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!
As you can see from correspondence in this blog post from a month ago – BCSC Associate General Counsel ALAN KEATS indicated he would finally reply to my Freedom of Information request within 30 days. His 30 day window ended today at the close of business. Holidays or not, this bozo had an obligation to keep and once again, staff at the BCSC have no respect for any rules and/or regulations they must adhere to.
It is so apparent that leadership at the BCSC is lacking – and that there is no-one being held accountable as the BCSC enters 2017. How does it possibly take over 60 days to tell me if a person still works at the BCSC – and if they don’t still work at the commission – when was their last day? And how moronic are they to not know we already know the employment status of flunky former investigator Elizabeth “Liz” Chan?
When is this all going to end? It is truly time we #draintheswamp in this province! These people are so deficient in their actions – and are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to run to regulate the securities market?
What can only be described as BIZARRE, we have recently came across some of the craziest information thus far into our exposure of the Staff at the BCSC…
Last week, we decided to lodge a formal complