike De jong, who stated, “…the retention payments were meant to address the uncertainty created by moving to a co-operative system with the other provinces, where there were going to be changes in staffing and new positions associated with a national regulator…(The BCSC) didn’t want to find themselves in a situation where people were fleeing prematurely,” At the time, no one from the BCSC would agree to be interviewed by the reporter.
Our only question now is wondering how long it will be before he demands additional funds to stay on as his role at Stern – and whether or not they realized he needed to be paid a bonus not to quit his job and then turned around months later and did just that.
AND FINALLY – WE WILL FORMALLY CHALLENGE MR. CAVE TO GIVE BACK THE $104,600 TO THE BCSC OR TO A CHARITY OF HIS CHOICE. Prove to the people of BC that you are not this type of person and that you merely got caught up in the scam that is running rampant at the BCSC. What say you?
In a shocking turn of events down at the good ole British Columbia Securities Commission, it looks like SCUMBAG NIGEL CAVE is quitting his position – despite giving himself a “retention bonus” not to do so. We have recently discovered via this fancy press release that Cave is done at the end of the year – and according to the BCSC website – this 365 days before the Expiry of his Appointment. It looks like the quitter is starting a cushy highly paid job in the private sector with Stern Partners.
Cave sat on a board at the Commission that actually voted (in the fiscal 2017-2018 year) to give himself (and about 9 others) the retention bonuses. Cave received a bonus of $104,640 – some 32% of his gross salary of $327,000. Do you think the average BC resident is able to pay himself a 32% bonus in order to NOT quit their job?
Source: Facebook
To be clear, Cave (and others) on a panel voted to give themselves the retention bonuses as they were concerned staff would leave during a transitional period. As you can see in this article, the Vancouver Sun talked to former BC Finance Minister Mike De jong, who stated, “…the retention payments were meant to address the uncertainty created by moving to a co-operative system with the other provinces, where there were going to be changes in staffing and new positions associated with a national regulator…(The BCSC) didn’t want to find themselves in a situation where people were fleeing prematurely,” At the time, no one from the BCSC would agree to be interviewed by the reporter.
Our only question now is wondering how long it will be before he demands additional funds to stay on as his role at Stern – and whether or not they realized he needed to be paid a bonus not to quit his job and then turned around months later and did just that.
AND FINALLY – WE WILL FORMALLY CHALLENGE MR. CAVE TO GIVE BACK THE $104,600 TO THE BCSC OR TO A CHARITY OF HIS CHOICE. Prove to the people of BC that you are not this type of person and that you merely got caught up in the scam that is running rampant at the BCSC. What say you?
As discussed in this previous blog post – there were British Columbia Securities Commission staff that actually took hundreds of thousands of dollars in retention bonuses so they would not QUITE their jobs.
The latest compensation summary for their fiscal year ending shows Brenda Leong and other so called “executives” within the BCSC…
Source: BCSC website
However, we will say these wages are extreme and are borderline extortion against the fine people living in this Province. How the hell can a person make over half a million dollars a year and have such a dismal record? She continues to fail the people of this Province by running this organization blindly and without no real direction.
A huge congratulations to the clowns down at the British Columbia Securities Commission. Recently, they brought forward an application FINALLY applying to receive the funds the ordered “froze” in June 2013. And through all their hard work and on the ball efforts they are about to obtain a grand total of $62,372.24 in funds. Former Investors in both Falls Capital Corp and Deercrest Construction Fund Inc. will soon be able to apply to receive their proportionate strip-end of this “huge” windfall.
Lets take a closer look….
….There was a total of $9,395,400 raised and they have recouped +/- $62,372.24. As you can see in the graph below, eligible investors will receive strip ends proportionate to what they originally invested. Assuming all investors are eligible – they will receive roughly .006638 cents on their dollar…
Considering the OPTIONS that the former investors had to recoup investment dollars (including this SETTLEMENT OFFER that the BCSC completely ignored for 7 weeks) we feel that BCSC did not have the former investors best interest in place – despite this being their mandate as per their website!
36 MONTH REDEMPTION PERIOD
As we also posted back in 2016 – the process at the BCSC is extremely cumbersome and SLOW! As you can see in this link – Investors must apply and are “selected” by staff at the BCSC IF they are deemed eligible for a payment. Read the criteria on their website – do you think they have your best interest at stake?
On the flip side – real estate continues to be sold at the Deercrest Site (now called Vista Green) for $100,000’s of thousands of dollars in realized profit. Units are currently under construction and are being marketed on a daily basis. As you can see from the website, Kerkhoff Construction continues as the developer and will see the property through to the finish line – making profit along the way.
The Settlement Agreement that the BCSC did not even look at (let alone discuss with the former investors) was the best option – one in which many of the former investors wanted to explore. Again, did the BCSC have their best interest at stake?
DID BCSC ABSCOND WITH HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS?
And finally – we need to look at the funds that were seized by the BCSC. It looks like “MATH WIZ LIZ” CHAN was left alone with her calculator again…
When the BCSC seized the funds on June 14, 2013 there was a total of $64,298.58 in the 4 accounts. And now there is only $62,594.85 in the accounts – why the difference? Who took these funds? Where did this money go? Only the clowns who created this whole mess can tell you!
In that the former investors are only going to get approximately .006638 cents on the dollar – you would think the Staff at the BCSC would have at least tried to get more back for the former investors.
Just when you think the lowest of the staff at the British Columbia Securities Commission – they always seem to sink a little lower! In a scathing article in the November 5, 2018 edition of the Vancouver Sun we now find that certain senior management at the BCSC have recieved bonuses for not quitting!! And at the top of the list is none other than BCSC Chair Brenda Leong who has failed the people of BC over and over again! She was paid over $139,000 (on top of her base salary of $434,748 and expenses of $50,000). This equates to a 32% bonus – for not quitting! Why would she quit? She has been paid millions of dollars over her so-called career at the BCSC.
The article goes on to state, “Vice-chair Nigel Cave received a bonus of $104,640 on a salary of $327,000. Other retention bonuses ranged from 22 to 28 per cent, including for director of corporate finance John Hinze, director of enforcement Doug Muir, director of capital markets and regulation Mark Wang, and chief economist Christina Wolf.”
Nigel Cave (Facebook Photo)
And to top it all off – when reached by the reporter that wrote the article, staff had nothing to say….
How is this even possible? Look no further than the epitome of a Scumbag politian – FORMER Finance Minister Mike DeJong who we have written about in the past! That being said, Mr De Jong doesn’t remember if he was the one that approved it. Geez Mikey Boy, maybe this is the reason you were voted out – you don’t remember spending over $600,000 on something like this? What a joke! The BC Government – the gift that just keeps giving to everyone but the good people in this Province!
Mike DeJong
CHALLENGE:
And finally – a message directly to Brenda Leong! I hereby challenge you to donate the bonus money you received to a charity of your choice!! And hopefully others (like you Nigel Cave) will follow suit and do the same! Or is this what it is all about to you – just the money??? Fucking scumbags!
On June 14, 2013, the incompetent staff at the British Columbia Securities Commission brought the bogus Notice of Hearing allegations to our doorstep. In addition, they also issued an Order to Freeze Property (see below) to an assortment of companies that I was a part of – whether or not they were related to the Falls development or not. At least 2 of the companies had NO relationship with any of the Respondents to the allegations of fraud. One was a retail business that I was involved in 2011 and 2012. This was a total dickhead move by the BCSC that ended up costing money to have those funds returned/released. Again, a complete abuse of power from Staff at the BCSC.
The assets were namely bank accounts that belonged to the companies – West Karma Ltd., Deercrest Management Ltd, a numbered company, and my personal bank account. All together, the bank accounts had roughly $65,000 in them.
After the hearing and the sanctions were issued by the BCSC, it would be the Staff (at the BCSC) responsibility to apply to have any monies seized or recovered from a Respondent and returned to the investors. This falls under section 161 (1)(g) of the BC Securities Act and is in clear black and white.
It was determined by the Panel (in their sanctioning document) that the money in the numbered company belong to the numbered company and NOT to Wharram or any of the former investors in FCC or DCF – this was made very clear by Nigel Cave – the Panel Chair during our hearing.
6 YEARS LATER
As hard as it is to imagine….6 years AFTER the order was issued, the utter failures down at the BCSC have yet to apply to receive the nearly $11,000 that was in the West Karma Ltd. bank account. Investors would have a claim to these funds.
The BCSC once again proves their complete incompetence at EVERYTHING they do. Why has it taken this amount of time for them to react? Again, who is running this ship? Is this on BCSC Chair Brenda Leong’s shoulder? Lawyer Olubode Fagbamiye? Executive Director Peter Brady? Director of Enforcement Doug Muir? Collectively, these clowns make over $1 million dollars per year – why do they continue to fail the people in the Province of British Columbia over and over again? Incompetence? Laziness?
And let’s not forget about the former investors that have to apply…and then wait 3 years to get their proportionate share of the recovered funds. Who makes these policies?
Even if they decide to WAKE UP and start doing their jobs, the former investors need to wait for another 3 years to recoup any of these funds – who makes these policies? That would put it the better part of a decade for anyone to receive returned funds….
Only down at the BCSC does the comedy of errors continue day after day! When can the former investors of FCC and DCF expect you to do your jobs and secure the $10,941.59 (and other funds) for their benefit? And why is it taking me to tell you this?
Its already been a few months since your termination from the British Columbia Securities Commission and you are no where to be found!! Where are you big guy? Having any difficulties finding a job with your shitty credentials?
We know the severance package the BCSC would have given you on February 29, 2019 would not amount to a hill of beans so what are you gonna do?
Oh well – I suppose you will surface soon enough….scum always rises to the top of the barrel.
It looks like we have this months winner of the “Absolute Scumbag Award” down at the British Columbia Securities Commission. It is none other than Pamela McDonald (acting as Director of Communications and Education)….
Pam McDonald (Twitter)
Recently, through a Freedom of Information request, we asked to see McDonald’s expense account from BCSC’s fiscal year end for 2017-2018. Her spending is questionable in that she has income of $244,522 and has expenses of $27,397. We thought we would take a look – and as we reviewed her file we came across something absolutely pathetic and really shows the true colors of this BCSC Staff Member.
It appears that for whatever reason, McDonald was in charge of gathering supplies for a party for a fellow staff member’s (Brenda Benham) who was leaving the commission. As you will see below – she ventured out of her cozy little office and made stops at Safeway (Cheese and Fruit Platters), Costco (Veggie Tray), and the Party Bazaar (for Balloons) to gather supplies for the going-away party.
Understanding people have parties for friends and business associates all the time, that we are fine with – we just don’t understand the absolute cheapness and greed shown by McDonald.
Ms McDonald, if you happen to read this blog – please take the time to think about why you wouldn’t go out and pay for this stuff out of your pocket? Really? You even had the audacity to charge back to the commission the 2 bucks you paid to park at Costco for fuck sakes? How do you think Ms. Benham would feel if she knew you did this? The woman gave her heart and soul to the Commission and you won’t even open your wallet and pay $189.00 for her little party out of your own pocket? You make over $240,000 per year and you won’t pay $2.00 to park your car for a few moments at Costco or $13.00 bucks for some balloons? What a joke!
You’re just another reason that people can’t stand abuse at our government level with our crooked Crown Corporations and why the BCSC, ICBC and BC Hydro etc. are all pathetic. By the way – how do you even justify a quarter millions dollars a year salary plus over $27,000 in expenses? At a simple glance – you run around town trying to spew the BCSC’s poison all in the name of keeping the markets educated?
And by the way – I will keep the “buying booze for yourself and others” on the BCSC’s dime while down in Toronto on the down low – for now! Were you the Maker’s Mark or the Pinot Noir?
But no worries Pamela – after reviewing several other names on the list (including your fearless leader, Brenda Leong), we see many of you like to suck back the wine/booze while representing the BCSC….even at 2:00 in the afternoon! I wonder if she went back to the CSA summer meetings that day? My guess is that she did have to go back….because at 2:56 the same day she was buying a tea…
Good job Brenda!! But I will give you kudos….at least you paid for your wine (this time) out of your $500,000 grand, right? More to come on her expenses and her tastes for wine in the near future….stay tuned! LOL!!
What was it like at Walton International? To be on the front lines back during the “good years” – to be an employee in one of their offices?
Recently, we were contacted by a former employee of Walton and what they have told us should rock both the Alberta Securities Commission and Walton brass to the core. How could the ASC allow Walton to go essentially unchecked for years when dozens of people were coming forward with unbelievable stories of their losses with Walton.
Some of the former employees comments include:
Physically scared to answer the phone because they were told the lines were tapped. Bosses told staff to hang up the phone if anyone asked too many questions – specifically about the open offerings.
Mail was often sent to head office via FedEx but staff were told to hand fill in the form with Non-Walton information and drop them off directly at the station as opposed to having FedEx come to the office.
“One of the VP of Sales would come into the Walton office with brief cases of cash after meeting with foreign investors. Amounts were over $200,000 in cash. He would ask us to deposit the cash at a nearby bank, but the Administrators in the office would refuse.”
“Doherty was a scary fellow” – they indicated they met him briefly but he was never formally introduced to many of the staff.
“The staff parties were lavish to say the least. Monthly steak dinner’s at Hy’s Steakhouse. They had to dump.money every month apparently.”
Employee was terminated only a day before their 3 months without cause. From what they heard, “Walton only kept a Receptionist for 3 months at a time and thinks they did this before they knew too much mostly likely.”
Shame on Walton and shame on the regulators for allowing these people the run of the town – do forget, we have spoken to foreign investors that indicated the were invited to Calgary, Canada to tour the Walton business model – and this included a trip to the Alberta Securities Commission. And letters in lawyers letterhead indicating the ASC had given Walton a free-pass.
What can be now be said about the gutlessness that defines former BC Securities Commission lawyer Olubode Fagbamiye? Those of you that have followed this blog can truly appreciate what this total waste of skin has done in his roughly 6 years at the BCSC. We firmly believe it was Fagbamiye and his side-kick C. Paige Leggat that manipulated evidence in our case during the hearing.
We can now confirm that this vile piece of garbage has either been terminated or quit his push-over litigation job at the Commission. As we reported a few weeks ago we sent request under the Freedom of Information act and the BCSC office responded with the following…
What kind of a firm would hire this clown? And furthermore, how did this flunky get hired by the BCSC to begin with? Think about it for a moment – he can hardly speak english – his mannerism both in a hearing room and in correspondence is pathetic…and lets not forget this gem.
In closing, we can now confirm that EVERY one of the staff that worked our file have now been terminated or have quit their cozy positions at the BCSC. Starting with Paul Bourque (then Executive Director), Teresa Mitchell-Banks (then Director of Enforcement), Liz Chan (then Lead Investigator), Paige Leggat (then Lawyer), and now Fagbamiye. Whats going on down at the BCSC? One can only speculate that there are reasons for this – maybe the powers-that-be are getting rid of the deadwood and staff that acted in bad faith during their time at the BCSC. Scumbags – all of them!
Hmmmmmm……looks like the little bitch cowards time might be up at the British Columbia Securities Commission….
Today it was reported to us the Olubode Fagbamiye (one of the biggest cowards EVER to walk the face of the Earth) has either been terminated or has left the comforts of his push-over job at the BCSC. We checked his status at the Law Society of BC and he is NOT registered as a lawyer in the Province.
Where are you at BIG BODE???
Freedom of Information (FOI) requests will be sent to the FOI division of the BCSC to determine whether the information we received today is true – that being said, as we have reported in other posts in this blog, Fagbamiye is now the last idiot that worked on our file from 2013-2015 and was part of our allegations of acting in bad faith. he know what truly went on with respect to the investigation into our file and the allegation of tampering with the documents to suite their theory of the case. Others, including the Executive Director (Paul Bourque), Lead Investigator (Liz Chan), Litigation Counsel (C. Paige Legatt), Director of Enforcement (Theresa Mitchell-Banks) have all been fired or terminated since our matter was brought forward.
Again, we reiterate – Fagbamiye would be the last person at the BCSC that worked the case against us. Think about it for a moment – why is he gone now too?
Olubode Fagamiye – I know you read my blog on a regular basis. Do you think now it is time you finally tell the truth? Time for a beer? Probably not – you will undoubtably continue living the way you have in the last 7 years – head in the sand with ZERO future in life!! Fuck you – Coward!!
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 the coward naps throughout his days and has issues with getting his job done? Who knows?
On February 7, 2019 I sent correspondence to your office – specifically to the Freedom of Information department. As of yet, I have not received an acknowledgement letter as per your protocol. I believe you do this to let the writer know when the 30-day requirement to provide the information starts.
Now, I can see that there are at least 7 people at the BCSC who read this blog daily. Whoever is reading this blog from the BCSC – can you seek out the Freedom of Information Analyst and have them reply to my request. 30 business days from February 7 is March 21 so you better get you ducks in a row and start acting more professional!
We are now into February of 2019, one can only wonder what is going to happen this year down at the good ole British Columbia Securities Commission. Our prediction is simple – another year of NOTHING! Fines will remain uncollected….Brenda Leong will still collect her $500,000 pay cheque while failing the people of this Province….and dopes like Olubode Fagbamiye will still do ANYTHING to make a case against Respondents.
CRIMINAL CHARGES ARE NOT IN THE BCSC’S BEST INTEREST
I have had people ask me recently why they BCSC did not pursue criminal charges against me (and several other of their many allegations over the years). In actuality, the BCSC bark is much stronger than its bite. For many accused fraudsters life continues as if nothing even happened – they simply move to another profession or move out of the Province in which they were charged. It is in these situation that former investors fell even more helpless and that there truly is no recourse against the wrongdoing.
It is our opinion that the crux of the matter is that the BCSC (and their counterparts in other Provinces) prefer it this way – for a couple of different reasons:
First, they are complete egomaniacs that want to control every inch of an investigation – they are able to throw whatever they want at the wall and hope it sticks. In a criminal investigation the level of proof (before a judge will issue a warrant) and even hear allegation in a court room is far greater. Investigators (including the complete and udder failure Elizabeth “Liz” Chan and her boss at the time – the flunky Lori Chambers) are able to run around with their badges and have relatively no experience – remember Chan was a simple Chartered Accountant when she started at the BCSC. How does a CA end up with a badge? She was trained to add numbers up and wasn’t even able to do that right – how can the BCSC justify giving this inept person conduct on a file?
And secondly (and more importantly) they are able to bring many bogus allegations against Issuers WITHOUT having to really prove anything. They do NOT have to appear in front of a judge or jury and need to only prove their case on the “balance of probabilities” (50.1%) in front of their OWN peers – rather than in a courtroom where a far greater case must be presented to prove allegations against any Respondent. Respondents really don’t stand a chance and the process certainly is not fair to all parties – despite this being a mandate on the BCSC’s website.
Please understand, the BCSC is run internally where Respondents must go against an Executive Director, lawyers and a Panel of appointed Commissionaires whom are ALL paid by the same internally run BC Securities Commission. Shockingly, during our hearing it was an almost daily event to see the scumbag lawyers walk out of the hearing room with Chan and get in the elevator…together. One can almost be certain that they had private meetings to discuss strategy during the days of the hearing – this would NEVER happen in a criminal case with real lawyers and judges. During the hearing, when we asked the Panel Chair Nigel Cave about this his reply was, “We are not even going to entertain that comment…”. He completely swept my question under the rug as they did with many of my comments.
And let’s not forget the investors – as we blogged in the past, the BCSC can’t even collect on these fines. They have levied fines of OVER $340 million dollars and have only collected a small fraction over the years as you can see here in this blog. What a complete joke this system is – completely broken and in need of an overhaul starting at the top with Brenda Leong! Investors deserve better!
After reading a scathing article written by Mr. Larry Elford, we can’t help but agree with Mr. Elford in questioning whether or not Canada’s 13 provincial securities regulators are in fact running a side business.
As you will see in his article below – he reviews and then questions just how the regulators in this country can “look the other way” when it appears securities violations are blatant. His theory is candid and to the point – the over-paid executives running each of the 13 provincial regulators are paid their excessive salaries by fees and other monies that come into their offices by many of these ‘offside’ companies. Take them out and their slush funds would possibly disappear into the night.
Our immediate reaction and beliefs are more direct and to the point…these scumbags appear to ALL be in bed together and the common folk in Canada better wake up before this country sinks further into the hole it appears to be headed.
Mr. Elford’s article is as follows:
Author’s Note:
Todays Globe and Mail Nov 17, 2018, pointed out that senior executives at Bombardier who wished to sell their shares…secretly, without notifying the public as the law requires, were granted yet another exemption to our laws, which I feel the public should know of.
Most people feel we are protected by securities regulators in Canada and I would like to put forth the view that perhaps this is upside down, not true.
The $8 Billion in investment market value decline in BBD shares in the last month or so is roughly equal to about 1.5 million street crimes, at an average cost of $5000 per street crime. Most Canadians would be horrified to discover that 13 Canadian Provincial and Territorial Securities Commissions sell passes to “exempt” the laws, as easily as a high school kid sells fake concert tickets downtown. Most Canadians think securites commissions are protecting the playing field, not rigging the playing field. Most are wrong.
When exemptions were sold by Ontario Securitites Commission staffers to allow sale of unrated, illegal, Sub Prime Mortgage backed “investments”, the harm to Canada was roughly equivalent to the cost/harm done by about six million street crimes (and Canada does not even HAVE six million street crimes….those are USA sized figures for street crime) The exemptions to securities laws allowed roughly $32 Billion of unlawful securities (Asset Backed Commercial Paper) to be dumped upon unsuspecting Canadians by dealers who wished not to be “stuck” holding the junk themselves.
When Valeant Pharma was given exemptions to Canada’s laws, the end effect was 90 Billion in market cap removed from the value of this company and this was roughly equal to more street crime than one can even imagine. These organized schemes are done without public notice, without public input, and in near total secrecy. Not even the purchasers of law-exempted investment products have a right to be told. This is not regulation by any standard, but systemic financial abuse by financial professionals.
I would just like Canadians to be informed that orgainzed white collar crime is harming the land by more than all the crimes in the land….and that this is done by organized professionals, acting in secret.
Bombardier has lost $8 bil in public investment market capitalization (todays Globe) in the last month. Why? Because 12 executives needed to dump millions of shares? Why because they knew the company was failing and they wanted a chance to sell their shares before the public found out. How did they (company insiders) dump their shares in secret? They applied to the provincial securities commission (your government regulator in each province) for an “Exemption” to the laws on public disclosure. Why would the regulators sell permission to skirt the laws? Because the financial industry pays the total salaries of the regulator…even the gov regulator is industry funded. So for salaries in the $400k to 700k range (top four executives at the BC Securities Commission share roughly $2 mil for example) the financial industry gets hand-picked, handmaids, who will sell out the public interest repeatedly….Why would they do that? Because that is how self-regulated (lawless) capitalism works. Regulators do what they are told, by the industry who pays them, or they lose their six figure job. A breach of the public trust, yes, but who is going to ever know that they do this sometimes 500 times per year? $8 billion in lost public investment value is roughly equivalent to the financial cost of 1.5 million street crimes at an average harm per crime of $5000. I forget now, what was the question?
Recently the British Columbia Securities Commission printed a big fancy press release boasting with regards to money they have recovered in a matter from back in 2014.
While reviewing Receivership Order filed at the Supreme Court of British Columbia we happened upon another “grade 2 mistake” by the good people running our courts and the seemingly 2-cent lawyers that bring matters before the courts in this province.
By all accounts Lawson Lundell LLP looks like a good law firm and one can easily see that the scumbags at the BCSC lean on Lawson Lundell for many of their cases that the BCSC’s utter failures lawyers (like Olubode Fagbamie) are not able to handle. A closer look and we see that the BCSC “go-to guy” seems to be a William L. Roberts as he has represented them recently in several cases.
WILLIAM L. ROBERTS (Source: Lawson Lundell LLP website)
Now it looks like working for (and with) the BCSC (and their incompetent staff) has rubbed off on Mr. Roberts and his personal assistant whom we assume wrote the following: (NOTE: We have omitted some pages of the document)
Why would it have a completely different name on the last page of the Receivership Order? This document was filed on December 13, 2018 at the Supreme Court of British Columbia and these clowns cannot even ensure they have the right name on the document? Sounds oddly familiar does it not?
What say you Willy Roberts? In such a race to get your paycheck that you forgot to proof-read your submissions before you signed your name? Sloppy sloppy – no wonder you and the BCSC get along so good! Is your legal assistant related to the BCSC’s Colette Colter by any chance? LOL!!
In a former post in this blog a few weeks ago, we told a story of one of our former investors calling the BCSC to ask questions regarding our matter. Unfortunately, whomever she spoke to at the Commission hung up on her before she could get ANY answers to the questions she had for them.
Today, we thought we would try to get answers from Staff Litigator Mr. Olubode Fagbamiye (the Staff Litigator that worked directly on my file) from essentially day 1. He was one of the lawyers (the other being C. Paige Leggat) that was present during the hearing and he was certainly there during the period of time we presented our settlement Offer that would have seen the investors participate in the successful Deercrest property (without involvement from Staff at West Karma Ltd.).
As you will see in the video below, we did not waste Mr. Fagbamiye’s time and asked him 3 very direct questions. It is almost laughable his replies (or lack there of) to our repeated questions.
IT IS OUR OPINION THIS VIDEO CONFIRMS EVERYTHING WE HAVE BEEN SAYING THE ENTIRE TIME. AND IT REMAINS OUR OPINION BY FAILING TO RESPOND TO OUR QUESTIONS THE BCSC (AND THEIR STAFF) ARE COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT IN RUNNING THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY IN THIS PROVINCE!
Shame on them all! Especially this incompetent spineless amoeba that happened to work on our file (manipulating the evidence and not taking a valid settlement offer to the Executive Director).
For all former investors in both FCC and DCF, we encourage you to watch the video – now more than every you need to contact (phone, mail, email, fax) and get these questions answered.
They cannot ignore all of you! As you can see, Fagbamiye’s phone number is 604-899-6790 and the main line is 604-899-6500. Call them today – record the call or have someone witness the call for you. Email them weekly if you need to!
It is time they are held accountable for THEIR actions in the West Karma matter.
The low-life Scumbags at the British Columbia Securities Commission have got it all figured out in terms of how they are finally going to boost their ability to collect on the half a billion dollars in fines they have issued over the last decade or so.
According to an article in the Vancouver Sun, they are going to bring in an estimated $7.6 million by increasing their fees! These are fees that financial advisors pay to be able to apply their trade in the province. Ultimately, these fees will in turn be paid by the general public or anyone that participates in the securities market in the Province.
BCSC’s PETER BRADY
The pond scum bringing these increased fees to the forefront are the usual players and they can’t even answer simple questions regarding their plan – BCSC Executive Director Peter Brady indicated to the Sun reporter that he did not have an exact number but a “significant portion” of these new funds will be earmarked to fight white-collar crime. This sounds about right – raise $7.6 million and have no idea how much is going to used for collection activities? How can they not tell us what their plan is and specifically how much of these funds are being allocated to the reason they are being raised? These people are useless! And it sounds to me like they just want to line their pockets….AGAIN!! Time for more bonuses we wonder?
Just maybe the good people of the Province of British Columbia would not have to pay increased fees if Staff at the BCSC would simply do their jobs and stop raiding the BCSC bank accounts to pay themselves ridiculous bonuses. Click here to read that story!
Newspapers indicate that 10 people at the British Columbia Securities Commission recieved a total of just over $620,000 in bonuses so they would not quit working there….
For those of you that didn’t – how does this make you feel? Brenda Leong – who is already in the Top 3 paid BC government employees in the province received over $140,000 on top of her wage of nearly $500,000. How does that make you feel?
How can you people sit there in your shitty little cubicles and know that your fellow comrades are getting this extra cash and you have nothing?
I suggest you walk down the hallway and challenge Brenda Leong, Nigel Cave, Doug Muir, etc. to donate this money to a charity – or even back to some initiative that would help you people in your own office. Extra training? Or maybe some love for your hard work? Divide that $620,000 up by roughly 200 of you and you would each get approximatley $3100 each – doesn’t that sound fantastic right around Christmas time? Wouldn’t that be nice to take your family on a trip? Its unclear whether this photo of Nigel Cave was taken after he received his stripend but doesn’t he look happy?…
The jury is out on Muir – rumour has it he looks like this all the time…
For those of you that dont have the guts to say something to them – you are part of the problem with the BCSC and why you truly have no job security. You are all being taken for a ride!! Go ask for your $3,100 or quit – that’s what they were alleged to have going to do! Except you Olubode Fagbamiye – you just sit there anyway and probably really don’t deserve any of this free money!
Just when you think the lowest of the staff at the British Columbia Securities Commission – they always seem to sink a little lower! In a scathing article in the November 5, 2018 edition of the Vancouver Sun we now find that certain senior management at the BCSC have recieved bonuses for not quitting!! And at the top of the list is none other than BCSC Chair Brenda Leong who has failed the people of BC over and over again! She was paid over $139,000 (on top of her base salary of $434,748 and expenses of $50,000). This equates to a 32% bonus – for not quitting! Why would she quit? She has been paid millions of dollars over her so-called career at the BCSC.
The article goes on to state, “Vice-chair Nigel Cave received a bonus of $104,640 on a salary of $327,000. Other retention bonuses ranged from 22 to 28 per cent, including for director of corporate finance John Hinze, director of enforcement Doug Muir, director of capital markets and regulation Mark Wang, and chief economist Christina Wolf.”
Nigel Cave (Facebook Photo)
And to top it all off – when reached by the reporter that wrote the article, staff had nothing to say….
How is this even possible? Look no further than the epitome of a Scumbag politian – FORMER Finance Minister Mike DeJong who we have written about in the past! That being said, Mr De Jong doesn’t remember if he was the one that approved it. Geez Mikey Boy, maybe this is the reason you were voted out – you don’t remember spending over $600,000 on something like this? What a joke! The BC Government – the gift that just keeps giving to everyone but the good people in this Province!
Mike DeJong
CHALLENGE:
And finally – a message directly to Brenda Leong! I hereby challenge you to donate the bonus money you received to a charity of your choice!! And hopefully others (like you Nigel Cave) will follow suit and do the same! Or is this what it is all about to you – just the money??? Fucking scumbags!
When one encounters legal issues the normal process is to hire a lawyer to defend against allegations. Many people look to the internet to search for a lawyer that specializes in aspect of law that matches the offence they have been charged with. With respect to security issues and breaches of securities law here in British Columbia – there are a few so called ‘white collar expert lawyers’ at a variety of law firms scattered mainly throughout the Vancouver area. Very easily, one can find these so called experts records in a hearing room by looking at at legal decisions and findings on the British Columbia Securities Commission website or online.
These lawyers reputations and/or accreditations are routinely displayed on websites like www.bestlawyers.com where lawyers can literally be nominated as a “Best Lawyer” by their peers. Their website states, “Recognition by Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer review. Our methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Best Lawyers employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of the quality of legal services. Our belief has always been that the quality of a peer review survey is directly related to the quality of the voters.” (-END-)
Their ‘Process’ of selecting these “cream of the crop” lawyers is clearly outlined on their website:
SOURCE: www.bestlawyer.com
Lexpert – Business of Law appears to be another similar website that hands out accreditations to lawyers in all aspect of law. Their search feature indicates, “The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory comprises the results of an extensive peer survey. This comprehensive guide to legal talent in Canada identifies both leading lawyers and law firms from across the country.”
H. RODERICK (ROD) ANDERSON OF HARPER GREY LLP
Taking a look at one lawyer in particular, H. Roderick Anderson routinely gets nominated for awards from both Best Lawyers and Lexpert. Most recently (in August 2018) he was recognized as a “Best Lawyer in Canada for 2019″ and in April 2018, Lexpert named him a “2018 Leading Practitioner”. In fact, Lexpert has named H. Roderick Anderson a Leading Practitioner for at least as far back as 2013. He won as well in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. Quite a distinction for a lawyer at any level and I am sure when potential clients go to his firms website and read the News and Knowledge tab, they would come away feeling very confident in his abilty to represent them in a matter before the BCSC. But, lets take a look at Anderson’s track record over those last 5 or so years…
One can easy see Anderson appears to have loss after loss with files argued at the BCSC. And of those losses, at least one of his clients is now in jail. I thought a lawyers job was to win cases and defend their clients in these matters?
Back to websites like bestlawyer.com and Lexpert – we need to question what their criteria truly is. You have a lawyer like Anderson that has won awards (and recommendations) and has only won 18.1% of his cases against the BCSC over the last 5 years. This is equivalent to a baseball player hitting .181 and making the major leagues and then being elected to the all-star game. It would be considered a joke at any level – but not with his peers who have nominated him or the people at Best Lawyer or Lexpert that have supposedly vetted his nominations. How can a lawyer that has only won 2 cases in the last 5 years at the BCSC be considered a Leading Practitioner?
QUESTION: Do agencies like Best Lawyer and Lexpert not have the audacity to truly vet the records of the lawyers that win their awards and recommedations?
On December 19, 2017, the whiny Canadian Securities Administrators (“CSA”) felt the need to issue a Press Release in regards to the media attention their failures are causing the good people and capital markets in Canada. Why now? Media is hammering them over their dismal record of allowing fraudsters in the capital markets to run wild with little to no recourse.
We here read over the release and find it very comical and so very inaccurate. Let’t take a closer look – Our comments will be in bold below…
December 19, 2017
Toronto – Over the past week, the Globe and Mail (Globe) has published multiple reports on enforcement in Canada’s capital markets. In response to this recent media commentary, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) today issued the following statement:
The CSA, the council of securities regulators of Canada’s provinces and territories, coordinates and harmonizes regulation for the Canadian capital markets. CSA enforcement teams work to protect the integrity of our capital markets and strive for responsive, collaborative and effective enforcement of securities laws. While the vibrancy, depth and overall health of the Canadian capital markets have been internationally recognized, Canada, like all markets, has criminals who prey on the investing public. We do everything in our power to identify, investigate and prosecute those individuals. We are concerned with how these enforcement efforts have been mischaracterized and wish to highlight some specific issues with the Globe’s coverage:
(IT’S FUNNY – WHY DID JUST THE GLOBE AND MAIL ARTICLE GET THE ATTENTION OF THE CSA? THE VANCOUVER SUN AND PROVINCE HAVE BEEN HAMMERING THE BCSC THE LAST FEW WEEKS WITH ONLINE AND PRINT STORIES OUTLINING THE BCSC’S FAILURE TO COLLECT ON THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THEY HAVE ISSUED IN FINES AND DISGORGEMENT ORDERS IN THE DECADE OR SO. MANY OTHERS HAVE BEEN OUTSPOKEN IN THE LAST FEW YEARS BUT ESSENTIALLY NOTHING FROM THE PRESS – WHY NOW?)
Securities regulators do not have statutory authority to pursue criminal offences. In recognition, several securities regulators have strengthened their ability to address misconduct in the capital markets by developing partnerships with law enforcement. THE BCSC (AND I WOULD ASSUME ALL OF THE CANADIAN REGULATORS) ABSOLUTELY HAVE THE ABILITY TO PURSUE CRIMINAL OFFENCES. THE BCSC SPENT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS BRINGING IN A FANCY DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT (THERESA MITCHELL-BANKS) AND HAVE (OR HAD) RCMP PHYSICALLY WORKING IN THEIR OFFICE. MITCHELL-BANKS WAS FIRED IN DECEMBER 2015 AND PAID A VERY HEALTHY SEVERANCE PACKAGE. FOR THE CSA TO SAY THEY DO NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO PURSUE CRIMINAL CHARGES IS ABSURD. FACTS ARE THEY HAVE TO CHOOSE VERY EARLY ON IN AN INVESTIGATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO PURSUE CRIMINAL CHARGES. AND THIS OPENS ANOTHER COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BURDEN OF PROOF NEEDED FOR CHARGES TO EVEN BE BROUGHT FORWARD.
In order for securities regulators to access tools under the Criminal Code (e.g. power of arrest, ability to execute warrants), police officers must be seconded to securities commissions. More law enforcement resources are always welcome. AGAIN, WE HAVE IT ON VERY HIGH AUTHORITY THAT IN AS EARLY AS 2013 THERE WERE PHYSICALLY RCMP OFFICERS WORKING AT DESKS INSIDE THE BCSC. FURTHERMORE, THE RCMP HAVE PHYSICALLY BEEN PRESENT WHEN BCSC INVESTIGATORS HAVE ISSUED SUMMONS TO RESPONDENTS IN AT LEAST 3 MATTERS WE HAVE LOOKED INTO.
Law enforcement is primarily responsible for investigating financial crime in Canada, and there is a dedicated unit of the RCMP (Integrated Market Enforcement Team) set up for this purpose. Despite the importance of law enforcement and their role in pursuing recidivists, the Globe chose not to seek comment from the RCMP or local law enforcement, nor did it include any statistical data from these agencies. THIS POINT IS REALLY CONFUSING – I THOUGHT IN THE POINTS ABOVE THEY INDICATED, “Securities regulators do not have statutory authority to pursue criminal offences” YET HERE THEY ARE INDICATING THEY HAVE ACCESS TO A DEDICATED UNIT OF THE RCMP? WHO WROTE THIS? WHAT A COMPLETE JOKE! MAYBE THE GLOBE AND MAIL DIDN’T SEEK COMMENT FROM THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO ASSIST AND INTERVIEWING THEM WOULD BE POINTLESS.
Securities regulators work together to address misconduct in Canada’s capital markets, and the Globe was provided with multiple examples of these collaborative efforts. For example, several securities regulators have Statutory Reciprocal Order Provisions, which essentially means that an order issued by one regulator is automatically in effect within all jurisdictions with these provisions. It should be noted that these provisions were introduced specifically to curb inter-provincial/territorial wrongdoing by repeat offenders. GREAT! WHATS THE POINT? THE PROVISIONS ARE WONDERFUL AT GETTING FRAUDSTERS FROM MOVING PROVINCES. WHY WON’T THE BCSC TELL THE REPORTER FROM THE VANCOUVER SUN WHO IS IN CHARGE OF COLLECTING THE DEBTS AT THE BCSC? ONE COMMENT WE WILL MAKE HERE THOUGH IS HOW CAN A CANADIAN (UNDER THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS) BE FOUND GUILTY IN A PROVINCE WITHOUT GETTING A HEARING AND A CHANCE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES? IT HAPPENS IN ALBERTA ON A DAILY BASIS SINCE JULY 2015. (CLICK HERE)
Securities regulators can and do pursue jail time where they have the authority to do so. TECHNICALLY, ALL OF THE SECURITIES REGULATORS CAN PURSUE JAIL TIME WITH CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND CHARGES IN ALL CASES. THEY DON’T FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS INCLUDING INCOMPETENCE, RESOURCES, AND RUINING THEIR INTERNAL WAYS OF REGULATING. INCOMPETENCE IS AN EASY ONE – THEIR STAFF ARE MOSTLY TRAINED WITHIN AND ARE AMATEURS AT BEST. MOST DO NOT HAVE THE TRAINING OR SKILLS REQUIRED TO BRING FORWARD CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS. PURSUING CRIMINAL CHARGES WOULD TAKE FAR MORE RESOURCES AND WOULD CUT INTO THE BCSC’S FANCY LITTLE BANK ACCOUNT – CRIMINAL LAWYERS ARE EXPENSIVE. AND FINALLY THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS FAR HIGHER IN A CRIMINAL MATTER AND WOULD BE ARGUED BEFORE REAL JUDGES AND NOT APPOINTED COMMISSIONAIRES. ALLEGATIONS IN MY CASE WOULD HAVE NEVER MADE IT INTO A REAL COURTROOM AS THEY WERE VERY CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND INACCURATE. SO CIRCUMSTANTIAL THAT THE LAWYERS HAD TO MANIPULATE EVIDENCE IN AN ATTEMPT TO PROVE THEIR FEEBLE CASE! TAKE A LOOK HERE!
Courts make decisions about sentencing in criminal matters, not securities regulators. THIS IS EXACTLY MY POINT IN #5 ABOVE – REGULATORS ADMINISTER THESE HUGE FINES WHERE A REAL JUDGE WOULD NOT LEGALLY BE ABLE TO DO SO. I ALWAYS USE THE ANALOGY THAT IF A PERSON COMMITS A CRIME IN CANADA (SAY THEFT OVER $5000) – THIS PERSON IS GUARANTEED TO GET A FAIR TRIAL IN FRONT OF A JUDGE OR JURY, HE WILL NOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY AGAINST HIMSELF, AND HIS PUNISHMENT WILL FIT THE CRIME ACCORDING TO LAW AND PREVIOUS CASE LAW. THIS IS NOT THE CASE WHEN A RESPONDENT IS FACED WITH ALLEGATIONS FROM A SECURITIES REGULATOR IN THIS COUNTRY. IN MANY (IF NOT ALL) RESPONDENTS ARE MADE TO ATTEND COMPELLED INTERVIEWS WHERE STAFF ARE ABLE TO ASK ANY QUESTION THEY WANT AND CAN USE THESE ANSWERS TO BRING ALLEGATIONS TO A HEARING ROOM. THE HEARING IS DONE IN FRONT OF BIASED, PAID COMMISSIONAIRES – IT IS NOT IN THESE COMMISSIONAIRES BEST INTEREST TO STAY CHARGES IF THEY WANT TO KEEP THEIR APPOINTMENTS(AND MONEY COMING IN). THE REGULATORS (SPECIFICALLY AT THE BCSC) HAVE ISSUED FINES THAT DO NOT SUIT THE LEVEL OF WRONGDOING. THAT CRIMINAL THAT WE MENTIONED ABOVE DOES HIS TIME AND HE IS RELEASED FROM PRISON AND IS INTEGRATED BACK INTO SOCIETY – THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE BCSC. EVEN SOMEONE WHO COMMITS MURDER IN CANADA DOESN’T HAVE TO TESTIFY AGAINST THEMSELVES BECAUSE IT IS IN THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.
The Globe notes that former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge spoke of the “widely held perception that Canadian authorities aren’t tough enough.” This quote was taken from a speech delivered 13 years ago in which the former governor actually said he was encouraged that provincial securities commissions were taking steps to toughen enforcement. THIS IS RATHER A MUTE POINT – WE WOULD AGREE WITH THE CSA WITH THIS COMMENT – IT IS RATHER OLD AND STALE. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE HUNDREDS (click on link) OF OTHERS THAT HAVE COMMENTED OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, WEEKS, AND EVEN DAYS? WE POSTED THIS (click on link) TO OUR BLOG IN AUGUST 2016 WHERE EVEN THE FORMER HEAD OF THE ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION WAS CRITICAL OF THE ACTIONS OF THE CSA. THERE ARE DOZENS OF COMMENTS ON THE INTERNET ON A REGULAR BASIS. IN A SIMPLE GOOGLE SEARCH WE HAVE FOUND DOZENS INCLUDING THIS VERY FUNNY ONE REGARDING THE FORMER CHAIR OF THE ASC….HE ACTUALLY HAD A SEX DOLL IN HIS OFFICE THERE ARE FACEBOOK PAGES, TWITTER PAGES, ETC. THAT HAVE ALL BROUGHT WRONGDOING BY REGULATORS TO THE FOREFRONT. FACTS ARE, THE REGULATORS HAVE DROPPED THE BALL FOR DECADES NOW. THIS IS BECAUSE NO ONE REALLY GOVERNS THEM – THEY ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO ANYONE -ESPECIALLY NOT THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY!
Securities regulators dedicate significant resources to helping investors protect themselves from fraud. These include local investor education initiatives, national campaigns about avoiding investment fraud, and a National Registration Search tool that investors can use to check whether an individual or firm is registered with provincial securities regulators. THAT’S GREAT! BUT AS WE CAN SEE FROM THIS ARTICLE – ONLY 4% OF THE ADVISERS CHECK OUT WERE REGISTERED WITH THE CSA! THIS MEANS THOUSANDS OF FINANCIAL PLANNERS IN CANADA ARE NOT REGISTERED – WHAT HAPPENS THEN? THIS DOES NOT EVEN ACCOUNT FOR THE WHOLE ADVISOR/ADVISER FIASCO THAT THE CSA AND THEIR PROVINCIAL PARTNERS HAVE CAUSED!
The Globe has stated that its investigation is based on an analysis of 30 years of data contained in the CSA’s Disciplined List. This database does not contain 30 years of national data. Some securities commissions have uploaded data dating back just over 10 years. WHO CARES? YOU BOZOS ARE GRASPING! DOES IT REALLY MATTER WHEN IT ALL STARTED? THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN AND DATA WHETHER IT IS 30, 20, 10 OR EVEN 5 YEARS OLD DOES NOT LIE! YOU PEOPLE ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH PROTECTING YOUR BIG BUSINESS PARTNERS THAN PROTECTING THE AVERAGE CITIZEN! THINK I AM WRONG – PROVE IT! GET OFF YOUR ASSES AND MAKE THESE PROVINCIAL REGULATORS DO THEIR JOBS WHICH IS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THE PROVINCE USING FAIR, ETHICAL METHODS. STOP PAYING PEOPLE LIKE BRENDA LEONG $500,000 PER YEAR AND FIRE HER ASS OUT THE DOOR FOR INCOMPETENCE! CONTACT ME AND I WILL SHOW YOU HER COMPLETE AND SHAMEFUL HIGH-HANDED ACTS THAT WILL MAKE YOU HEAD SHAKE.
The CSA supports having a national dialogue about what more can be done to deter recidivists, however, that discussion must be based on facts and must involve all participants in the justice system, including law enforcement. WHAT’S STOPPING YOU?? COULD IT BE THE RACKET THAT THE PROVINCIAL REGULATORS CURRENTLY RUN BUCKSHOT OVER? SAD REALLY! YOU PEOPLE ARE ALL AT FAULT OF THE MESS THAT IS THE CANADIAN SECURITIES ADMINISTRATORS!
What a last couple of weeks it has been for Walton International – the Alberta Securities Commission suspended Walton’s registration which prohibits them from selling any more of their investments. And then they hired Ernst & Young to take them through the CCAA process in an attempt to re-organize their debt. This sounds almost identical as the League Assets story we discussed last summer in this blog post. One can conclude the Walton matter will have the same ending! How can a company make hundreds of millions of dollars selling land be broke after 25+ years of being in business? Rumor on the street is the company is being gutted and those (at the top) have already cashed out their millions…
WAS THIS ALL PREDICTABLE?
Back a few years ago I came across a Sales Representative that worked at Walton International at a Calgary Flames hockey game. After chatting for a few minutes he suggested I look at his investment opportunity – it was a parcel of land down by Spruce Meadows (in the southern tip of Calgary). Although I was not interested in the investment, I agreed to meet with him at his office a short while later.
I remember their office being really nice and it seemed like they had a ton of staff. After receiving a brief sales pitch I was sent on my way with an envelope full of paperwork. Some time later, I opened the envelope and (as part of the package) discovered a letter from a lawyer named Donald Boykiw from the fancy Bennett Jones LLP law firm.
The letter is short and cuts to the point – it indicates that Boykiw is writing to inform Walton that the Alberta Securities Commission had reviewed Walton’s business practice of selling undivided interest in land to purchasers and that this review had been done as a result of sanctions against Walton’s prime competition in Alberta land banking. Boykiw goes on to state, “I would also advise that the Commission staff member who was involved in this matter has further advised that the ASC’s enforcement counsel would not be recommending any changes to the current forms of referral arrangements for both the mortgage referrals from Westmount Mortgage Corporation and the land referrals from Cordex Realty. We have also received a follow-up call from the registration counsel at the Alberta Securities Commission indicating that they ave also completed their review of such referral agreements and were not proposing any changes.” A copy of the letter:
The significance of this letter is simple – Walton International’s business model sees them allegedly buying farm land for as little as $400 per acre and turn around only days later and sell it for up to 7000% increases to investors from all over the World – and the gang down at the ASC gave them a clean bill of health while sanctioning others in the same line of work. And don’t forget – this happened during Ralph Klein’s duration as Premier of Alberta who’s daughter physically worked at Walton’s head office.
For those people that do not know who Walton International are (or were) – they purported to be the largest land banker (and then later land developer) in the nation. They had many projects throughout Canada and the United States. They had come under fire in some circles for paying huge upfront commission to their sales people and for having lavish spending sprees on chartered boats and trips for Staff. In one instance, it was reported they had chartered a large ship and had the expensive Self-Help Guru Anthony Robbinsas a guest to get their staff motivated to sell their product.
Facts are – may people have been reporting on Walton’s demise for years. A simple google search has found us endless reports from press from all over the World suggesting Walton’s business plan had some distinct cracks and was leaking severally. An article in the Ottawa Citizen from March 2013 suggests the land banking project in Ottawa was in trouble.
What happened in Singapore when they had several complaints about many Land Banking firms – even Walton International? Out comes the huge Public Relations wheel and they brought an entire news crew to see their operations in Canada….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTzJ_61nY54
This video is so biased towards Walton but comes across as some bi-partial news telecast – We wonder how much more they raised after this video made the rounds…
Would this all have been avoided IF the ASC had not given them that clean bill of health back in 2002 – that they used as a sales aid for their sales people??? Shame on the ASC! This story is going to be huge when the cards ALL come falling down – and this letter is going to be used in any case against the ASC! How are they going to be able to protect the Walton Investors when they are complicit in allowing Walton to exist – even going as far as giving legal advice that their sales people used to close the unexpected investors?
This blog was originally posted on DECEMBER 5, 2017…
On June 14, 2013, the incompetent staff at the British Columbia Securities Commission brought the bogus Notice of Hearing allegations to our doorstep. In addition, they also issued an Order to Freeze Property (see below) to an assortment of companies that I was a part of – whether or not they were related to the Falls development or not. At least 2 of the companies had NO relationship with any of the Respondents to the allegations of fraud. One was a retail business that I was involved in 2011 and 2012. This was a total dickhead move by the BCSC that ended up costing money to have those funds returned/released. Again, a complete abuse of power from Staff at the BCSC.
The assets were namely bank accounts that belonged to the companies – West Karma Ltd., Deercrest Management Ltd, 0966841 B.C. Ltd., and my personal bank account. All together, the bank accounts had roughly $65,000 in them (with the majority of the money being held in the numbered company).
After the hearing and the sanctions were issued by the BCSC, it would be the Staff (at the BCSC) responsibility to apply to have any monies seized or recovered from a Respondent and returned to the investors. This falls under section 161 (1)(g) of the BC Securities Act and is in clear black and white.
It was determined by the Panel (in their sanctioning document) that the money in the numbered company belong to the numbered company and NOT to Wharram or any of the former investors in FCC or DCF – this was made very clear by Nigel Cave – the Panel Chair during our hearing.
4.5 YEARS LATER
As hard as it is to imagine….4 1/2 years AFTER the order was issued, the utter failures down at the BCSC have yet to apply to receive the nearly $11,000 that was in the West Karma Ltd. bank account. Investors would have a claim to these funds.
The BCSC once again proves their complete incompetence at EVERYTHING they do. Why has it taken this amount of time for them to react? Again, who is running this ship? Is this on BCSC Chair Brenda Leong’s shoulder? Lawyer Olubode Fagbamiye? Executive Director Peter Brady? Director of Enforcement Doug Muir? Collectively, these clowns make over $1 million dollars per year – why do they continue to fail the people in the Province of British Columbia over and over again? Incompetence? Laziness?
And let’s not forget about the former investors that have to apply…and then wait 3 years to get their proportionate share of the recovered funds. Who makes these policies?
Even if they decide to WAKE UP and start doing their jobs, the former investors need to wait for another 3 years to recoup any of these funds – who makes these policies? That would put it the better part of a decade for anyone to receive returned funds….
Only down at the BCSC does the comedy of errors continue day after day! When can the former investors of FCC and DCF expect you to do your jobs and secure the $10,941.59 (and other funds) for their benefit? And why is it taking me to tell you this?
On May 11, 2016, we sent a letter to BCSC Chair BRENDA LEONG and requested she provide (to us) any correspondence between her Staff Litigators (C. Paige Leggat and Olubode Fagbamiye) and the Executive Director ( Paul Bourque ) regarding the Settlement Offer we were trying to bring forward that would possibly have brought funds back to the former investors in FCC and DCF.
As you see in this letter FOI Request #1617-0005 – Reply from BCSC – June 16, 2016.pub , Ms. Leong indicates there are no records matching my request. We don’t even want to begin to understand why there would be NO correspondence between lawyers/clients when millions of dollars could have been at stake for the investors – how is this even possible??
Not having internal correspondence between relevant parties (considering what was at stake for the former investors) reeks of unprofessionalism by Staff and certainly does not give any confidence they truly had the best interest of the investors during all relevant times.
That being said, Leong is either lying or (for whatever reason) there truly are NO records of correspondence between her star lawyers and their higher ups. Either way, this translates into a huge problem for the BCSC. Here’s why….
Assuming she is not lying, as per the Code of Ethic’s on the Law Society of British Columbia’s website , a lawyer must present ANY settlement offer it is presented to their client to avoid hearing. Staff DID NOT do this as they have admitted this in letters to the Respondents. In a file of this magnitude, and with the numerous attempts by us to settle – there is not one internal document related to the settlement offer that was presented? We truly find this hard to believe but if true – these are the people that are “protecting the capital markets in BC”??? Time for a WAKE UP CALL BRITISH COLUMBIA!!
And if she is lying then this becomes a bigger problem as she has been appointed to that position by elected government officials – more than likely Finance Minister Michael De jong or Premier Christy Clark.
In the first scenario above, we have the facts:
The Respondents submitted a Settlement Offer to the Commission on November 7, 2013 – Staff did not respond until December 30, 2013.
When Staff did reply, they stated they had NOT taken the Settlement Offer to the Executive Director and would only do so IF we plead guilty to ALL allegations AND paid approximately $5.8 million in fines and disgorgement.
As of June 16, 2016, we now have it in writing that there in NO communications whatsoever between Staff and the Executive Director with respect to any discussion regarding the Settlement Offer.
As we were preparing this latest blog post – something remarkable just became VERY apparent….what is happening down at the BCSC???
(Source: mypersonaltrainervancouver.com)
C.Paige Leggat – Staff Litigator RESIGNED OR TERMINATED IN 2014
(Source: mingpaocanada.com)
Teresa Mitchell-Banks – Director of Enforcement RESIGNED OR TERMINATED IN 2015
(Source: cbc.ca)
Paul C. Bourque – Executive Director RESIGNED IN 2016
These are the 3 major parties that would have been responsible for negotiating, accepting or denying the settlement agreement WITH the investor in mind.
And lets not forget the flunky investigator Elizabeth “Liz” Chan – she was either terminated or quit in April 2014 – the same month she admitted to assuming during her cross examination.
Elizabeth Chan – Lead Investigator
PLEASE….FORMER INVESTORS IN FCC AND DCF – HELP US GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS. AGAIN, THIS SETTLEMENT OFFER WAS NOT EVEN PRESENTED TO THE ONLY PERSON THAT COULD HAVE ACCEPTED IT ON YOUR BEHALF!
******CONTACT THE BCSC AND FIND OUT WHY!******
604-899-5600 or email them at: inquiries@bcsc.bc.ca
IF THEY DON’T ANSWER YOU, GO ABOVE THEIR HEADS AND CONTACT YOUR LOCAL MLA OR OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL! ITS VITAL!
In a former post in this blog a few weeks ago, we told a story of one of our former investors calling the BCSC to ask questions regarding our matter. Unfortunately, whomever she spoke to at the Commission hung up on her before she could get ANY answers to the questions she had for them.
Today, we thought we would try to get answers from Staff Litigator Mr. Olubode Fagbamiye (the Staff Litigator that worked directly on my file) from essentially day 1. He was one of the lawyers (the other being C. Paige Leggat) that was present during the hearing and he was certainly there during the period of time we presented our settlement Offer that would have seen the investors participate in the successful Deercrest property (without involvement from Staff at West Karma Ltd.).
As you will see in the video below, we did not waste Mr. Fagbamiye’s time and asked him 3 very direct questions. It is almost laughable his replies (or lack there of) to our repeated questions.
IT IS OUR OPINION THIS VIDEO CONFIRMS EVERYTHING WE HAVE BEEN SAYING THE ENTIRE TIME. AND IT REMAINS OUR OPINION BY FAILING TO RESPOND TO OUR QUESTIONS THE BCSC (AND THEIR STAFF) ARE COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT IN RUNNING THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY IN THIS PROVINCE!
Shame on them all! Especially this incompetent spineless amoeba that happened to work on our file (manipulating the evidence and not taking a valid settlement offer to the Executive Director).
For all former investors in both FCC and DCF, we encourage you to watch the video – now more than every you need to contact (phone, mail, email, fax) and get these questions answered.
They cannot ignore all of you! As you can see, Fagbamiye’s phone number is 604-899-6790 and the main line is 604-899-6500. Call them today – record the call or have someone witness the call for you. Email them weekly if you need to!
It is time they are held accountable for THEIR actions in the West Karma matter.
Again we are truly seeing what kind of a person BCSC Chair Brenda Leong truly is – this week she responded to our Freedom of Information request in what can only be described as a continued act of cowardice. She had another opportunity to put much of our discontent to bed and she once again has decided to continue playing the game. That is fine – we are going NOWHERE!
BCSC Chair Brenda Leong
Our latest FOI requests was simple – we wanted to know why she was not responding to our repeated request to answer questions including why her staff (complete and udder failures of lawyers Olubode Fagbamiye and C. Paige Leggat) did not take our Settlement Offer to the Executive Director and whether or not she felt they manipulated key evidence in our hearing.
As you will see below she has decided to hide under her rock….despite her job description literally stating…
This was finally a chance for her to defend the actions of her Staff and to show these same staff that she will defend them against any and all allegations of wrongdoing. Fagbamiye appears to be simply too dense to even understand this woman (his boss) does not have his back.
Leong’s reply is as follows:
Between Leong and Executive Director Peter Brady – it is very clear this organization is failing the people of the Province of British Columbia. Investors have a right to know answers to our questions and they continue to hide from answering these questions….
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.
It looks like we have another spineless amoeba down at the good ole British Columbia Securities Commission. After repeated request for a comment on a matter we wrote on back on March 6, 2018, BCSC Vice Chair remains quiet – quiet just like good failure Olubode Fagbamiye and Crooked Brenda Leong.
On April 3, 2018, we sent a very simple, polite request of Mr. Cave – asking him to comment on his (and Brenda Leong’s) decision to vary several ‘decisions’ in many cases whereby Respondents sanctions (fines) were completed wiped out. In a shocking manner – Cave and Leong wiped out over $30 million in fines they had brought forward in their decisions on approximately 9 different matters.
We simply wanted to know why some cases were varied and others not – we requested him to review his decision he made in our matter and to let us know why our case did not get the same treatment as others.
Here is a copy of our letter…
As of today’s date – we have made 4 attempts to get Cave to respond. Here is a copy of those emails….
There has NOT even been an acknowledgement that he had received our email.
I will say this about Nigel Cave (after talking to others that had their matters with him as the Panel Chair) he seemed to be the only “good” guy down there. The rest appear to be there only for a paycheck…or simply are too incompetent to deal with their job description. (Colette Colter, Alan Keats, Liz Chan, etc.) In at least 2 different matters, it has been Cave that has dissented on decision when other Panel members would not agree on certain aspects of a decision. I thought he was a good guy during our hearing – as he understood I was self-represented and was very patient during the hearing. I thought he would at least have given a tiny little bit of class and responded to my letter.
The question now becomes – what are they hiding? Why not give an explanation publicly as to why they made the decision they did to vary the decisions in these 9 cases? And why will they not address a simply request and explain their actions? These are public servants making a tremendous amount of money! The people of BC deserve to know why they are making decisions affecting the public and not telling them about it.
It looks like the fiasco that IS the British Columbia Securities Commission (and one of their flunky lawyers, Olubode Fagbamiye) is alive and in full form. Recently, a judge in the Court of Appeal for British Columbia has ruled in favor of a BCSC Respondent – indicating that the BCSC (and their regiment) should be ‘extra careful’ when it hands out a permanent ban. They indicate such bans can ‘interfere with a person’s ability to earn a living, and should only be considered after an examination of lesser options.’ The Panel consisted of Suzanne K. Wiltshire, George C. Glover, Jr., and good ole Don Rowlatt.
From Mike Caswell – a reporter for Street Wire:
The matter before the Appeal Court was in regard to Larry Keith Davis (“Davis”) – Davis, an investor relations man who received a permanent ban from the BCSC in 2016. BCSC enforcement staff said that Mr. Davis offered to sell shares in an OTC Bulletin Board company to his neighbor. He then used her money for personal expenses, and never delivered the shares.
The matter went to a hearing before a BCSC panel, at which Mr. Davis argued that he was a victim of circumstances. The company that he worked for (Formcap Corp.) had promised him the shares after it completed a rollback. He said that he sold the shares to his neighbour on the basis that she would get the stock as soon as he did. Unfortunately for everybody, he never received the shares, he said.
The BCSC panel rejected Mr. Davis’s arguments, noting that he was well aware that Formcap was having serious financial troubles when he sold his neighbor the shares. Moreover, after his neighbor sought the return of her money, he continued to deceive her, the regulator determined. He told her that there was no money available as it was tied up in market.
When it came to penalties, the BCSC found that Mr. Davis’s actions constituted more than a minor offence. When he sold the shares to his neighbor, Wendy McDonald, he “not only knew he did not have any Formcap shares to sell to [Ms. McDonald] but also knew the previously proposed Formcap share consolidation had been abandoned and the company was having serious financial difficulties. Yet, he proceeded to agree to sell [Ms. McDonald] another 30,000 Formcap shares which he did not own on the same terms and conditions.”
For those reasons, the BCSC decided to impose a permanent ban. It also ordered Mr. Davis to pay $15,000. In doing so, it noted that the amount of money at issue was relatively small ($7,000) but Mr. Davis’s continuing deceit amounted to the “most serious misconduct” that the BCSC regulated.
The penalty, however, was not properly considered, at least according to the Court of Appeal. In its Friday ruling, the court determined that the BCSC should have looked at a lesser penalty for Mr. Davis. While much of the ruling hinges on technical points of law, the Court of Appeal heard that Mr. Davis had worked in the industry for decades without attracting any regulatory sanctions.
Of more importance, at least to other potential regulatory targets, is the fact that the Court of Appeal identified an error in the BCSC’s approach to the ban. The regulator imposed it without considering if a lighter sanction would suffice. A permanent ban is an extreme measure that should only be considered under a specific set of circumstances, the ruling states. Such bans are for instances when the public has been abused, an individual is resistant to governance, there is an element of criminal activity or there is a reason to believe that the individual could not be trusted to deal honestly with the public, the Court of Appeal found.
For those reasons, the Court of Appeal has sent the case back to the BCSC to have another look at Mr. Davis’s penalty. While Mr. Davis won the sanctions part of the appeal, he lost another part of the appeal in which he had contested his liability. The decision was unanimous, all three judges having agreed.
This revelation is huge – the BCSC has been issuing these permanent bans to virtually everyone the come across in their hearing room. Did they consider other possible (lesser) findings in matters such as ours? Of course they didn’t – they just don’t work that way! Breaking Canadian’s Charter of Rights on a daily basis seems to be the MO.
What a last couple of weeks it has been for Walton International – the Alberta Securities Commission suspended Walton’s registration which prohibits them from selling any more of their investments. And then they hired Ernst & Young to take them through the CCAA process in an attempt to re-organize their debt. This sounds almost identical as the League Assets story we discussed last summer in this blog post. One can conclude the Walton matter will have the same ending! How can a company make hundreds of millions of dollars selling land be broke after 25+ years of being in business? Rumor on the street is the company is being gutted and those (at the top) have already cashed out their millions…
WAS THIS ALL PREDICTABLE?
Back a few years ago I came across a Sales Representative that worked at Walton International at a Calgary Flames hockey game. After chatting for a few minutes he suggested I look at his investment opportunity – it was a parcel of land down by Spruce Meadows (in the southern tip of Calgary). Although I was not interested in the investment, I agreed to meet with him at his office a short while later.
I remember their office being really nice and it seemed like they had a ton of staff. After receiving a brief sales pitch I was sent on my way with an envelope full of paperwork. Some time later, I opened the envelope and (as part of the package) discovered a letter from a lawyer named Donald Boykiw from the fancy Bennett Jones LLP law firm.
The letter is short and cuts to the point – it indicates that Boykiw is writing to inform Walton that the Alberta Securities Commission had reviewed Walton’s business practice of selling undivided interest in land to purchasers and that this review had been done as a result of sanctions against Walton’s prime competition in Alberta land banking. Boykiw goes on to state, “I would also advise that the Commission staff member who was involved in this matter has further advised that the ASC’s enforcement counsel would not be recommending any changes to the current forms of referral arrangements for both the mortgage referrals from Westmount Mortgage Corporation and the land referrals from Cordex Realty. We have also received a follow-up call from the registration counsel at the Alberta Securities Commission indicating that they ave also completed their review of such referral agreements and were not proposing any changes.” A copy of the letter:
The significance of this letter is simple – Walton International’s business model sees them allegedly buying farm land for as little as $400 per acre and turn around only days later and sell it for up to 7000% increases to investors from all over the World – and the gang down at the ASC gave them a clean bill of health while sanctioning others in the same line of work. And don’t forget – this happened during Ralph Klein’s duration as Premier of Alberta who’s daughter physically worked at Walton’s head office.
For those people that do not know who Walton International are (or were) – they purported to be the largest land banker (and then later land developer) in the nation. They had many projects throughout Canada and the United States. They had come under fire in some circles for paying huge upfront commission to their sales people and for having lavish spending sprees on chartered boats and trips for Staff. In one instance, it was reported they had chartered a large ship and had the expensive Self-Help Guru Anthony Robbinsas a guest to get their staff motivated to sell their product.
Facts are – may people have been reporting on Walton’s demise for years. A simple google search has found us endless reports from press from all over the World suggesting Walton’s business plan had some distinct cracks and was leaking severally. An article in the Ottawa Citizen from March 2013 suggests the land banking project in Ottawa was in trouble.
What happened in Singapore when they had several complaints about many Land Banking firms – even Walton International? Out comes the huge Public Relations wheel and they brought an entire news crew to see their operations in Canada….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTzJ_61nY54
This video is so biased towards Walton but comes across as some bi-partial news telecast – We wonder how much more they raised after this video made the rounds…
Would this all have been avoided IF the ASC had not given them that clean bill of health back in 2002 – that they used as a sales aid for their sales people??? Shame on the ASC! This story is going to be huge when the cards ALL come falling down – and this letter is going to be used in any case against the ASC! How are they going to be able to protect the Walton Investors when they are complicit in allowing Walton to exist – even going as far as giving legal advice that their sales people used to close the unexpected investors?
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.
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?
Again we are truly seeing what kind of a person BCSC Chair Brenda Leong truly is – this week she responded to our Freedom of Information request in what can only be described as a continued act of cowardice. She had another opportunity to put much of our discontent to bed and she once again has decided to continue playing the game. That is fine – we are going NOWHERE!
BCSC Chair Brenda Leong
Our latest FOI requests was simple – we wanted to know why she was not responding to our repeated request to answer questions including why her staff (complete and udder failures of lawyers Olubode Fagbamiye and C. Paige Leggat) did not take our Settlement Offer to the Executive Director and whether or not she felt they manipulated key evidence in our hearing.
As you will see below she has decided to hide under her rock….despite her job description literally stating…
This was finally a chance for her to defend the actions of her Staff and to show these same staff that she will defend them against any and all allegations of wrongdoing. Fagbamiye appears to be simply too dense to even understand this woman (his boss) does not have his back.
Leong’s reply is as follows:
Between Leong and Executive Director Peter Brady – it is very clear this organization is failing the people of the Province of British Columbia. Investors have a right to know answers to our questions and they continue to hide from answering these questions….
Recently, the Vancouver Sun reported that “B.C.’s top officer in charge of financial crimes says the RCMP will work more closely with the B.C. Securities Commission – and provide assistance where possible to local detachments – to help catch investment fraudsters.”
Sounds fantastic doesn’t it? But in the article we can also see very easily one of the fundamental issues at the BCSC. Top fraud cop Supt. Henry Tso, who commands the financial integrity and Federal Serious and Organized Crime units in B.C. and arrived here from Ontario in summer 2017, said “There is work to be done” and could not explain how a $30 million Ponzi Scheme involving B.C.’s Virginia Tan would not garner an investigation by the local R.C.M.P. detachment. Tan was ordered to pay (as part of a bullshit settlement agreement with the BCSC) a fine of $3 million – while raising over $30,000,000.
Again (according to the Sun), one of Tan’s investors complained to the North Vancouver R.C.M.P. – and just this last February he was told that his complaint would go unanswered by the RCMP because “the BCSC had already dealt with the matter.” On what planet is this OK?
But here is the part of the article that really shows where Tso’s head is at and should worry the people of British Columbia. With respect to the Tan file, he states, “I don’t know why they don’t take it, because it’s a good criminal case”. Kinda says it all doesn’t it? We don’t really blame him though – it appears MANY people in this Province have their head in the sand when it comes to the BCSC and their decisions to not to pursue matters in a criminal setting.
THE REAL ANSWER IS OBVIOUS
As we have said many times in the past, the BCSC is a ‘racket’ and that ‘racket’ would disappear IF these cases went the criminal route. In a criminal matter the BCSC would NOT be able to bring allegations of fraud with sub-par investigative work, they would not be able to argue cases in a real court room, and finally they would NOT be able to bring multi-million dollars fines and disgorgement orders. Taking this money out of their coffers would not allow them to keep their status as “self contained” and their ‘racket’ would end!
The BCSC’s lawyers are flunkies that probably couldn’t find work at a real law firm – and as we know from our own dealings at the BCSC, their level of work is pathetic! A real judge would laugh them out of a courtroom if they tried to manipulate evidence and bring bogus allegations into a real courtroom!
The Sun article goes on to state the following:
“Tso said technically a scheme such as the Tan Ponzi one wouldn’t fall into the scope of the financial crime unit, a federal group that reports to Ottawa, and which is meant to take on only the most high-level cases that must meet a set of criteria, including whether the alleged crime is international in scope and undermines the economic integrity of Canada.
However, Tso said under his command that he will be willing to offer the unit’s financial-crimes expertise to RCMP detachments and municipal police forces where he can.
The two units Tso commands in B.C. comprise 200 personnel, including investigators, forensic accountants, analysts and support staff. The units’ responsibilities include capital market fraud, anti-money laundering, proceeds of crime, counterfeit currency, frauds against the government, large-scale frauds, mass marketing fraud, cybercrime and bankruptcy fraud.
As an example of assistance the RCMP federal, financial-crime unit can offer, Tso pointed to a case in which the Mission RCMP arrested four people two weeks ago for their involvement in a gifting circle, a pyramid scheme in which the buy-in was $ 5,000. Said Tso: “If we can help someone or some police department to actually get charges and arrest people, I am there.”
Tso said he has been meeting with senior securities commission officials on a biweekly basis to share information to see where the federal financial-crime unit and the BCSC can work together on a criminal investigation, something which hadn’t been done much until now.
I don’t know why before we weren’t working together — it puzzles me,” said Tso.”
THINK RACKET MR TSO….THINK RACKET!!
“Tso said he would like to see something similar established eventually in B.C., but said he wasn’t sure if the securities commission had enough resources and manpower to make it work.”
The BCSC has all the manpower that they can possibly ask for – this is a cop out and is why the BCSC continues to rank up there with ICBC as the most comical crown corporation in BC.! Pardon the pun!
With these people at the helm – this Province (and their perceived fraud issue) will NEVER get better! Sad times!
The British Columbia Securities Commission has found a new way of reducing the comical $340,000,000+ it is owed in unpaid fines from accused securities fraudsters – according to the Vancouver Sun’s reporter Gordon Hoekstra in this article, they have simply waved a magic wand and wiped out approximately 1% of the fines they have issued over the last few years! An example of one of the files that have had their fines wiped out can be found here
With no fanfare and/or fancy press release, BCSC Chair Brenda Leong (and her cohort Vice-Chair Nigel Cave) issued a series of documents that effectively eliminated more than $35 million from their books. Money that just a few weeks ago was brought to light in a scathing Vancouver Sun article. This begs to question – what is going on down at the BCSC. You can’t collect the fines so you quietly just drop them off your books? Leong is literally falling apart as she goes about making a jaw-dropping $500,000 per year in her cozy position at the Commission.
It is evident that different hearings (going as far back as 2009) had outcomes that were incorrect. in one matter, the Respondent took the BCSC’s findings to a real courtroom during an appeal and a judge ruled the decision of the BCSC’s panel was not accurate. As a result of this finding in BC Court of Appeal, the BCSC has been forced to go back and review similar cases – and made variations to those decisions. This is very telling – and has affected hundreds of investors. Where is the outcry? Why is this not on the front page of every newspaper in this Province? Why did they secretly post the Variation Orders with no press release? Cowards! The poor investors in these matters are not left with nothing! Shame on the BCSC!!!
Go back and re-read the recent Hoekstra article – specifically read the comment section at the bottom. The BCSC continues to be a laughing stock to the public and people are calling for the immediate resignation of Leong and others. These people are proving time and time again they do not care one bit about the people of British Columbia – the people that these public servants are sworn to protect.
RESIGN BRENDA! And take the rest of your senior management with you!
One thing I will give Staff Litigator C. Paige Legatt is at least she didn’t make us wait 7 weeks for a response on this one. However, her response again indicated the ONLY way she would take a Settlement Proposal to the Executive Director was if I met the terms set by them – the litigators themselves! This was becoming extremely frustrating and demeaning to the Respondents.
I was being forced into a hearing for absolutely something I did not do – I did not commit a $5.45 million fraud as they had alleged. The process (especially for a self-represented Respondent) was fixed and I began to see the true-colors of the people at the BCSC – they do NOT have the best interest of investors) or anyone else for that matter) as a priority.
It was at this point, the Respondents realized this was not a level playing field and that the entire BCSC mandate were simply just words. We were now forced into fighting this war with an opponent that was not playing fair. It wasn’t until after the hearing that we truly saw what the Staff at the BCSC were prepared to do in an attempt to prove their case.
For any of you (specifically the former investors in FCC and DCF) that want to inquire to the BCSC why Staff did not forward this viable Settlement Offer to the Executive Director (with the possibility of receiving dollars through the development of the project) we suggest you call them. Their number for inquiries is 604-899-6854 or call the main switchboard at 604-899-6500 and the lovely receptionist will put you through to the right department to have your questions answered. They are a public organization serving the people of British Columbia and they have to answer you. That being said, to date, we have yet to receive a response from Brenda Leong – the Chair of the BCSC.
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…
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.
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 see, 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.
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.
What a last couple of weeks it has been for Walton International– the Alberta Securities Commissionsuspended Walton’s registration which prohibits them from selling any more of their investments. And then they hired Ernst & Young to take them through the CCAA process in an attempt to re-organize their debt. This sounds almost identical as the League Assets story we discussed last summer in this blog post. One can conclude the Walton matter will have the same ending! How can a company make hundreds of millions of dollars selling land be broke after 25+ years of being in business? Rumor on the street is the company is being gutted and those (at the top) have already cashed out their millions…
WAS THIS ALL PREDICTABLE?
Back a few years ago I came across a Sales Representative that worked at Walton International at a Calgary Flames hockey game. After chatting for a few minutes he suggested I look at his investment opportunity – it was a parcel of land down by Spruce Meadows (in the southern tip of Calgary). Although I was not interested in the investment, I agreed to meet with him at his office a short while later.
I remember their office being really nice and it seemed like they had a ton of staff. After receiving a brief sales pitch I was sent on my way with an envelope full of paperwork. Some time later, I opened the envelope and (as part of the package) discovered a letter from a lawyer named Donald Boykiw from the fancy Bennett Jones LLP law firm.
The letter is short and cuts to the point – it indicates that Boykiw is writing to inform Walton that the Alberta Securities Commission had reviewed Walton’s business practice of selling undivided interest in land to purchasers and that this review had been done as a result of sanctions against Walton’s prime competition in Alberta land banking. Boykiw goes on to state, “I would also advise that the Commission staff member who was involved in this matter has further advised that the ASC’s enforcement counsel would not be recommending any changes to the current forms of referral arrangements for both the mortgage referrals from Westmount Mortgage Corporation and the land referrals from Cordex Realty. We have also received a follow-up call from the registration counsel at the Alberta Securities Commission indicating that they ave also completed their review of such referral agreements and were not proposing any changes.” A copy of the letter:
The significance of this letter is simple – Walton International’s business model sees them allegedly buying farm land for as little as $400 per acre and turn around only days later and sell it for up to 7000% increases to investors from all over the World – and the gang down at the ASC gave them a clean bill of health while sanctioning others in the same line of work. And don’t forget – this happened during Ralph Klein’s duration as Premier of Alberta who’s daughter physically worked at Walton’s head office.
For those people that do not know who Walton International are (or were) – they purported to be the largest land banker (and then later land developer) in the nation. They had many projects throughout Canada and the United States. They had come under fire in some circles for paying huge upfront commission to their sales people and for having lavish spending sprees on chartered boats and trips for Staff. In one instance, it was reported they had chartered a large ship and had the expensive Self-Help Guru Anthony Robbinsas a guest to get their staff motivated to sell their product.
Facts are – may people have been reporting on Walton’s demise for years. A simple google search has found us endless reports from press from all over the World suggesting Walton’s business plan had some distinct cracks and was leaking severally. An article in the Ottawa Citizen from March 2013 suggests the land banking project in Ottawa was in trouble.
What happened in Singapore when they had several complaints about many Land Banking firms – even Walton International? Out comes the huge Public Relations wheel and they brought an entire news crew to see their operations in Canada….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTzJ_61nY54
This video is so biased towards Walton but comes across as some bi-partial news telecast – We wonder how much more they raised after this video made the rounds…
Would this all have been avoided IF the ASC had not given them that clean bill of health back in 2002 – that they used as a sales aid for their sales people??? Shame on the ASC! This story is going to be huge when the cards ALL come falling down – and this letter is going to be used in any case against the ASC! How are they going to be able to protect the Walton Investors when they are complicit in allowing Walton to exist – even going as far as giving legal advice that their sales people used to close the unexpected investors?
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?
The following is an exert from the blog Unpublished Ottawa on Regulatory Fraud:
From the Desk of Larry Elford, originally Posted on January 29, 2018
Author’s Note: My circle of malpractice and misconduct investigators can find no possible public interest benefit, and considerable public interest harm, in learning that Securities Commissions are ‘aiding the industry’ in deceiving, and hiding essential information from the public.
The video below shows (at the one minute mark) how the commissions in Canada informed the public about the difference between an investment salesperson and a registered investment adviser. (a fiduciary professional with a duty to “do no harm” to investors) This ‘clarity’ was in place from September 2009 until January 2018, when for some reason, the commissions decided to eliminate some of the clarity for investors. They further removed (twice now) information which cautioned and informed investors. Why?
Author’s Video Note
This is how a “confidence man” works:
Prior to September of 2009, the license and registration category of your investment “advice giver” was (in 99% of cases) one of the following two choices:
a) a registered investment adviser (the “Do no harm” fiduciary professional) or b) a registered “salesperson” (the one where they could act against the investor interests)
Investors were not well informed, back then, as most, if not all persons who were registered in the “salesperson” category preferred to call themselves by a non registered and non-regulated title, spelled “advisor”.
By clever use of a single “Vowel Movement”, millions of investors are deceived, and led to believe they have a “do no harm” fiduciary-duty professional, while the salesperson and the dealer have accomplished a clever bait and switch. They will have convinced trusting clients that they are dealing with someone to be trusted, while actually hiding the saleperson’s lesser duty of care.
“ the confidence man is someone who preys upon peoples confidence in them”
Fast forward to September of 2009, when the CSA (umbrella organization of all 13 Canadian Provincial Securities Regulators), decide to change the rules/laws in Canada, REMOVING every mention of the word SALESPERSON in the Securities Act, rules. They replace that rather clear term, with the term “DEALING REPRESENTATIVE”. To be fair, they did, in some documents place the word (Salesperson) in brackets, immediately behind the word “Dealing Representative”. That helped maintain some of the original info and intent of the disclosure.
Still, one a small step was taken in the direction of “editing out” the term “Salesperson” from the Securities Rules and laws in Canada. The important thing to keep in mind, is that Securities Commissions did NOT move to eliminate the commission sales role from “advice givers”, but rather they simply allowed commission-sales “advice givers” to obfuscate their ‘label’, to in effect be less clear and open to their investor clients. Allowing them to hide their registration and job role from investors.
They continued (as they do to this day) to refer to themselves as “Advisors” in most cases, despite Securities Act rules and laws against “misrepresentation of ones registration category”. It simply serves investment salespeople better if they do not tell their customers that they are “salespersons”. Trust (and the customer’s money) is easier to gain if they conceal the true “salepserson” registration behind a not-true advisor title…(gaining trust by concealment?<
Fast forward to January 2018 and the new changes quietly put into place have now deleted the (salesperson) clarification from the “Understanding Registration” page of the CSA web site. It appears that the provincial governement regulators truly do not want the public to “Understand Registration”, when it comes to investment salespersons…
This again brings to mind the regulatory double mandate, double-bind,..of having to do what they industry pays them to do….or else.
Ten million Canadians who rely upon their investments to support themselves financially in retirement should not be treated to intentional obfuscation and apparent deception, by the investment industry, and most certainly not by government empowered (but industry paid/selected) securities regulators. This smacks of foxes guarding the henhouse, and helping their fox friends to pillage the hens, while working for a provincial government which tells the public that they are safely regulated and protected. It smacks of a breach of the public trust…See source for the full article here:<
Mr. Larry Elford is acclaimed as one of Canada’s top qualified experts on the subject of White Collar Crime as it relates to the investment selling industry. He is a retired CFP, (Chartered Financial Planner), a CIM, (Certified Investment Manager) by the Canadian Securities Institute, a FCSI, (Fellow of the Canadian Securities Institute), the highest designation awarded by the Canadian Securities Institute to those for top achievements in educational and industry accomplishments. He is also an Associate Portfolio Manager and Director of the Canadian Justice Review Board of Canada. Larry is often called upon as an expert with national broadcasters like CTV, Global and CBC.
Mr. Elford worked inside the largest financial institutions in Canada for twenty years until his retirement in 2004. He works today writing, speaking and coaching Canadians on how to create safe and honest treatment for investors.
Mr. Elford is also an author and film producer. He was included in John Lawrence Reynolds’ second edition bestselling book, The Naked Investor, Why Almost Everybody But You Gets Rich On Your RRSP and Bruce Livesey’s 2012 book, Thieves of Bay Street, How Banks, Brokerages and the Wealthy Steal Billions from Canadians. He produced a compelling documentary film, Breach of Trust, The Unique Violence of White Collar Crime, to benefit investors, legislators and those who investigate financial crime.
In an article from the Vancouver Sun, we find a businessman from the lower mainland is suing (among others) the British Columbia Securities Commission for an astounding $480 million.
The Sun reports “(Michael James) Savage’s expansive 43-page counter-claim alleges a “miscarriage of justice” as a result of wrongful conviction and defamatory statements that includes malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligence, failure to disclose evidence, and breaches of his Charter of Rights.
Sounds familiar – Mr. Savage joins the ranks of dozens of people that are complaining about the gang of thugs down at the BCSC.
Unfortunately for Mr. Savage’s case, there is no doubt the BCSC will employ their infamous “escape route” (rather than tender valid arguments) – in a similar lawsuit launched against the BCSC (and many of their staff), the spineless legal team representing the Defendants brought forward an application that would have seen that particular Plantiff bring forward $120,000 to cover the costs of the Defendants IF a judge found his allegations unwarranted. How does a poor man get a case brought forward regarding the BCSC?
Again, Staff at the BCSC show their true colors and run to the hills – rather than to defend themselves! What are they hiding?
Mr James – if you are reading this blog – please contact me via my blog as I would very much like to talk to you. There are many of us!
This blog was originally posted on DECEMBER 5, 2017…
On June 14, 2013, the incompetent staff at the British Columbia Securities Commission brought the bogus Notice of Hearing allegations to our doorstep. In addition, they also issued an Order to Freeze Property (see below) to an assortment of companies that I was a part of – whether or not they were related to the Falls development or not. At least 2 of the companies had NO relationship with any of the Respondents to the allegations of fraud. One was a retail business that I was involved in 2011 and 2012. This was a total dickhead move by the BCSC that ended up costing money to have those funds returned/released. Again, a complete abuse of power from Staff at the BCSC.
The assets were namely bank accounts that belonged to the companies – West Karma Ltd., Deercrest Management Ltd, 0966841 B.C. Ltd., and my personal bank account. All together, the bank accounts had roughly $65,000 in them (with the majority of the money being held in the numbered company).
After the hearing and the sanctions were issued by the BCSC, it would be the Staff (at the BCSC) responsibility to apply to have any monies seized or recovered from a Respondent and returned to the investors. This falls under section 161 (1)(g) of the BC Securities Act and is in clear black and white.
It was determined by the Panel (in their sanctioning document) that the money in the numbered company belong to the numbered company and NOT to Wharram or any of the former investors in FCC or DCF – this was made very clear by Nigel Cave – the Panel Chair during our hearing.
4.5 YEARS LATER
As hard as it is to imagine….4 1/2 years AFTER the order was issued, the utter failures down at the BCSC have yet to apply to receive the nearly $11,000 that was in the West Karma Ltd. bank account. Investors would have a claim to these funds.
The BCSC once again proves their complete incompetence at EVERYTHING they do. Why has it taken this amount of time for them to react? Again, who is running this ship? Is this on BCSC Chair Brenda Leong’s shoulder? Lawyer Olubode Fagbamiye? Executive Director Peter Brady? Director of Enforcement Doug Muir? Collectively, these clowns make over $1 million dollars per year – why do they continue to fail the people in the Province of British Columbia over and over again? Incompetence? Laziness?
And let’s not forget about the former investors that have to apply…and then wait 3 years to get their proportionate share of the recovered funds. Who makes these policies?
Even if they decide to WAKE UP and start doing their jobs, the former investors need to wait for another 3 years to recoup any of these funds – who makes these policies? That would put it the better part of a decade for anyone to receive returned funds….
Only down at the BCSC does the comedy of errors continue day after day! When can the former investors of FCC and DCF expect you to do your jobs and secure the $10,941.59 (and other funds) for their benefit? And why is it taking me to tell you this?
In a shocking encounter this past week, I heard directly from a semi low-level employee at the British Columbia Securities Commission that enforcement staff are routinely told to “drum up business” – and told to bring potential cases to the forefront or risk losing their jobs.
Recently, I was on a family outing with my family in Surrey and I ran into a CURRENT employee from the BCSC. I think we mutually recognized each other and I went over and asked if they were still employed by the Commission. They indicated they were and I then asked why no one at the Commission would answer my questions sent to them in writing and those that are on this blog. They indicated I was “under their skin” and that most think I am acting very unprofessional by having this blog. They see it as untrue and that I just have a bone to pick with the Commission after what happened to me. I indicated that I was not writing this blog with that in mind but they might be right. I took pride in the fact that they told me there are several Commission employees that look at this blog daily. I have verified this claim by checking the hits made by BCSC employees and can confirm this is true.
After more small talk, I then asked how many employees were employed in the Enforcement Section – they didn’t know the answer to that but they acknowledged there were many. I asked how do so many staff work on enforcement matters when there is not really that many (as of today there are only a small few that the enforcement staff would be working on) and this is when they said something I will never forget. They said words to the effect, “the enforcement staff at the Commission will always have work because they understand that if they don’t have cases to investigate they would no longer be needed at the Commission“, and that “they are told to drum up business during slow times”. This would equate to the RCMP being told to write more tickets to motorists during slow times or risk losing their jobs.
This is incredible – let’s assume for a moment that NO ONE is committing securities violations yet you have these “reckless” staff members out there just looking to find something wrong (in their eyes). Crazy times!
Have any of you looked at the BCSC’s INVEST RIGHT Twitter page lately? Why is everyone so happy? Are these investors (and their brokers) really that happy with the BCSC? Are these photos of real people that are owed the millions and millions of restitution/disgorgement orders issued by the BCSC in the last few years?
Why has the BCSC went “HOLLYWOOD” with the smoke and mirrors routine with their latest ad campaigns? Do you think the expressions on these peoples faces really represent what is happening in BC’s capital markets? Is their motto, “INVEST WITH A BCSC REGISTERED ADVISOR (or is it Adviser?) AND YOU WILL BE HAPPY LIKE THESE PEOPLE?” Even the name BCSC INVEST RIGHT has its own hidden message – if you want to Invest Right then come on down to the BCSC!! At a minimum – it is misleading by nature! Take a look….
SOURCE: BCSC INVESTRIGHT Twitter Page
The bottom line is that they are failing the people of BC – specifically in the capital market – they have done very little to protect the people of this province from becoming victims – and it has been going on for years! They want you to think everything is perfect when it is not….if they wanted to be accurate, they should show real emotions of investors that have lost everything. Show people that are not actors (or models) that are dealing with real life.
The people at the BCSC are the real scam artist. Their ads are so misleading – follow us and your investments will be perfect! Look at the pictures again! It’s horrendous that their twitter followers are bombarded daily with these misleading, bullshit posts.
Is the BCSC’s Pension Fund part of a huge tax cheat scandal known as the Paradise Papers?
Should this come to no surprise to anyone? As we blogged in this post on September 18, 2017, the British Columbia Securities Commission regulates the very same companies that are under the umbrella of the B.C. Investment Management Corporation (“bcIMC”) – the BC public sector pension fund. As you can see we questioned how they can ethically keep things above board when they regulate companies that essentially affect their bottom line and pays millions of dollars out to BCSC staff members. We went on to point out a couple of entities that the BCSC “regulated” after wrongdoing. But now, can we add the title “ALLEGED TAX CHEAT” to the ongoing saga around the public sector in British Columbia?
According to The Breaker.news website, “British Columbia’s public sector pension investor is listed in the Paradise Papers, the database of offshore investments leaked to a German newspaper and published by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. B.C. Investment Management Corporation, which goes by the brand bcIMC, reported $135.5 billion in assets under management for the year ended March 31, 2017.bcIMC and several related companies are in the database, including a bcIMC company registered in Bermuda at the tax haven’s now famous Appleby law firm.”
When the author of the article above contacted representatives from bcIMC and the BC Government for comment, their Chair (Mr. Peter Milburn) and BC Finance Minister Carole James did not respond – why would they? Furthermore, what are they now hiding or covering up?
This is the second time in recent days the publicly appointed Ms. James decided to keep her mouth shut. The Vancouver Sun ran an article on Friday (November 17, 2017) discussing the dismal record of the BCSC in their feeble attempts to collect fines and disgorgement from those that have broken (or alleged to have broken) securities laws in BC. NOTE: WE BLOGGED ABOUT THIS SAME SUBJECT IN MAY 2016!!
On Monday, November 20, 2017, the same reporter called on Ms. James for comment on the BCSC’s lack of action and again – as you can see here – she decided to have no comment. Sounds just like her predecessor – the Un-Honorable Mike de jong! LOL!
What a group of misfits!! When are the people of this Province going to wake up?
On May 11, 2016, we sent a letter to BCSC Chair BRENDA LEONG and requested she provide (to us) any correspondence between her Staff Litigators (C. Paige Leggat and Olubode Fagbamiye) and the Executive Director ( Paul Bourque ) regarding the Settlement Offer we were trying to bring forward that would possibly have brought funds back to the former investors in FCC and DCF.
As you see in this letter FOI Request #1617-0005 – Reply from BCSC – June 16, 2016.pub , Ms. Leong indicates there are no records matching my request. We don’t even want to begin to understand why there would be NO correspondence between lawyers/clients when millions of dollars could have been at stake for the investors – how is this even possible??
Not having internal correspondence between relevant parties (considering what was at stake for the former investors) reeks of unprofessionalism by Staff and certainly does not give any confidence they truly had the best interest of the investors during all relevant times.
That being said, Leong is either lying or (for whatever reason) there truly are NO records of correspondence between her star lawyers and their higher ups. Either way, this translates into a huge problem for the BCSC. Here’s why….
Assuming she is not lying, as per the Code of Ethic’s on the Law Society of British Columbia’s website , a lawyer must present ANY settlement offer it is presented to their client to avoid hearing. Staff DID NOT do this as they have admitted this in letters to the Respondents. In a file of this magnitude, and with the numerous attempts by us to settle – there is not one internal document related to the settlement offer that was presented? We truly find this hard to believe but if true – these are the people that are “protecting the capital markets in BC”??? Time for a WAKE UP CALL BRITISH COLUMBIA!!
And if she is lying then this becomes a bigger problem as she has been appointed to that position by elected government officials – more than likely Finance Minister Michael De jong or Premier Christy Clark.
In the first scenario above, we have the facts:
The Respondents submitted a Settlement Offer to the Commission on November 7, 2013 – Staff did not respond until December 30, 2013.
When Staff did reply, they stated they had NOT taken the Settlement Offer to the Executive Director and would only do so IF we plead guilty to ALL allegations AND paid approximately $5.8 million in fines and disgorgement.
As of June 16, 2016, we now have it in writing that there in NO communications whatsoever between Staff and the Executive Director with respect to any discussion regarding the Settlement Offer.
As we were preparing this latest blog post – something remarkable just became VERY apparent….what is happening down at the BCSC???
(Source: mypersonaltrainervancouver.com)
C.Paige Leggat – Staff Litigator RESIGNED OR TERMINATED IN 2014
(Source: mingpaocanada.com)
Teresa Mitchell-Banks – Director of Enforcement RESIGNED OR TERMINATED IN 2015
(Source: cbc.ca)
Paul C. Bourque – Executive Director RESIGNED IN 2016
These are the 3 major parties that would have been responsible for negotiating, accepting or denying the settlement agreement WITH the investor in mind.
PLEASE….FORMER INVESTORS IN FCC AND DCF – HELP US GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS. AGAIN, THIS SETTLEMENT OFFER WAS NOT EVEN PRESENTED TO THE ONLY PERSON THAT COULD HAVE ACCEPTED IT ON YOUR BEHALF!
******CONTACT THE BCSC AND FIND OUT WHY!******
604-899-5600 or email them at: inquiries@bcsc.bc.ca
IF THEY DON’T ANSWER YOU, GO ABOVE THEIR HEADS AND CONTACT YOUR LOCAL MLA OR OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL! ITS VITAL!
It appears that as long as a quarter century ago, there was concern with the actions of British Columbia’s securities regulator. We found to following on Abel Danger with respect to BC whistle blower Adrien Du Plessis who uncovers what our financial regulators have their fingerprints all over. Take a look…
du Plessis worked as a stock fraud investigator privately and for the B.C. Securities Commission. He describes many of the stock frauds and scams he encountered and how, much to his chagrin and surprise, the Provincial Government and its regulators seemed to be complicit in this fraud by not prosecuting the many scammers working through the Vancouver Stock Exchange.
************************** A Short History of Vancouver Stock Exchange Fraud
Adrian du Plessis discusses Vancouver Stock Exchange fraud Feb. 1993
Adrian du Plessis stock fraud investigator Part 2 1996
Adrian du Plessis – Investigator Behind the scenes, du Plessis investigated our then-notorious stock exchange. Many believe he almost made it go down in flames. Then he became less behind the scenes and started writing articles for magazines where the editors had to consult in detail with lawyers to avoid lawsuits. As far as I know, du Plessis only wrote the truth, and it was always a truth he had painstakingly researched over a long period of time.
Part of du Plessis’ talent came from an incredible photographic memory. A man’s photo would appear on the front page of The Vancouver Sun with an article on how he had been caught red-handed in a bank scandal. Five years later (the limit of Vancouver’s long time memory for facts such as these), the same man would be on the business page promoting a Veracruz sunken gold venture. Only du Plessis remembered.
But there is another man whose memory may be as good, and like du Plessis it would be next to impossible to buy. This is The Vancouver Sun‘s investigative business reporter, David Baines. For many years in those terrible times of our notorious stock exchange (the ’80s and early ’90s), Baines wrote damning articles on the shenanigans that passed for routine business in our city. Many of those articles were fueled by du Plessis’ research. And I distinctly remember that several times, security was provided for Baines, as he did receive death threats. As far as I know, du Plessis never bought a car and never made much money with his writing. I believe that had the December 28, 2003 BC Legislature raid in Victoria been investigated by a duel Plessis/Baines team (someone would have gently pushed them from business to politics), we would not be where we are now. I only wonder how du Plessis would modify his often-used term “white-collar crime” for incidents such as these. [Source]
Looking back at the very incompetent Staff at the British Columbia Securities Commission that mishandled our file – we can’t help but mention this failure – Mrs. Colette Colter. No matter the job she was tasked with – she always seemed to screw something up. We hope she sings better than she types! Let’s take a look…
BCSC’s Mrs. Colette Colter (left)
Source: Facebook
THE WRONG DATE ON THE NOTICE OF HEARING
It all started with the day that Staff brought forward their phony allegation that Wharram and the Corporate Respondents absconded with $5.45 million dollars. Albeit it was not Colter that had anything to do with investigating the allegations, or even bringing them forward for that matter but that isn’t our point. Facts are, her superiors gave her the simple Grade 5 task of physically typing the Notice of Hearing that was the foundation of the allegations against the Respondents. For the record, the date we received the documents from the BCSC was June 14, 2013…not 2012 as you see from Page 5 of the Notice of Hearing below:
And confirmation the document was created by Colter….
We get that in the overall realm of things its not really that big of a deal – typos happen all the time. But this document is probably the most important one of the entire matter – this is the document that formally brings allegations of wrongdoing to a Respondent. You would think a person would be able to type the date – specifically that right year. That being said, we can confirm people FAR higher than her up the chain at the Commission (including the failures C. Paige Legatt, Olubode Fagbamiye, Lori Chambers, Mark Hilford, Elizabeth “Liz” Chan, C. Paul Bourque and Brenda Leong) ALL saw this document before it was sent out. No one had the brains capable of noticing and correcting this? These people make millions of dollars every year to be so-called “professionals”!
When asked about the wrong date during cross-examination, the flunky Chan fumbled her words in the most incompetent way!
Its interesting in that Chan admits to making “note” of the mistake before it was sent out – admitting she saw the mistake – and yet still allowed it to be sent to the Respondents? Maybe this is why she is no longer employed at the Commission???
WILL SAY STATEMENT HAD WRONG NAME
Typos are one thing but getting a name completely wrong on a legal document is pathetic. Now, the following may or may not have been Colter’s fault as there is a chance that the boneheads C. Paige Legatt and Olubode Fagbamiye could have been at fault when they dictated her their notes.
Either way, as a Respondent, we were legally able to prepare for our hearing by receiving a Will Say Statement from Staff that would allow us to prepare for our cross examination of their witness. In this case, it was one of the former investors that was going to appear for Staff. Weeks before the hearing, Staff sent us the Will Say Statement and as you can see below it states, “He invested in Falls Capital Corp. on the recommendation of Susan Wong of Portfolio Strategies Corporation.” This was very odd as I had NEVER heard of a Susan Wong that worked for that firm.
When we questioned their witness about it during the cross-examination, he indicated he had never heard of a Susan Wong:
Fagbamiye was hilarious – I remember actually thinking how much of a complete idiot he was when trying to stammer out the words in his thick accent…how could a “highly” trained lawyer be such a train-wreck in a hearing room?? I also remember glancing at C. Paige Legattand seeing her just staring at him in almost disbelief. The hearing was not a great time in my life but I remember being amused while they went through their binders trying to get the the bottom of their feeble mistakes! The sweat on Fagbamiye’s brow was showing!
As you guessed it – the infamous Colette Colter was the author of this document as well….
SENDING CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS FROM ANOTHER CASE
And finally, we have what can only be called a careless mistake Colter made while sending highly confidential emails. These emails were sent to me and were from another matter with a completely different Respondent. Simply, they sent me documents that were suppose to go to someone completely else. Colter is a mess at this point in the junction…
As you can see above, she attached document “#1602059 Wood – Executive Directors Reply Submissions” . She recalled the email a short while later but nonetheless, this poor Respondents personal correspondence was sent out to the wrong recipient because of Mrs. Colette Colter. #FAILURE
We feel that if you are going to call yourself a Legal Assistant (and physically take a pay cheque from a government agency) that it should require complete professionalism. And you should probably not make fundamental GRADE 5 mistakes – really, how hard can it be? Case law tells us that IF a policeman writes the wrong date on a speeding ticket their is the possibility that a judge will throw out the charges yet this simpleton can make blatant mistake after mistake and still hold her job? Again, this seems to be the norm at the BCSC! When is it going to change?
In the near future, we are going to highlight different fuck ups from the people down at the good ole British Columbia Securities Commission….as always stay tuned!
As we enter into 2018, one can only wonder what is going to happen this year down at the good ole British Columbia Securities Commission. Our prediction is simple – another year of NOTHING! Fines will remain uncollected….Brenda Leong will still collect her $500,000 pay cheque while failing the people of this Province….and dopes like Olubode Fagbamiye will still do ANYTHING to make a case against Respondents.
CRIMINAL CHARGES ARE NOT IN THE BCSC’S BEST INTEREST
I have had people ask me recently why they BCSC did not pursue criminal charges against me (and several other of their many allegations over the years). In actuality, the BCSC bark is much stronger than its bite. For many accused fraudsters life continues as if nothing even happened – they simply move to another profession or move out of the Province in which they were charged. It is in these situation that former investors fell even more helpless and that there truly is no recourse against the wrongdoing.
It is our opinion that the crux of the matter is that the BCSC (and their counterparts in other Provinces) prefer it this way – for a couple of different reasons:
First, they are complete egomaniacs that want to control every inch of an investigation – they are able to throw whatever they want at the wall and hope it sticks. In a criminal investigation the level of proof (before a judge will issue a warrant) and even hear allegation in a court room is far greater. Investigators (including the complete and udder failure Elizabeth “Liz” Chan and her boss at the time – the flunky Lori Chambers) are able to run around with their badges and have relatively no experience – remember Chan was a simple Chartered Accountant when she started at the BCSC. How does a CA end up with a badge? She was trained to add numbers up and wasn’t even able to do that right – how can the BCSC justify giving this inept person conduct on a file?
And secondly (and more importantly) they are able to bring many bogus allegations against Issuers WITHOUT having to really prove anything. They do NOT have to appear in front of a judge or jury and need to only prove their case on the “balance of probabilities” (50.1%) in front of their OWN peers – rather than in a courtroom where a far greater case must be presented to prove allegations against any Respondent. Respondents really don’t stand a chance and the process certainly is not fair to all parties – despite this being a mandate on the BCSC’s website.
Please understand, the BCSC is run internally where Respondents must go against an Executive Director, lawyers and a Panel of appointed Commissionaires whom are ALL paid by the same internally run BC Securities Commission. Shockingly, during our hearing it was an almost daily event to see the flunky lawyers walk out with Chan and get in the elevator. One can almost be certain that they had private meetings to discuss strategy during the days of the hearing – this would NEVER happen in a criminal case with real lawyers and judges. During the hearing, when we asked the Panel Chair Nigel Cave about this his reply was, “We are not even going to entertain that comment…”. He completely swept my question under the rug as they did with many of my comments.
And let’s not forget the investors – as we blogged in the past, the BCSC can’t even collect on these fines. They have levied fines of OVER $340 million dollars and have only collected a small fraction over the years as you can see here in this blog. What a complete joke this system is – completely broken and in need of an overhaul starting at the top with Brenda Leong! Investors deserve better!
Due to a recent request we have decided to show transcripts from our hearing in 2014.
Transcripts from November 21, 2014 where Respondents accuse Staff litigators Olubode Fagbamiye and C. Paige Leggat of manipulating evidence in our matter before the Panel at the BCSC. Allegations of a $5.45 million fraud were ultimately overturned by the Panel – part and parcel of this exchange in front of the Panel as closing arguments. Fagbamiye coward and would not respond to allegations of his wrongdoing – choosing rather to look like an incompetent fool.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Panel Chair 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. 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:
On December 19, 2017, the whiny Canadian Securities Administrators (“CSA”) felt the need to issue a Press Release in regards to the media attention their failures are causing the good people and capital markets in Canada. Why now? Media is hammering them over their dismal record of allowing fraudsters in the capital markets to run wild with little to no recourse.
We here read over the release and find it very comical and so very inaccurate. Let’t take a closer look – Our comments will be in bold below…
December 19, 2017
Toronto – Over the past week, the Globe and Mail (Globe) has published multiple reports on enforcement in Canada’s capital markets. In response to this recent media commentary, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) today issued the following statement:
The CSA, the council of securities regulators of Canada’s provinces and territories, coordinates and harmonizes regulation for the Canadian capital markets. CSA enforcement teams work to protect the integrity of our capital markets and strive for responsive, collaborative and effective enforcement of securities laws. While the vibrancy, depth and overall health of the Canadian capital markets have been internationally recognized, Canada, like all markets, has criminals who prey on the investing public. We do everything in our power to identify, investigate and prosecute those individuals. We are concerned with how these enforcement efforts have been mischaracterized and wish to highlight some specific issues with the Globe’s coverage:
(IT’S FUNNY – WHY DID JUST THE GLOBE AND MAIL ARTICLE GET THE ATTENTION OF THE CSA? THE VANCOUVER SUN AND PROVINCE HAVE BEEN HAMMERING THE BCSC THE LAST FEW WEEKS WITH ONLINE AND PRINT STORIES OUTLINING THE BCSC’S FAILURE TO COLLECT ON THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THEY HAVE ISSUED IN FINES AND DISGORGEMENT ORDERS IN THE DECADE OR SO. MANY OTHERS HAVE BEEN OUTSPOKEN IN THE LAST FEW YEARS BUT ESSENTIALLY NOTHING FROM THE PRESS – WHY NOW?)
Securities regulators do not have statutory authority to pursue criminal offences. In recognition, several securities regulators have strengthened their ability to address misconduct in the capital markets by developing partnerships with law enforcement. THE BCSC (AND I WOULD ASSUME ALL OF THE CANADIAN REGULATORS) ABSOLUTELY HAVE THE ABILITY TO PURSUE CRIMINAL OFFENCES. THE BCSC SPENT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS BRINGING IN A FANCY DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT (THERESA MITCHELL-BANKS) AND HAVE (OR HAD) RCMP PHYSICALLY WORKING IN THEIR OFFICE. MITCHELL-BANKS WAS FIRED IN DECEMBER 2015 AND PAID A VERY HEALTHY SEVERANCE PACKAGE. FOR THE CSA TO SAY THEY DO NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO PURSUE CRIMINAL CHARGES IS ABSURD. FACTS ARE THEY HAVE TO CHOOSE VERY EARLY ON IN AN INVESTIGATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO PURSUE CRIMINAL CHARGES. AND THIS OPENS ANOTHER COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BURDEN OF PROOF NEEDED FOR CHARGES TO EVEN BE BROUGHT FORWARD.
In order for securities regulators to access tools under the Criminal Code (e.g. power of arrest, ability to execute warrants), police officers must be seconded to securities commissions. More law enforcement resources are always welcome. AGAIN, WE HAVE IT ON VERY HIGH AUTHORITY THAT IN AS EARLY AS 2013 THERE WERE PHYSICALLY RCMP OFFICERS WORKING AT DESKS INSIDE THE BCSC. FURTHERMORE, THE RCMP HAVE PHYSICALLY BEEN PRESENT WHEN BCSC INVESTIGATORS HAVE ISSUED SUMMONS TO RESPONDENTS IN AT LEAST 3 MATTERS WE HAVE LOOKED INTO.
Law enforcement is primarily responsible for investigating financial crime in Canada, and there is a dedicated unit of the RCMP (Integrated Market Enforcement Team) set up for this purpose. Despite the importance of law enforcement and their role in pursuing recidivists, the Globe chose not to seek comment from the RCMP or local law enforcement, nor did it include any statistical data from these agencies. THIS POINT IS REALLY CONFUSING – I THOUGHT IN THE POINTS ABOVE THEY INDICATED, “Securities regulators do not have statutory authority to pursue criminal offences” YET HERE THEY ARE INDICATING THEY HAVE ACCESS TO A DEDICATED UNIT OF THE RCMP? WHO WROTE THIS? WHAT A COMPLETE JOKE! MAYBE THE GLOBE AND MAIL DIDN’T SEEK COMMENT FROM THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO ASSIST AND INTERVIEWING THEM WOULD BE POINTLESS.
Securities regulators work together to address misconduct in Canada’s capital markets, and the Globe was provided with multiple examples of these collaborative efforts. For example, several securities regulators have Statutory Reciprocal Order Provisions, which essentially means that an order issued by one regulator is automatically in effect within all jurisdictions with these provisions. It should be noted that these provisions were introduced specifically to curb inter-provincial/territorial wrongdoing by repeat offenders. GREAT! WHATS THE POINT? THE PROVISIONS ARE WONDERFUL AT GETTING FRAUDSTERS FROM MOVING PROVINCES. WHY WON’T THE BCSC TELL THE REPORTER FROM THE VANCOUVER SUN WHO IS IN CHARGE OF COLLECTING THE DEBTS AT THE BCSC? ONE COMMENT WE WILL MAKE HERE THOUGH IS HOW CAN A CANADIAN (UNDER THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS) BE FOUND GUILTY IN A PROVINCE WITHOUT GETTING A HEARING AND A CHANCE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES? IT HAPPENS IN ALBERTA ON A DAILY BASIS SINCE JULY 2015. (CLICK HERE)
Securities regulators can and do pursue jail time where they have the authority to do so. TECHNICALLY, ALL OF THE SECURITIES REGULATORS CAN PURSUE JAIL TIME WITH CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND CHARGES IN ALL CASES. THEY DON’T FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS INCLUDING INCOMPETENCE, RESOURCES, AND RUINING THEIR INTERNAL WAYS OF REGULATING. INCOMPETENCE IS AN EASY ONE – THEIR STAFF ARE MOSTLY TRAINED WITHIN AND ARE AMATEURS AT BEST. MOST DO NOT HAVE THE TRAINING OR SKILLS REQUIRED TO BRING FORWARD CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS. PURSUING CRIMINAL CHARGES WOULD TAKE FAR MORE RESOURCES AND WOULD CUT INTO THE BCSC’S FANCY LITTLE BANK ACCOUNT – CRIMINAL LAWYERS ARE EXPENSIVE. AND FINALLY THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS FAR HIGHER IN A CRIMINAL MATTER AND WOULD BE ARGUED BEFORE REAL JUDGES AND NOT APPOINTED COMMISSIONAIRES. ALLEGATIONS IN MY CASE WOULD HAVE NEVER MADE IT INTO A REAL COURTROOM AS THEY WERE VERY CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND INACCURATE. SO CIRCUMSTANTIAL THAT THE LAWYERS HAD TO MANIPULATE EVIDENCE IN AN ATTEMPT TO PROVE THEIR FEEBLE CASE! TAKE A LOOK HERE!
Courts make decisions about sentencing in criminal matters, not securities regulators. THIS IS EXACTLY MY POINT IN #5 ABOVE – REGULATORS ADMINISTER THESE HUGE FINES WHERE A REAL JUDGE WOULD NOT LEGALLY BE ABLE TO DO SO. I ALWAYS USE THE ANALOGY THAT IF A PERSON COMMITS A CRIME IN CANADA (SAY THEFT OVER $5000) – THIS PERSON IS GUARANTEED TO GET A FAIR TRIAL IN FRONT OF A JUDGE OR JURY, HE WILL NOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY AGAINST HIMSELF, AND HIS PUNISHMENT WILL FIT THE CRIME ACCORDING TO LAW AND PREVIOUS CASE LAW. THIS IS NOT THE CASE WHEN A RESPONDENT IS FACED WITH ALLEGATIONS FROM A SECURITIES REGULATOR IN THIS COUNTRY. IN MANY (IF NOT ALL) RESPONDENTS ARE MADE TO ATTEND COMPELLED INTERVIEWS WHERE STAFF ARE ABLE TO ASK ANY QUESTION THEY WANT AND CAN USE THESE ANSWERS TO BRING ALLEGATIONS TO A HEARING ROOM. THE HEARING IS DONE IN FRONT OF BIASED, PAID COMMISSIONAIRES – IT IS NOT IN THESE COMMISSIONAIRES BEST INTEREST TO STAY CHARGES IF THEY WANT TO KEEP THEIR APPOINTMENTS(AND MONEY COMING IN). THE REGULATORS (SPECIFICALLY AT THE BCSC) HAVE ISSUED FINES THAT DO NOT SUIT THE LEVEL OF WRONGDOING. THAT CRIMINAL THAT WE MENTIONED ABOVE DOES HIS TIME AND HE IS RELEASED FROM PRISON AND IS INTEGRATED BACK INTO SOCIETY – THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE BCSC. EVEN SOMEONE WHO COMMITS MURDER IN CANADA DOESN’T HAVE TO TESTIFY AGAINST THEMSELVES BECAUSE IT IS IN THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.
The Globe notes that former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge spoke of the “widely held perception that Canadian authorities aren’t tough enough.” This quote was taken from a speech delivered 13 years ago in which the former governor actually said he was encouraged that provincial securities commissions were taking steps to toughen enforcement. THIS IS RATHER A MUTE POINT – WE WOULD AGREE WITH THE CSA WITH THIS COMMENT – IT IS RATHER OLD AND STALE. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE HUNDREDS (click on link) OF OTHERS THAT HAVE COMMENTED OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, WEEKS, AND EVEN DAYS? WE POSTED THIS (click on link) TO OUR BLOG IN AUGUST 2016 WHERE EVEN THE FORMER HEAD OF THE ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION WAS CRITICAL OF THE ACTIONS OF THE CSA. THERE ARE DOZENS OF COMMENTS ON THE INTERNET ON A REGULAR BASIS. IN A SIMPLE GOOGLE SEARCH WE HAVE FOUND DOZENS INCLUDING THIS VERY FUNNY ONE REGARDING THE FORMER CHAIR OF THE ASC….HE ACTUALLY HAD A SEX DOLL IN HIS OFFICE THERE ARE FACEBOOK PAGES, TWITTER PAGES, ETC. THAT HAVE ALL BROUGHT WRONGDOING BY REGULATORS TO THE FOREFRONT. FACTS ARE, THE REGULATORS HAVE DROPPED THE BALL FOR DECADES NOW. THIS IS BECAUSE NO ONE REALLY GOVERNS THEM – THEY ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO ANYONE -ESPECIALLY NOT THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY!
Securities regulators dedicate significant resources to helping investors protect themselves from fraud. These include local investor education initiatives, national campaigns about avoiding investment fraud, and a National Registration Search tool that investors can use to check whether an individual or firm is registered with provincial securities regulators. THAT’S GREAT! BUT AS WE CAN SEE FROM THIS ARTICLE – ONLY 4% OF THE ADVISERS CHECK OUT WERE REGISTERED WITH THE CSA! THIS MEANS THOUSANDS OF FINANCIAL PLANNERS IN CANADA ARE NOT REGISTERED – WHAT HAPPENS THEN? THIS DOES NOT EVEN ACCOUNT FOR THE WHOLE ADVISOR/ADVISER FIASCO THAT THE CSA AND THEIR PROVINCIAL PARTNERS HAVE CAUSED!
The Globe has stated that its investigation is based on an analysis of 30 years of data contained in the CSA’s Disciplined List. This database does not contain 30 years of national data. Some securities commissions have uploaded data dating back just over 10 years. WHO CARES? YOU BOZOS ARE GRASPING! DOES IT REALLY MATTER WHEN IT ALL STARTED? THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN AND DATA WHETHER IT IS 30, 20, 10 OR EVEN 5 YEARS OLD DOES NOT LIE! YOU PEOPLE ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH PROTECTING YOUR BIG BUSINESS PARTNERS THAN PROTECTING THE AVERAGE CITIZEN! THINK I AM WRONG – PROVE IT! GET OFF YOUR ASSES AND MAKE THESE PROVINCIAL REGULATORS DO THEIR JOBS WHICH IS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THE PROVINCE USING FAIR, ETHICAL METHODS. STOP PAYING PEOPLE LIKE BRENDA LEONG $500,000 PER YEAR AND FIRE HER ASS OUT THE DOOR FOR INCOMPETENCE! CONTACT ME AND I WILL SHOW YOU HER COMPLETE AND SHAMEFUL HIGH-HANDED ACTS THAT WILL MAKE YOU HEAD SHAKE.
The CSA supports having a national dialogue about what more can be done to deter recidivists, however, that discussion must be based on facts and must involve all participants in the justice system, including law enforcement. WHAT’S STOPPING YOU?? COULD IT BE THE RACKET THAT THE PROVINCIAL REGULATORS CURRENTLY RUN BUCKSHOT OVER? SAD REALLY! YOU PEOPLE ARE ALL AT FAULT OF THE MESS THAT IS THE CANADIAN SECURITIES ADMINISTRATORS!
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.
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?
On June 14, 2013, the incompetent staff at the British Columbia Securities Commission brought the bogus Notice of Hearing allegations to our doorstep. In addition, they also issued an Order to Freeze Property (see below) to an assortment of companies that I was a part of – whether or not they were related to the Falls development or not. At least 2 of the companies had NO relationship with any of the Respondents to the allegations of fraud. One was a retail business that I was involved in 2011 and 2012. This was a total dickhead move by the BCSC that ended up costing money to have those funds returned/released. Again, a complete abuse of power from Staff at the BCSC.
The assets were namely bank accounts that belonged to the companies – West Karma Ltd., Deercrest Management Ltd, 0966841 B.C. Ltd., and my personal bank account. All together, the bank accounts had roughly $65,000 in them (with the majority of the money being held in the numbered company).
After the hearing and the sanctions were issued by the BCSC, it would be the Staff (at the BCSC) responsibility to apply to have any monies seized or recovered from a Respondent and returned to the investors. This falls under section 161 (1)(g) of the BC Securities Act and is in clear black and white.
It was determined by the Panel (in their sanctioning document) that the money in the numbered company belong to the numbered company and NOT to Wharram or any of the former investors in FCC or DCF – this was made very clear by Nigel Cave – the Panel Chair during our hearing.
4.5 YEARS LATER
As hard as it is to imagine….4 1/2 years AFTER the order was issued, the utter failures down at the BCSC have yet to apply to receive the nearly $11,000 that was in the West Karma Ltd. bank account. Investors would have a claim to these funds.
The BCSC once again proves their complete incompetence at EVERYTHING they do. Why has it taken this amount of time for them to react? Again, who is running this ship? Is this on BCSC Chair Brenda Leong’s shoulder? Lawyer Olubode Fagbamiye? Executive Director Peter Brady? Director of Enforcement Doug Muir? Collectively, these clowns make over $1 million dollars per year – why do they continue to fail the people in the Province of British Columbia over and over again? Incompetence? Laziness?
And let’s not forget about the former investors that have to apply…and then wait 3 years to get their proportionate share of the recovered funds. Who makes these policies?
Even if they decide to WAKE UP and start doing their jobs, the former investors need to wait for another 3 years to recoup any of these funds – who makes these policies? That would put it the better part of a decade for anyone to receive returned funds….
Only down at the BCSC does the comedy of errors continue day after day! When can the former investors of FCC and DCF expect you to do your jobs and secure the $10,941.59 (and other funds) for their benefit? And why is it taking me to tell you this?
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.
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:
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:
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!
Another article written by a Investigative Reporter for the Vancouver Sun indicates that BC Finance Minister Carole James has laid down the law and has “ordered the B.C. Securities Commission to improve its poor record of collecting the fines it has imposed…James said she told the commission to look at tools and options to improve collection and get back to her “soon”.”
Well Brenda – you could probably start the ball rolling by identifying the lone, complete failure who’s job is to collect the fines and disgorgement ordered by your Commissionaires. Why so secret about who this person is?
I received a demand letter from a Mahdere Asfaw in your office – is this the utter failure that is not doing her job? IF not her, why will you not tell the reporter from the Vancouver Sun this person’s name?
Back to collecting my fine and disgorgement – I very much look forward to hearing back from you!
PLEASE – COME COLLECT MY FINE AND DISGORGEMENT ORDER!! DO YOU WANT ME TO COME DOWN TO THE OFFICES OF THE BCSC TO ALLOW YOUR WONDERFUL STAFF TO SERVE ME SOME SORT OF SUPREME COURT DOCUMENTS? ISN’T THIS THE REAL REASON YOU DON’T COLLECT ON THESE DEBTS – YOU WOULD HAVE TO SHOW YOUR WEAK, FEEBLE FINDINGS/RULINGS/DECISION DOCUMENTS TO A REAL JUDGE! AND THAT THE JUDGE WOULD PROBABLY LAUGH YOUR DIME-STORE LAWYERS OUT OF THE COURTROOM…
And I can see via my blog’s analytics that people at the BC Legislature are viewing my blog on a regular basis…you people indirectly allow the BCSC to pay the incompetent BCSC Chair Brenda Leong nearly $500,000 per year – why is she not looking for work at the local soup kitchen? When are you people gonna wake up? She is EVERYTHING that is wrong with the BCSC!
A powerful email we recently received from Christopher Burke and his thoughts on the mess that is the British Columbia Securities Commission…
From: Christopher Burke Sent: November-22-17 9:31 AM To: Gordon Hoekstra Cc: Gordon Hoekstra Vancouver Sun; Minister of Finance The Honorable Carole James; RJ; Rick Jewers; Alan Blanes; COMER Krehm; Herb Wiseman; Wes Kmet; Adam Weissman; Paul Hellyer; Larry Elford; Alan Sendzul; JLM Sendzul; Joyce Nelson; The Honourable John Horgan – NDP; Paul Manly; media@cupw-sttp.org; Small Investor Protection Association; Wanda Morris; Wanda Morris; hello@mikedejong.com Subject: Why All the Unpaid Fines At BCSC, We know some Answers..
In a recent statement from BC NDP’s finance minster Carole James regarding the massive amount of unpaid fines owed to the BC Securities Commission Ms. James questions why the vast number of unpaid fines have gone uncollected by the BCSC.
Of course we know why these fines have gone unpaid, at least some of them anyway. Even thought the BCSC has rendered its judgements and filed them with BC Supreme Court it still must take the accused to court to seize their assets. While the BCSC claims that this is very hard due to the fact that the money is hidden and/or spent we know that this also is not entirely true.
One of the key reasons the BC Securities Commission lets these fines go unpaid is that the BC Securities Commission and many of its staff including former Head of Criminal Enforcement Ms. Teresa Mitchell-Banks operate in a criminal manner with no adherence to their own rule nor the rule of law.
The BC Securities Commission does not protect the markets, it is a weaponized agency whose purpose is give the impression of a tough on crime agency for the public while behind the back of the public it assists a vast criminal network that is looting our province on a grand scale. It does not actually want its actions looked at in a court of law. Even if it is the BC Supreme Court where cases are often fixed by this same vast criminal network, its very risky as the evidence against them is mounting in a wide variety of cases.
Any real digging into the BC Securities Commission will reveal a criminal network potentially spanning the globe. This is not mere conjecture, there are many case like the cases that have been demonstrated in this post.
The connection between BCIMC and BCSC is organized crime at its best, not only is the BCSC a criminal agency with no regard for the rule of law the BCIMC through its vast holding of companies is very likely worse. One of the BCIMC’s many crimes is to burn down the home of Jack English and Family and steal his $200 Million dollar ocean front property near Tofino BC. The Full Story on BCIMC and its Crimes Against the English Family
The BC Securities Commission will never address these crimes because it is a major part of them as many have experienced. The proposed new National Regulator will be no better, its simply designed to hide fraud and perpetuate it.
My name is Christopher Burke and the BCSC has found me guilty of trading without a prospectus yet the BCSC cannot take me to court for the multi million dollar fine it has levied against me not just because I do not have the money and never did, but because how it came to its judgement was through an utterly criminal process. I am not guilty, I was actually a victim. The same can be said for many others who had to deal with the BCSC.
Flawed would be too kind to describe their investigations and indicate this was not a purposeful undertaking when as has been demonstrated on my blog and many others the BCSC is a criminal organization. Christy Clark and Michael DeJong were aware and did nothing but aid and abet. Ms. James I sincerely hope you and Mr. Horgan plan on restoring the rule of law in this province because justice is coming with or without you. We the people will no longer tolerate these crimes against us.
The BCSC is a Sham.
Regards Christopher Burke
Thanks Christopher for your candid thoughts – we just wonder if the so-called investigative reporters for the respective Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Province have the tenacity to really get to the bottom of the shambles at the BCSC and other regulators across Canada. Dig deep – there are dozens of stories that are there for your readers that will shed light on the real corruption in the racket known as the Canadian Securities markets! These stories are horrendous – and each and every one of them are unique. Are we all wrong? This isn’t a matter of us whining and crying over sour milk – our allegations are many and include evidence manipulation, excessive fines, entrapment, Charter of Rights violations, fraud, abuse of power, incompetent staff, etc – and the list goes on.
What we wouldn’t do to have these relationships finally drained! The people of BC and Canada deserve far greater!
Is the BCSC’s Pension Fund part of a huge tax cheat scandal known as the Paradise Papers?
Should this come to no surprise to anyone? As we blogged in this post on September 18, 2017, the British Columbia Securities Commission regulates the very same companies that are under the umbrella of the B.C. Investment Management Corporation (“bcIMC”) – the BC public sector pension fund. As you can see we questioned how they can ethically keep things above board when they regulate companies that essentially affect their bottom line and pays millions of dollars out to BCSC staff members. We went on to point out a couple of entities that the BCSC “regulated” after wrongdoing. But now, can we add the title “ALLEGED TAX CHEAT” to the ongoing saga around the public sector in British Columbia?
According to The Breaker.news website, “British Columbia’s public sector pension investor is listed in the Paradise Papers, the database of offshore investments leaked to a German newspaper and published by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. B.C. Investment Management Corporation, which goes by the brand bcIMC, reported $135.5 billion in assets under management for the year ended March 31, 2017.bcIMC and several related companies are in the database, including a bcIMC company registered in Bermuda at the tax haven’s now famous Appleby law firm.”
When the author of the article above contacted representatives from bcIMC and the BC Government for comment, their Chair (Mr. Peter Milburn) and BC Finance Minister Carole James did not respond – why would they? Furthermore, what are they now hiding or covering up?
This is the second time in recent days the publicly appointed Ms. James decided to keep her mouth shut. The Vancouver Sun ran an article on Friday (November 17, 2017) discussing the dismal record of the BCSC in their feeble attempts to collect fines and disgorgement from those that have broken (or alleged to have broken) securities laws in BC. NOTE: WE BLOGGED ABOUT THIS SAME SUBJECT IN MAY 2016!!
On Monday, November 20, 2017, the same reporter called on Ms. James for comment on the BCSC’s lack of action and again – as you can see here – she decided to have no comment. Sounds just like her predecessor – the Un-Honorable Mike de jong! LOL!
What a group of misfits!! When are the people of this Province going to wake up?
HOW CAN THE BCSC CONVICT A RESPONDENT USING IN ACCURATE NUMBERS THAT WERE MANUFACTURED BY THEIR INCOMPETENT STAFF??LET’S TAKE A LOOK…
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 re-sale and the Respondents indicated they would ask around. I called one of the investors in Edmonton and he agreed to purchase the unit for personal use.
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, $20,571.61 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. Our point is….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)
We love how the incompetent Elizabeth Chan admits in her first words that she didn’t “think this is a document that I (she) obtained.” Kind of says it all right off the bat! She then goes on to state, “I didn’t obtain this document during the course of my investigation…” If you are bringing in fraud allegations against a respondent and 250 of his investors would be affected a great deal – do you not think you should bring in accurate numbers to even have a chance at proving the allegations?
Crooked Elizabeth “Liz” Chan
This is the testimony of Staff’s most important witness – a Certified General Accountant with what appears to be a cracker jack 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?
For the allegations to be proven by the Executive Director of the BCSC…
Former BCSC Executive Director – Paul Bourque
…Staff had to prove “on the balance of probabilities” that they had made their case. One could conclude that bringing in a WRONG number into a hearing room would all but destroy their case – but not at the KANGAROO COURT know as the BRITISH COLUMBIA SECURITIES COMMISSION!
What a bunch of CLOWNS! Time to drain the swamp of these BOZO’S!
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?
What a fucking joke the regulators are in this country! Can you imagine appointing professionals so incompetent that they have literally allowed CEO’s of Canada’s largest banks to overcharge the good people of Canada literally millions and millions of dollars in excess fees? Who governs these people? Who allows these cowards to operate the provincial securities regulators – who all claim their mandates are to protect to people of Canada?
Let’s look at an article from CBC news from November of 2016 – it states, “A major bank spent 14 years overcharging its customers more than $73 million. But the bigger story here is that no one noticed. CIBC reported itself to the Ontario Securities Commission and has agreed to pay the money back and the bank will also pay $3 million to the OSC to help with its mandate of protecting investors. But critics say the incident speaks to a distinct lack of either laws or regulators to protect investors. If CIBC hadn’t turned itself in, the problem could have gone on for years more.”
The articles goes on to tell us, “The CIBC settlement is by no means an anomaly. In July, Scotiabank reached a similar deal with the OSC, agreeing to pay back nearly $20 million in fees that should never have been charged. In February, mutual fund giant CI Investments Inc. said it would return more than $156 million to clients. That was, by far, the largest amount of investor compensation since the regulator introduced no-contest settlements.”
Let’s get this straight, executives at the CIBC reported themselves and then agreed to give to bozo’s at the OSC $3 million dollars to “help with its (OSC) mandate of protecting investors”? What a joke! These regulators are not living up to their mandates and protecting Canada’s investors.
On September 14, 2016 at about 11:00 AM, we filed a formal complaint with “The Office of the Ombudsperson” who claim they are “B.C.’s Independent Voice for Fairness”. I must admit, their title and slogan seemed to really give me hope. After some 363 days – it looks like they have got around to finally answering my complaint.
Do I blame them for the delayed response? No, I do not. Considering whom they had to communicate with to get answers, I will give them a pass! It is VERY difficult to get anyone at the BC Securities Commission to reply to anything even remotely close when they are being accused of being in the wrong.
Now, as you can see below, according to the writer, the reason the amoeba’s at the BCSC have never replied to my repeated requests for answers is that it is “not unreasonable for the Commission to stop communicating with a person whose behavior it determined to be inappropriate. Inappropriate behavior may include behavior that is aggressive, abusive, over frequent, and/or threatening.” The letter goes on to state, “In response to our questions, the Commission told us that it made the decision to stop communicating with you because it determined that your behavior towards them was inappropriate. It made this decision in light of the volume of your communications, previous explanations that had been provided to you, issues that had been canvassed at the hearing and dealt with by the Panel’s findings, and times when your communication was perceived by the Commission as aggressive in tone. The Commission also referenced, as part of its decision to stop communicating with you, the contents of a blog you appear to have created which included obscenities and photos of various Commission staff.”
LEONG HAD AMPLE TIME TO REPLY TO MY LETTERS _ THE BLOG CAME AS A RESULT OF ME WANTING PEOPLE TO KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT THESE COWARDS AND AS A RESULT OF LEONG NOT REPLYING TO MY REQUEST TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!!
Albeit by looking at the dates of the letters it would appear that they were very frequent yet when you actually read them you can instantly tell they are for essentially 3 different things. I broke the letters up into 3 parts for various reason included not wanting Leong to be overwhelmed by my request and I wanted her to treat them differently.
By reading them, one can immediately see that they are NOT abusive and were written BEFORE my blog even started. Whomever replied to the Ombudsperson office appears to be a LIAR – and once again reflecting away from the truth or answering any questions. The first picture ever put into the blog was that of Brenda Leong on May 19, 2016 (click) and its was a random picture that was found on the internet. This was not abusive in nature and there was no disrespect intended whatsoever.
The first meme picture that was posted on this blog was on August 4, 2016 (click), and it wasn’t even a staff member – it was that of BC Premier “Crooked” Christy Clark. On September 13, 2016 – we again posted a stock, very generic picture of Brenda Leong that was found on the internet.
The first derogatory picture came on October 17, 2016 (click) and it was NOT physically of any Staff member – just simply implying that the BCSC Staff had their heads in the sand. Can one argue they don’t at this point?
Again, am I disappointed with their response? For sure, but I really cannot tell you I am surprised. John Reid (whom originally called me after my complaint was filed) said he would get me answers but shortly thereafter I received a letter stating he was no longer going to be employed by the Ombudsperson’s office. The person who replied (Shannon Mather) is someone I have never spoke to on the phone.
Interesting enough is that at the end of her letter, she indicates that if I want to discuss the letter (to avoid her closing the file) then she needed to hear from me before September 27, 2017. I received her letter on September 21, 2017 and called her on the morning of the 22nd. I called again on September 25 and the morning of the 26. Finally on September 27, I got through to someone that told me Ms. Mather no longer worked in their office.
I talked to a person named Matt and he indicated he was a Manager’s assistant and confirmed the Mathers no longer was employed by the Ombudsperson’s office. He told me he would not close the file and that it would be referred again back to a Ms. Rose Stanton (who was formally Ms Mather’s boss). He thanked me for my manners and indicated that he thought my concerns with the BCSC were valid.
We are NOT the only one that has complained to B.C.’s “Independent Voice for Fairness” – we only hope others have better results. I can only wonder what rabbit the Cowards at the BCSC will pull out of their hats this time to avoid answering questions. Some of the others didn’t write blogs or post pictures of the Staff at the BCSC, so what are they gonna use this time to avoid answering questions.
My final comment on this letter will be this – I think the BCSC are even bigger cowards/amoebas now than ever before. Brenda Leong (and company) need to grow some skin, stop whining about this fucking blog, and respond to the seriousness of the allegations I have brought against the incompetent staff at the BCSC. I allege Staff committed a crime and this is being ignored? I argue that my former investors could have received a portion of their money back if my settlement offer was presented to the proper person at the BCSC – and the BCSC is ignoring that? Brenda Leong is a terrible person and when people finally wake up and hold her accountable for her incompetence she is going to be removed from her grotesquely paid position at the BCSC.
Now, more than ever, is it time for these people to be held accountable for their actions! Their day is here!
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 BCIMCit 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.
For 17 months now I have been posting in this blog – some of the posting have been direct and to the point. I have challenged staff at the BCSC to refute anything they have read, I have reached out and tried to contact staff at the BCSC and challenged them to answer very simple questions. We have even had some of the former investors contact the BCSC and and the cowards running their offices will not even respect these requests. We have posted some very unflattering things about BCSC Chair Brenda Leong, Staff Litigators Olubode Fagbamiye and C. Paige Leggat, the complete failures of Lead Investigator Elizabeth “Liz” Chan, and the actions of other BCSC Staff including Colette Colter, Alan Keats, Peter Brady and Paul Bourque. And yet through it all, they have remained completely silent. They have not even had there very expensive legal representatives contact me to have me take down this blog…
Why? Because everything I am saying is accurate and they do NOT want to challenge me in a real courtroom. They truly are run by a group of misfits that do not have the best interests of investors at heart – despite this being part of their mandate.
We have recently been in contact with another group that was railroaded by the BCSC and their story is even worse than ours – stayed tuned for more!
In a former post in this blog a few weeks ago, we told a story of one of our former investors calling the BCSC to ask questions regarding our matter. Unfortunately, whomever she spoke to at the Commission hung up on her before she could get ANY answers to the questions she had for them.
Today, we thought we would try to get answers from Staff Litigator Mr. Olubode Fagbamiye (the Staff Litigator that worked directly on my file) from essentially day 1. He was one of the lawyers (the other being C. Paige Leggat) that was present during the hearing and he was certainly there during the period of time we presented our settlement Offer that would have seen the investors participate in the successful Deercrest property (without involvement from Staff at West Karma Ltd.).
As you will see in the video below, we did not waste Mr. Fagbamiye’s time and asked him 3 very direct questions. It is almost laughable his replies (or lack there of) to our repeated questions.
IT IS OUR OPINION THIS VIDEO CONFIRMS EVERYTHING WE HAVE BEEN SAYING THE ENTIRE TIME. AND IT REMAINS OUR OPINION BY FAILING TO RESPOND TO OUR QUESTIONS THE BCSC (AND THEIR STAFF) ARE COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT IN RUNNING THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY IN THIS PROVINCE!
Shame on them all! Especially this incompetent spineless amoeba that happened to work on our file (manipulating the evidence and not taking a valid settlement offer to the Executive Director).
For all former investors in both FCC and DCF, we encourage you to watch the video – now more than every you need to contact (phone, mail, email, fax) and get these questions answered.
They cannot ignore all of you! As you can see, Fagbamiye’s phone number is 604-899-6790 and the main line is 604-899-6500. Call them today – record the call or have someone witness the call for you. Email them weekly if you need to!
It is time they are held accountable for THEIR actions in the West Karma matter.
I have had people ask me recently why they BCSC did not pursue criminal charges against me (and several other of their many allegations over the years). In actuality, the BCSC bark is much stronger than its bite. For many accused fraudsters life continues as if nothing even happened – they simply move to another profession or move out of the Province in which they were charged. It is in these situation that former investors fell even more helpless and that there truly is no recourse against the wrongdoing.
It is our opinion that the crux of the matter is that the BCSC (and their counterparts in other Provinces) prefer it this way – for a couple of different reasons:
First, they are complete egomaniacs that want to control every inch of an investigation – they are able to throw whatever they want at the wall and hope it sticks. In a criminal investigation the level of proof (before a judge will issue a warrant) and even hear allegation in a court room is far greater. Investigators (including the complete and udder failure Elizabeth “Liz” Chan and her boss at the time – the flunky Lori Chambers) are able to run around with their badges and have relatively no experience – remember Chan was a simple Chartered Accountant when she started at the BCSC. How does a CA end up with a badge? She was trained to add numbers up and wasn’t even able to do that right – how can the BCSC justify giving this inept person conduct on a file?
And secondly (and more importantly) they are able to bring many bogus allegations against Issuers WITHOUT having to really prove anything. They do NOT have to appear in front of a judge or jury and need to only prove their case on the “balance of probabilities” (50.1%) in front of their OWN peers – rather than in a courtroom where a far greater case must be presented to prove allegations against any Respondent. Respondents really don’t stand a chance and the process certainly is not fair to all parties – despite this being a mandate on the BCSC’s website.
Please understand, the BCSC is run internally where Respondents must go against an Executive Director, lawyers and a Panel of appointed Commissionaires whom are ALL paid by the same internally run BC Securities Commission. Shockingly, during our hearing it was an almost daily event to see the flunky lawyers walk out with Chan and get in the elevator. One can almost be certain that they had private meetings to discuss strategy during the days of the hearing – this would NEVER happen in a criminal case with real lawyers and judges. During the hearing, when we asked the Panel Chair Nigel Cave about this his reply was, “We are not even going to entertain that comment…”. He completely swept my question under the rug as they did with many of my comments.
And let’s not forget the investors – as we blogged in the past, the BCSC can’t even collect on these fines. They have levied fines of OVER $340 million dollars and have only collected a small fraction over the years as you can see here in this blog. What a complete joke this system is – completely broken and in need of an overhaul starting at the top with Brenda Leong! Investors deserve better!
Again we are truly seeing what kind of a person BCSC Chair Brenda Leong truly is – this week she responded to our Freedom of Information request in what can only be described as a continued act of cowardice. She had another opportunity to put much of our discontent to bed and she once again has decided to continue playing the game. That is fine – we are going NOWHERE!
BCSC Chair Brenda Leong
Our latest FOI requests was simple – we wanted to know why she was not responding to our repeated request to answer questions including why her staff (complete and udder failures of lawyers Olubode Fagbamiye and C. Paige Leggat) did not take our Settlement Offer to the Executive Director and whether or not she felt they manipulated key evidence in our hearing.
As you will see below she has decided to hide under her rock….despite her job description literally stating…
This was finally a chance for her to defend the actions of her Staff and to show these same staff that she will defend them against any and all allegations of wrongdoing. Fagbamiye appears to be simply too dense to even understand this woman (his boss) does not have his back.
Leong’s reply is as follows:
Between Leong and Executive Director Peter Brady – it is very clear this organization is failing the people of the Province of British Columbia. Investors have a right to know answers to our questions and they continue to hide from answering these questions….
In a former post in this blog a few months ago, we told a story of one of our former investors calling the BCSC to ask questions regarding our matter. Unfortunately, whomever she spoke to at the Commission hung up on her before she could get ANY answers to the questions she had for them.
Today, we thought we would try to get answers from Staff Litigator Mr. Olubode Fagbamiye (the Staff Litigator that worked directly on my file) from essentially day 1. He was one of the lawyers (the other being C. Paige Leggat) that was present during the hearing and he was certainly there during the period of time we presented our settlement Offer that would have seen the investors participate in the successful Deercrest property (without involvement from Staff at West Karma Ltd.).
As you will see in the video below, we did not waste Mr. Fagbamiye’s time and asked him 3 very direct questions. It is almost laughable his replies (or lack there of) to our repeated questions.
IT IS OUR OPINION THIS VIDEO CONFIRMS EVERYTHING WE HAVE BEEN SAYING THE ENTIRE TIME. AND IT REMAINS OUR OPINION BY FAILING TO RESPOND TO OUR QUESTIONS THE BCSC (AND THEIR STAFF) ARE COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT IN RUNNING THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY IN THIS PROVINCE!
Shame on them all! Especially this incompetent spineless amoeba that happened to work on our file (manipulating the evidence and not taking a valid settlement offer to the Executive Director).
For all former investors in both FCC and DCF, we encourage you to watch the video – now more than every you need to contact (phone, mail, email, fax) and get these questions answered.
They cannot ignore all of you! As you can see, Fagbamiye’s phone number is 604-899-6790 and the main line is 604-899-6500. Call them today – record the call or have someone witness the call for you. Email them weekly if you need to!
It is time they are held accountable for THEIR actions in the West Karma matter.
The Respondents sent their time-sensitive SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL to Staff on November 7, 2013. Finally, after 7 fucking 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. Staff bozo (C. Paige Leggat) then had the audacity to tell me (in an email) that the only person at the BCSC that could approve a Settlement Offer was the Executive Director (at that time Paul Bourque). She would not take it to him…what a garbage human being! The poor investors!
STAFF LITIGATOR C. PAIGE LEGGAT
Instead Leggat indicated the only way she (they) would take a Settlement Offer to the Executive Director is IF I 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.
On May 11, 2016, we sent a letter to BCSC Chair BRENDA LEONG and requested she provide (to us) any correspondence between her Staff Litigators (C. Paige Leggat and Olubode Fagbamiye) and the Executive Director ( Paul Bourque ) regarding the Settlement Offer we were trying to bring forward that would possibly have brought funds back to the former investors in FCC and DCF.
As you see in this letter FOI Request #1617-0005 – Reply from BCSC – June 16, 2016.pub , Ms. Leong indicates there are no records matching my request. We don’t even want to begin to understand why there would be NO correspondence between lawyers/clients when millions of dollars could have been at stake for the investors – how is this even possible??
Not having internal correspondence between relevant parties (considering what was at stake for the former investors) reeks of unprofessionalism by Staff and certainly does not give any confidence they truly had the best interest of the investors during all relevant times.
That being said, Leong is either lying or (for whatever reason) there truly are NO records of correspondence between her star lawyers and their higher ups. Either way, this translates into a huge problem for the BCSC. Here’s why….
Assuming she is not lying, as per the Code of Ethic’s on the Law Society of British Columbia’s website , a lawyer must present ANY settlement offer it is presented to their client to avoid hearing. Staff DID NOT do this as they have admitted this in letters to the Respondents. In a file of this magnitude, and with the numerous attempts by us to settle – there is not one internal document related to the settlement offer that was presented? We truly find this hard to believe but if true – these are the people that are “protecting the capital markets in BC”??? Time for a WAKE UP CALL BRITISH COLUMBIA!!
And if she is lying then this becomes a bigger problem as she has been appointed to that position by elected government officials – more than likely Finance Minister Michael De jong or Premier Christy Clark.
In the first scenario above, we have the facts:
The Respondents submitted a Settlement Offer to the Commission on November 7, 2013 – Staff did not respond until December 30, 2013.
When Staff did reply, they stated they had NOT taken the Settlement Offer to the Executive Director and would only do so IF we plead guilty to ALL allegations AND paid approximately $5.8 million in fines and disgorgement.
As of June 16, 2016, we now have it in writing that there in NO communications whatsoever between Staff and the Executive Director with respect to any discussion regarding the Settlement Offer.
As we were preparing this latest blog post – something remarkable just became VERY apparent….what is happening down at the BCSC???
(Source: mypersonaltrainervancouver.com)
C.Paige Leggat – Staff Litigator RESIGNED OR TERMINATED IN 2014
(Source: mingpaocanada.com)
Teresa Mitchell-Banks – Director of Enforcement RESIGNED OR TERMINATED IN 2015
(Source: cbc.ca)
Paul C. Bourque – Executive Director RESIGNED IN 2016
These are the 3 major parties that would have been responsible for negotiating, accepting or denying the settlement agreement WITH the investor in mind.
PLEASE….FORMER INVESTORS IN FCC AND DCF – HELP US GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS. AGAIN, THIS SETTLEMENT OFFER WAS NOT EVEN PRESENTED TO THE ONLY PERSON THAT COULD HAVE ACCEPTED IT ON YOUR BEHALF!
******CONTACT THE BCSC AND FIND OUT WHY!******
604-899-5600 or email them at: inquiries@bcsc.bc.ca
IF THEY DON’T ANSWER YOU, GO ABOVE THEIR HEADS AND CONTACT YOUR LOCAL MLA OR OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL! ITS VITAL!
Here is an example of what happens when you allow a government entity to be the judge, jury, and executioner in a case where evidence can be submitted and proven on the ‘Balance of Probabilities”. Sloppy investigative work seems to be the forte of the British Columbia Securities Commission. Let’s take a look….
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 the balance were 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)
Former BCSC Investigator Elizabeth (“Liz”)Chan
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? This is what happens when you allow an absolute failure to run rampant down at the BCSC….
It has now been over 9 months 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 months 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.
For over 15 months now I have tried to get answers on behalf of the the former investors in both Falls Capital Corp and Deercrest Construction Fund with respect to my allegations that wanna-be lawyers Olubode Fagbamiye and C. Paige Leggat manipulated the key document relied upon in the hearing that took place in April 2014. Leggat’s personal friend has told me that she left the commission because of my allegation that she manipulated the document – and didn’t want to deal with any possible ramifications. That’s that definition of a coward!
C. Paige Leggat
In addition, I (along with a few of the former investors) have contacted Staff (namely Executive Director – the flip-flopping Peter Brady) in an attempt to find out why the Settlement Agreement sent to Fagbamiye and Leggat was not even put in front of the only person that could have accepted it…instead the scumbag Leggat indicated they only way I could enter into a Settlement Agreement was if I admitted ALL allegations the clowns at the BCSC brought forward during their PATHETIC investigation in 2012 and 2013 – by the elusive Elizabeth “Liz” Chan, which led to allegations being brought forward by the Executive Director Paul Bourque.
In a comedy of errors – Leggat, Chan, and Bourque have all left the BCSC or have been fired!
Elizabeth “Liz” Chan
Paul Bourque
To all Staff at the BCSC – you are all cowards and it will be my absolute pleasure telling my story over the next few months!!
You have a leader in Chair Brenda Leong that will not even defend her Staff and deny my allegations to be accurate. She is a phony and it is my hope that she is kicked to the curb by the new government in the near future. What is she hiding and why will she not reply to our emails – including those from the former investors – the ones that she is suppose to be protecting.
Staff had the onus to bring valid, compelling evidence before the Panel. Wharram (who has no legal training) had Investigator Elizabeth Chan admit that she assumed vital details that caused the Executive Director to issue portion of the Notice of Hearing against Wharram…
Yet the same Panel ruled the Executive Director proved “on the Balance of Probabilities” that the allegations were accurate. How is the compelling evidence?
The following attachment are part of the written Submissions on Liability the Respondents wrote in defense of this portion of the allegations.
Again we are truly seeing what kind of a person BCSC Chair Brenda Leong truly is – this week she responded to our Freedom of Information request in what can only be described as a continued act of cowardice. She had another opportunity to put much of our discontent to bed and she once again has decided to continue playing the game. That is fine – we are going NOWHERE!
BCSC Chair Brenda Leong
Our latest FOI requests was simple – we wanted to know why she was not responding to our repeated request to answer questions including why her staff (complete and udder failures of lawyers Olubode Fagbamiye and C. Paige Leggat) did not take our Settlement Offer to the Executive Director and whether or not she felt they manipulated key evidence in our hearing.
As you will see below she has decided to hide under her rock….despite her job description literally stating…
This was finally a chance for her to defend the actions of her Staff and to show these same staff that she will defend them against any and all allegations of wrongdoing. Fagbamiye appears to be simply too dense to even understand this woman (his boss) does not have his back.
Leong’s reply is as follows:
Between Leong and Executive Director Peter Brady – it is very clear this organization is failing the people of the Province of British Columbia. Investors have a right to know answers to our questions and they continue to hide from answering these questions….
On May 11, 2016, we sent a letter to BCSC Chair BRENDA LEONG and requested she provide (to us) any correspondence between her Staff Litigators (C. Paige Leggat and Olubode Fagbamiye) and the Executive Director ( Paul Bourque ) regarding the Settlement Offer we were trying to bring forward that would possibly have brought funds back to the former investors in FCC and DCF.
As you see in this letter FOI Request #1617-0005 – Reply from BCSC – June 16, 2016.pub , Ms. Leong indicates there are no records matching my request. We don’t even want to begin to understand why there would be NO correspondence between lawyers/clients when millions of dollars could have been at stake for the investors – how is this even possible??
Not having internal correspondence between relevant parties (considering what was at stake for the former investors) reeks of unprofessionalism by Staff and certainly does not give any confidence they truly had the best interest of the investors during all relevant times.
That being said, Leong is either lying or (for whatever reason) there truly are NO records of correspondence between her star lawyers and their higher ups. Either way, this translates into a huge problem for the BCSC. Here’s why….
Assuming she is not lying, as per the Code of Ethic’s on the Law Society of British Columbia’s website , a lawyer must present ANY settlement offer it is presented to their client to avoid hearing. Staff DID NOT do this as they have admitted this in letters to the Respondents. In a file of this magnitude, and with the numerous attempts by us to settle – there is not one internal document related to the settlement offer that was presented? We truly find this hard to believe but if true – these are the people that are “protecting the capital markets in BC”??? Time for a WAKE UP CALL BRITISH COLUMBIA!!
And if she is lying then this becomes a bigger problem as she has been appointed to that position by elected government officials – more than likely Finance Minister Michael De jong or Premier Christy Clark.
In the first scenario above, we have the facts:
The Respondents submitted a Settlement Offer to the Commission on November 7, 2013 – Staff did not respond until December 30, 2013.
When Staff did reply, they stated they had NOT taken the Settlement Offer to the Executive Director and would only do so IF we plead guilty to ALL allegations AND paid approximately $5.8 million in fines and disgorgement.
As of June 16, 2016, we now have it in writing that there in NO communications whatsoever between Staff and the Executive Director with respect to any discussion regarding the Settlement Offer.
As we were preparing this latest blog post – something remarkable just became VERY apparent….what is happening down at the BCSC???
(Source: mypersonaltrainervancouver.com)
C.Paige Leggat – Staff Litigator RESIGNED OR TERMINATED IN 2014
(Source: mingpaocanada.com)
Teresa Mitchell-Banks – Director of Enforcement RESIGNED OR TERMINATED IN 2015
(Source: cbc.ca)
Paul C. Bourque – Executive Director RESIGNED IN 2016
These are the 3 major parties that would have been responsible for negotiating, accepting or denying the settlement agreement WITH the investor in mind.
And lets not forget the flunky investigator Elizabeth “Liz” Chan – she was either terminated or quit in April 2014 – the same month she admitted to assuming during her cross examination.
Elizabeth Chan – Lead Investigator
PLEASE….FORMER INVESTORS IN FCC AND DCF – HELP US GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS. AGAIN, THIS SETTLEMENT OFFER WAS NOT EVEN PRESENTED TO THE ONLY PERSON THAT COULD HAVE ACCEPTED IT ON YOUR BEHALF!
******CONTACT THE BCSC AND FIND OUT WHY!******
604-899-5600 or email them at: inquiries@bcsc.bc.ca
IF THEY DON’T ANSWER YOU, GO ABOVE THEIR HEADS AND CONTACT YOUR LOCAL MLA OR OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL! ITS VITAL!
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Panel Chair 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. 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:
If ONLY Olubode Fagbamiye was this quiet in the hearing room…..
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!!
What a last couple of weeks it has been for Walton International – the Alberta Securities Commission suspended Walton’s registration which prohibits them from selling any more of their investments. And then they hired Ernst & Young to take them through the CCAA process in an attempt to re-organize their debt. This sounds almost identical as the League Assets story we discussed last summer in this blog post. One can conclude the Walton matter will have the same ending! How can a company make hundreds of millions of dollars selling land be broke after 25+ years of being in business? Rumor on the street is the company is being gutted and those (at the top) have already cashed out their millions…
WAS THIS ALL PREDICTABLE?
Back a few years ago I came across a Sales Representative that worked at Walton International at a Calgary Flames hockey game. After chatting for a few minutes he suggested I look at his investment opportunity – it was a parcel of land down by Spruce Meadows (in the southern tip of Calgary). Although I was not interested in the investment, I agreed to meet with him at his office a short while later.
I remember their office being really nice and it seemed like they had a ton of staff. After receiving a brief sales pitch I was sent on my way with an envelope full of paperwork. Some time later, I opened the envelope and (as part of the package) discovered a letter from a lawyer named Donald Boykiw from the fancy Bennett Jones LLP law firm.
The letter is short and cuts to the point – it indicates that Boykiw is writing to inform Walton that the Alberta Securities Commission had reviewed Walton’s business practice of selling undivided interest in land to purchasers and that this review had been done as a result of sanctions against Walton’s prime competition in Alberta land banking. Boykiw goes on to state, “I would also advise that the Commission staff member who was involved in this matter has further advised that the ASC’s enforcement counsel would not be recommending any changes to the current forms of referral arrangements for both the mortgage referrals from Westmount Mortgage Corporation and the land referrals from Cordex Realty. We have also received a follow-up call from the registration counsel at the Alberta Securities Commission indicating that they ave also completed their review of such referral agreements and were not proposing any changes.” A copy of the letter:
The significance of this letter is simple – Walton International’s business model sees them allegedly buying farm land for as little as $400 per acre and turn around only days later and sell it for up to 7000% increases to investors from all over the World – and the gang down at the ASC gave them a clean bill of health while sanctioning others in the same line of work. And don’t forget – this happened during Ralph Klein’s duration as Premier of Alberta who’s daughter physically worked at Walton’s head office.
For those people that do not know who Walton International are (or were) – they purported to be the largest land banker (and then later land developer) in the nation. They had many projects throughout Canada and the United States. They had come under fire in some circles for paying huge upfront commission to their sales people and for having lavish spending sprees on chartered boats and trips for Staff. In one instance, it was reported they had chartered a large ship and had the expensive Self-Help Guru Anthony Robbinsas a guest to get their staff motivated to sell their product.
Facts are – may people have been reporting on Walton’s demise for years. A simple google search has found us endless reports from press from all over the World suggesting Walton’s business plan had some distinct cracks and was leaking severally. An article in the Ottawa Citizen from March 2013 suggests the land banking project in Ottawa was in trouble.
What happened in Singapore when they had several complaints about many Land Banking firms – even Walton International? Out comes the huge Public Relations wheel and they brought an entire news crew to see their operations in Canada….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTzJ_61nY54
This video is so biased towards Walton but comes across as some bi-partial news telecast – We wonder how much more they raised after this video made the rounds…
Would this all have been avoided IF the ASC had not given them that clean bill of health back in 2002 – that they used as a sales aid for their sales people??? Shame on the ASC! This story is going to be huge when the cards ALL come falling down – and this letter is going to be used in any case against the ASC! How are they going to be able to protect the Walton Investors when they are complicit in allowing Walton to exist – even going as far as giving legal advice that their sales people used to close the unexpected investors?
What a last couple of weeks it has been for Walton International – the Alberta Securities Commission suspended Walton’s registration which prohibits them from selling any more of their investments. And then they hired Ernst & Young to take them through the CCAA process in an attempt to re-organize their debt. This sounds almost identical as the League Assets story we discussed last summer in this blog post. One can conclude the Walton matter will have the same ending! How can a company make hundreds of millions of dollars selling land be broke after 25+ years of being in business? Rumor on the street is the company is being gutted and those (at the top) have already cashed out their millions…
WAS THIS ALL PREDICTABLE?
Back a few years ago I came across a Sales Representative that worked at Walton International at a Calgary Flames hockey game. After chatting for a few minutes he suggested I look at his investment opportunity – it was a parcel of land down by Spruce Meadows (in the southern tip of Calgary). Although I was not interested in the investment, I agreed to meet with him at his office a short while later.
I remember their office being really nice and it seemed like they had a ton of staff. After receiving a brief sales pitch I was sent on my way with an envelope full of paperwork. Some time later, I opened the envelope and (as part of the package) discovered a letter from a lawyer named Donald Boykiw from the fancy Bennett Jones LLP law firm.
The letter is short and cuts to the point – it indicates that Boykiw is writing to inform Walton that the Alberta Securities Commission had reviewed Walton’s business practice of selling undivided interest in land to purchasers and that this review had been done as a result of sanctions against Walton’s prime competition in Alberta land banking. Boykiw goes on to state, “I would also advise that the Commission staff member who was involved in this matter has further advised that the ASC’s enforcement counsel would not be recommending any changes to the current forms of referral arrangements for both the mortgage referrals from Westmount Mortgage Corporation and the land referrals from Cordex Realty. We have also received a follow-up call from the registration counsel at the Alberta Securities Commission indicating that they ave also completed their review of such referral agreements and were not proposing any changes.” A copy of the letter:
The significance of this letter is simple – Walton International’s business model sees them allegedly buying farm land for as little as $400 per acre and turn around only days later and sell it for up to 7000% increases to investors from all over the World – and the gang down at the ASC gave them a clean bill of health while sanctioning others in the same line of work. And don’t forget – this happened during Ralph Klein’s duration as Premier of Alberta who’s daughter physically worked at Walton’s head office.
For those people that do not know who Walton International are (or were) – they purported to be the largest land banker (and then later land developer) in the nation. They had many projects throughout Canada and the United States. They had come under fire in some circles for paying huge upfront commission to their sales people and for having lavish spending sprees on chartered boats and trips for Staff. In one instance, it was reported they had chartered a large ship and had the expensive Self-Help Guru Anthony Robbinsas a guest to get their staff motivated to sell their product.
Facts are – may people have been reporting on Walton’s demise for years. A simple google search has found us endless reports from press from all over the World suggesting Walton’s business plan had some distinct cracks and was leaking severally. An article in the Ottawa Citizen from March 2013 suggests the land banking project in Ottawa was in trouble.
What happened in Singapore when they had several complaints about many Land Banking firms – even Walton International? Out comes the huge Public Relations wheel and they brought an entire news crew to see their operations in Canada….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTzJ_61nY54
This video is so biased towards Walton but comes across as some bi-partial news telecast – We wonder how much more they raised after this video made the rounds…
Would this all have been avoided IF the ASC had not given them that clean bill of health back in 2002 – that they used as a sales aid for their sales people??? Shame on the ASC! This story is going to be huge when the cards ALL come falling down – and this letter is going to be used in any case against the ASC! How are they going to be able to protect the Walton Investors when they are complicit in allowing Walton to exist – even going as far as giving legal advice that their sales people used to close the unexpected investors?
Again we are truly seeing what kind of a person BCSC Chair Brenda Leong truly is – this week she responded to our Freedom of Information request in what can only be described as a continued act of cowardice. She had another opportunity to put much of our discontent to bed and she once again has decided to continue playing the game. That is fine – we are going NOWHERE!
BCSC Chair Brenda Leong
Our latest FOI requests was simple – we wanted to know why she was not responding to our repeated request to answer questions including why her staff (complete and udder failures of lawyers Olubode Fagbamiye and C. Paige Leggat) did not take our Settlement Offer to the Executive Director and whether or not she felt they manipulated key evidence in our hearing.
As you will see below she has decided to hide under her rock….despite her job description literally stating…
This was finally a chance for her to defend the actions of her Staff and to show these same staff that she will defend them against any and all allegations of wrongdoing. Fagbamiye appears to be simply too dense to even understand this woman (his boss) does not have his back.
Leong’s reply is as follows:
Between Leong and Executive Director Peter Brady – it is very clear this organization is failing the people of the Province of British Columbia. Investors have a right to know answers to our questions and they continue to hide from answering these questions….
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. The sale was completed a few days later.
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 the balance were 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?
This is just one example of many proving the BCSC brought a number into the hearing room that was NOT accurate. This would have never held in a REAL court room. Shame on 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 incompetentBCSC Chair Brenda Leongand 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 arealjudge (outside of their precious Kangaroo Court) telling the world what is happening within their walls. They will not answerFormer Investorsquestions 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 over 365 days (and counting) since my blog started and you have all had your head in the sand. It is 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 and possibly corrupt!
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 Leong! When are you going to wake up from that deep slumber? How do you justify taking that $500,000 per year in salary when you don’t do your job? And finally, how can you not support your shitty staff when people are accusing them of wrongdoing? Spineless? How do you think your staff truly feel about you abandoning them? Word on the street is that many of your staff cannot stand you – and think you are in far over your head in the competence department!
What a last couple of weeks it has been for Walton International – the Alberta Securities Commission suspended Walton’s registration which prohibits them from selling any more of their investments. And then they hired Ernst & Young to take them through the CCAA process in an attempt to re-organize their debt. This sounds almost identical as the League Assets story we discussed last summer in this blog post. One can conclude the Walton matter will have the same ending! How can a company make hundreds of millions of dollars selling land be broke after 25+ years of being in business? Rumor on the street is the company is being gutted and those (at the top) have already cashed out their millions…
WAS THIS ALL PREDICTABLE?
Back a few years ago I came across a Sales Representative that worked at Walton International at a Calgary Flames hockey game. After chatting for a few minutes he suggested I look at his investment opportunity – it was a parcel of land down by Spruce Meadows (in the southern tip of Calgary). Although I was not interested in the investment, I agreed to meet with him at his office a short while later.
I remember their office being really nice and it seemed like they had a ton of staff. After receiving a brief sales pitch I was sent on my way with an envelope full of paperwork. Some time later, I opened the envelope and (as part of the package) discovered a letter from a lawyer named Donald Boykiw from the fancy Bennett Jones LLP law firm.
The letter is short and cuts to the point – it indicates that Boykiw is writing to inform Walton that the Alberta Securities Commission had reviewed Walton’s business practice of selling undivided interest in land to purchasers and that this review had been done as a result of sanctions against Walton’s prime competition in Alberta land banking. Boykiw goes on to state, “I would also advise that the Commission staff member who was involved in this matter has further advised that the ASC’s enforcement counsel would not be recommending any changes to the current forms of referral arrangements for both the mortgage referrals from Westmount Mortgage Corporation and the land referrals from Cordex Realty. We have also received a follow-up call from the registration counsel at the Alberta Securities Commission indicating that they ave also completed their review of such referral agreements and were not proposing any changes.” A copy of the letter:
The significance of this letter is simple – Walton International’s business model sees them allegedly buying farm land for as little as $400 per acre and turn around only days later and sell it for up to 7000% increases to investors from all over the World – and the gang down at the ASC gave them a clean bill of health while sanctioning others in the same line of work. And don’t forget – this happened during Ralph Klein’s duration as Premier of Alberta who’s daughter physically worked at Walton’s head office.
For those people that do not know who Walton International are (or were) – they purported to be the largest land banker (and then later land developer) in the nation. They had many projects throughout Canada and the United States. They had come under fire in some circles for paying huge upfront commission to their sales people and for having lavish spending sprees on chartered boats and trips for Staff. In one instance, it was reported they had chartered a large ship and had the expensive Self-Help Guru Anthony Robbinsas a guest to get their staff motivated to sell their product.
Facts are – may people have been reporting on Walton’s demise for years. A simple google search has found us endless reports from press from all over the World suggesting Walton’s business plan had some distinct cracks and was leaking severally. An article in the Ottawa Citizen from March 2013 suggests the land banking project in Ottawa was in trouble.
What happened in Singapore when they had several complaints about many Land Banking firms – even Walton International? Out comes the huge Public Relations wheel and they brought an entire news crew to see their operations in Canada….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTzJ_61nY54
This video is so biased towards Walton but comes across as some bi-partial news telecast – We wonder how much more they raised after this video made the rounds…
Would this all have been avoided IF the ASC had not given them that clean bill of health back in 2002 – that they used as a sales aid for their sales people??? Shame on the ASC! This story is going to be huge when the cards ALL come falling down – and this letter is going to be used in any case against the ASC! How are they going to be able to protect the Walton Investors when they are complicit in allowing Walton to exist – even going as far as giving legal advice that their sales people used to close the unexpected investors?
As most that follow this blog know, we have been trying to get BCSC Chair Brenda Leong to come out from under the rock she is hiding under and answer candid questions regarding the actions of her Staff down at the good ole’ British Columbia Securities Commission. We are 3 days away from the one-year anniversary of our initial email sent to her – and to date, she has not once responded to many of the emails we have sent her since May 11, 2016.
BCSC’s BRENDA LEONG
We have questioned for months now why she will not respond – to either acknowledge our complaint or to even defend her Staff. Staff at the BCSC must really question whether or not she has their backs in a situation like this. She will not defend their actions and has essentially turned her back on them for months now. Hard to believe bu this woman makes nearly $500,000 per year – and it is her responsibility to defend the actions of her staff – mainly the junior BCSC litigator Olubode Fagbamiye and former BCSC Litigator C. Paige Leggat(Leggat is the lawyer who resigned or was terminated shortly after our allegation was brought to light in our Submission on Liability in the Spring of 2014.
Today, we sent the following Freedom of Information request to the BCSC in an attempt to finally get her to answer our questions – and to see if she has any sort of decency in dealing with our complaint finally after these unacceptable delays. Have a look….
Do you think she will respond in her professional capacity as the Chair of the Board who “represents the Commission effectively as its primary public representative”? Or as the Chief Executive Officer who “effectively manages the relationships among the board, the commission, industry, investors, other regulators, and the public”?
Time will tell Brenda, time will tell! C’mon out from under that rock!
On May 11, 2016, we sent a letter to BCSC Chair BRENDA LEONG and requested she provide (to us) any correspondence between her Staff Litigators (C. Paige Leggat and Olubode Fagbamiye) and the Executive Director ( Paul Bourque ) regarding the Settlement Offer we were trying to bring forward that would possibly have brought funds back to the former investors in FCC and DCF.
As you see in this letter FOI Request #1617-0005 – Reply from BCSC – June 16, 2016.pub , Ms. Leong indicates there are no records matching my request. We don’t even want to begin to understand why there would be NO correspondence between lawyers/clients when millions of dollars could have been at stake for the investors – how is this even possible??
Not having internal correspondence between relevant parties (considering what was at stake for the former investors) reeks of unprofessionalism by Staff and certainly does not give any confidence they truly had the best interest of the investors during all relevant times.
That being said, Leong is either lying or (for whatever reason) there truly are NO records of correspondence between her star lawyers and their higher ups. Either way, this translates into a huge problem for the BCSC. Here’s why….
Assuming she is not lying, as per the Code of Ethic’s on the Law Society of British Columbia’s website , a lawyer must present ANY settlement offer it is presented to their client to avoid hearing. Staff DID NOT do this as they have admitted this in letters to the Respondents. In a file of this magnitude, and with the numerous attempts by us to settle – there is not one internal document related to the settlement offer that was presented? We truly find this hard to believe but if true – these are the people that are “protecting the capital markets in BC”??? Time for a WAKE UP CALL BRITISH COLUMBIA!!
And if she is lying then this becomes a bigger problem as she has been appointed to that position by elected government officials – more than likely Finance Minister Michael De jong or Premier Christy Clark.
In the first scenario above, we have the facts:
The Respondents submitted a Settlement Offer to the Commission on November 7, 2013 – Staff did not respond until December 30, 2013.
When Staff did reply, they stated they had NOT taken the Settlement Offer to the Executive Director and would only do so IF we plead guilty to ALL allegations AND paid approximately $5.8 million in fines and disgorgement.
As of June 16, 2016, we now have it in writing that there in NO communications whatsoever between Staff and the Executive Director with respect to any discussion regarding the Settlement Offer.
As we were preparing this latest blog post – something remarkable just became VERY apparent….what is happening down at the BCSC???
(Source: mypersonaltrainervancouver.com)
C.Paige Leggat – Staff Litigator RESIGNED OR TERMINATED IN 2014
(Source: mingpaocanada.com)
Teresa Mitchell-Banks – Director of Enforcement RESIGNED OR TERMINATED IN 2015
(Source: cbc.ca)
Paul C. Bourque – Executive Director RESIGNED IN 2016
These are the 3 major parties that would have been responsible for negotiating, accepting or denying the settlement agreement WITH the investor in mind.
And lets not forget the flunky investigator Elizabeth “Liz” Chan – she was either terminated or quit in April 2014 – the same month she admitted to assuming during her cross examination.
Elizabeth Chan – Lead Investigator
PLEASE….FORMER INVESTORS IN FCC AND DCF – HELP US GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS. AGAIN, THIS SETTLEMENT OFFER WAS NOT EVEN PRESENTED TO THE ONLY PERSON THAT COULD HAVE ACCEPTED IT ON YOUR BEHALF!
******CONTACT THE BCSC AND FIND OUT WHY!******
604-899-5600 or email them at: inquiries@bcsc.bc.ca
IF THEY DON’T ANSWER YOU, GO ABOVE THEIR HEADS AND CONTACT YOUR LOCAL MLA OR OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL! ITS VITAL!
Only a couple of weeks before the extremely expensive hearing began at the BC Securities Commission, we again tried to settle by sending a proposal to their lawyer. Staff Litigator C. Paige Leggat again indicated the ONLY way she would consider taking the Settlement Offer to the Executive Director was IF I agreed to all allegations in the Notice of Hearing and paid a fine and disgorgement of $5.8 million.
Lawyer C. Paige Leggat
This was the final straw and ended up costing the FCC and DCF Investors any participation in the real estate project that was part of the Settlement Offer.
WHY WOULD THE COMMISSION (WHO’S MANDATE IS TO HAVE THE BEST INTEREST OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE BC CAPITAL MARKET) NOT EVEN DISCUSS WITH THE RESPONDENTS THIS OFFER?
The wording in these latest emails is comical – Leggat has the gall to imply that “we” had been in settlement negotiations for the last few months. This is absurd – as she blocked EVERY attempt the Respondents made to settle and bring something back to the table for the investors in FCC and DCF.
And from looking at the Code of Ethics for ANY lawyer in the Province of British Columbia – it is clear that they must take any and all offers to settle to their client. In this case – that would be the Executive Director at the BCSC. At the time, this would have been Paul Bourque.
Paul Bourque – former Executive Director of the BCSC
This is YOUR regulator people! Call them and find out why they did not even enter into discussion with the Respondents – Call 604-899-6500 and ask for someone to explain this to you!! Unfortunately you cannot ask for C. Paige Leggat as she miraculously resigned shortly after we accused her of manipulating evidence in the Executive Director’s Written Submissions on Liability! Maybe you could ask for the Director of Enforcement at the time – Ms. Teresa Mitchell-Banks – oh sorry, you can’t – she was terminated in November 2015 under what seems to be mysterious circumstances to say the least.
Teresa Mitchell-Banks
What a complete GONG SHOW this organization appears to be! Who’s in charge? When are they going to wake up?
To the attention of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner:
To the Attention of:
Conflict of Interest Commissioner
First Floor 421 Menzies Street
Victoria BC V8V 1X4
I would like to launch an official complaint regarding the BC Securities Commission and numerous conflicts of interest that it is entangled in. These issues are serious issues that effect all Canadians and investors globally.
I will start with the primary complaint however there are several levels of conflict of interest that exist at the BC Securities Commission. Taken as a one off they may not be so concerning however when the larger picture emerges it is clear the BC Securities Commission operates in such a conflict of interest that it has compromised both its purpose and its legal integrity.
Conflict of Interest #1 – BC Securities Commission Owns Securities in BC Investment Management Corporation.
The BC Securities Commission cannot properly do its job and ensure a fair marketplace, it cannot hold Tribunals and render any meaningful judgments when it itself may stand to gain financially from deciding one way or another when judging a financial securities case.
Here is the evidence regarding the holdings of the BC Securities Commission in BCIMC.
The BC Investment Management Corporation holds hundreds of financial securities, many companies which may be and/or are in direct competition with other public and private companies operating in BC and Canada owned by Canadians, British Columbians and the rest of the shareholding public around the world. These investors all expect to invest in a sound market where the rule of law is prevalent and the financial securities regulator operate as free from conflict of interest as possible.
The BCSC may claim that it does not directly own any public and/or private equities in the securities markets, it simply owns commercial paper through BCIMC however this is still a clear cut conflict of interest. How can the BCIMC and any of its potential holdings not get preferable treatment from the BCSC when the BCIMC controls the pension funds of the BC Securities Commission?!
Here is the link to the list of holding of the BCIMC.
How can the BC Securities Commission make any rulings in the financial sector that are not in some way compromised by the holdings of the BCIMC?
Conflict of Interest #2 – The BC Securities Commission is Self Funded and Compromised Due to Its Inherent Need to Fund Itself.
The BC Securities Commission exists as a corporation that is self funded. It is the financial regulator for the securities markets in BC and must maintain the integrity of the markets and assure a fair and dynamic marketplace. It cannot do so when it exists by creating rules and regulations which must be broken in order for it to create revenue for itself.
Keep in mind although the BCSC claims the right to operate as it sees fit it must still adhere to the rule of law and the fundamentals of justice. There is no protection under Section 170 or any other part of the Securities Act that allows the BCSC remedy for its actions.
How can the BC Securities Commission be trusted to act in a fair and unbiased manner when making any legal rulings if its very financial well-being may depend on it ruling in a manner that favours itself over justice? These are just a couple examples of the BC Securities Commission and its complete disregard for the rule of law and justice, I will not at this time cover the full extent of the crimes of the BCSC.
The purpose of this complaint is to outline the conflicts of interest at the BCSC that encourages and perpetuates the ongoing criminal activities of the BC Securities Commission.
Conflict of Interest #3 – The BC Securities Commission is supposedly a Self Regulating Organization (SRO)
Again this is unbelievable. How this is not a considered a conflict of interest is very puzzling and concerning.
Hold on for this one..
So a financial regulator (the BCSC) that is actually a corporation that owns ‘securities’ in another corporation (the BCIMC) that owns investments inside the jurisdiction that the financial regulator is tasked with regulating. This financial regulator also happens to have to fund itself and police itself while supposedly maintaining a fair marketplace. When one has a complaint about the actions of the BCSC staff which is often criminal that complaint is submitted to the BCSC who somehow always find that no wrong has been done despite all evidence to the contrary. Did the mob think this racket up?
How Conflicts of Interest Compromise the Mandate of the BC Securities Commission.
The supposed mandate of the BCSC and the reality of how it actually operates are two complete different things. The previously mentioned conflicts of interest are not the only ones at the BCSC, the issues facing our thoroughly corrupted financial regulators are vast and complex. Many of the underlying issues however stem from the fact that these conflicts of interest exist, the BCSC operates in the manner of an extortion racket. It uses its supposed powers and the fact that it is an SRO that is also self funded to extort the people of BC with its often compromised judgments in its sham of a Tribunal process. These conflicts of interest have encouraged the BCSC to completely throw out the rule of law.
The following are a couple of links containing evidence that furthers these claims. Would conflicts of interest encourage BCSC employees to lie in order to make a case?
The BCSC is deceptive and operates in a criminal manner, the conflicts of interest that surround it play a large part in this racket.
To much of the public the mandate of the financial regulator for the province of BC is seemingly straight forward and understandable, at least according to its website.
See below exerts from the BCSC itself.
The BCSC cannot properly fulfill this mandate to ensure a fair marketplace while these conflicts of interest exist. Nor can the BCSC adhere to the Taxpayer Accountability Principles it claims that it cares about.
Its time for a full scale investigation into every aspect of the BCSC and how it conducts its ‘business’.Thank you very much for your time on this matter, you may contact me with any questions or for more info.
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.
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!!
UPDATE: April 11, 2017 – We have come across this story from CBC today! Kinda tells it all does it not? (Click on the link)
On May 11, 2016, we sent a letter to BCSC Chair BRENDA LEONG and requested she provide (to us) any correspondence between her Staff Litigators (C. Paige Leggat and Olubode Fagbamiye) and the Executive Director ( Paul Bourque ) regarding the Settlement Offer we were trying to bring forward that would possibly have brought funds back to the former investors in FCC and DCF.
As you see in this letter FOI Request #1617-0005 – Reply from BCSC – June 16, 2016.pub , Ms. Leong indicates there are no records matching my request. We don’t even want to begin to understand why there would be NO correspondence between lawyers/clients when millions of dollars could have been at stake for the investors – how is this even possible??
Not having internal correspondence between relevant parties (considering what was at stake for the former investors) reeks of unprofessionalism by Staff and certainly does not give any confidence they truly had the best interest of the investors during all relevant times.
That being said, Leong is either lying or (for whatever reason) there truly are NO records of correspondence between her star lawyers and their higher ups. Either way, this translates into a huge problem for the BCSC. Here’s why….
Assuming she is not lying, as per the Code of Ethic’s on the Law Society of British Columbia’s website , a lawyer must present ANY settlement offer it is presented to their client to avoid hearing. Staff DID NOT do this as they have admitted this in letters to the Respondents. In a file of this magnitude, and with the numerous attempts by us to settle – there is not one internal document related to the settlement offer that was presented? We truly find this hard to believe but if true – these are the people that are “protecting the capital markets in BC”??? Time for a WAKE UP CALL BRITISH COLUMBIA!!
And if she is lying then this becomes a bigger problem as she has been appointed to that position by elected government officials – more than likely Finance Minister Michael De jong or Premier Christy Clark.
In the first scenario above, we have the facts:
The Respondents submitted a Settlement Offer to the Commission on November 7, 2013 – Staff did not respond until December 30, 2013.
When Staff did reply, they stated they had NOT taken the Settlement Offer to the Executive Director and would only do so IF we plead guilty to ALL allegations AND paid approximately $5.8 million in fines and disgorgement.
As of June 16, 2016, we now have it in writing that there in NO communications whatsoever between Staff and the Executive Director with respect to any discussion regarding the Settlement Offer.
As we were preparing this blog post – something remarkable just became VERY apparent….what is happening down at the BCSC???
(Source: mypersonaltrainervancouver.com)
C.Paige Leggat – Staff Litigator RESIGNED OR TERMINATED IN 2014
(Source: mingpaocanada.com)
Teresa Mitchell-Banks – Director of Enforcement RESIGNED OR TERMINATED IN 2015
(Source: cbc.ca)
Paul C. Bourque – Executive Director RESIGNED IN 2016
These are the 3 major parties that would have been responsible for negotiating, accepting or denying the settlement agreement WITH the investor in mind.
And let’s not forget the former BCSC Investigator Elizabeth Chan – the flunky who had conduct over our file and admitted to assuming information she supplied to her superiors was/or could be factual.
Elizabeth Chan – Former BCSC Senior Investigator RESIGNED OR TERMINATED IN 2014
PLEASE….FORMER INVESTORS IN FCC AND DCF – HELP US GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS. AGAIN, THIS SETTLEMENT OFFER WAS NOT EVEN PRESENTED TO THE ONLY PERSON THAT COULD HAVE ACCEPTED IT ON YOUR BEHALF!
******CONTACT THE BCSC AND FIND OUT WHY!******
604-899-5600 or email them at: inquiries@bcsc.bc.ca
IF THEY DON’T ANSWER YOU, GO ABOVE THEIR HEADS AND CONTACT YOUR LOCAL MLA OR OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL! ITS VITAL!
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!!
Source: Facebook
Brenda Leong
Mike DeJong
Pam McDonald (Twitter)
BCSC’s PETER BRADY
SOURCE: www.bestlawyer.com
(Source: mypersonaltrainervancouver.com)
(Source: mingpaocanada.com)
(Source: cbc.ca)
BCSC’s Mrs. Colette Colter (left)
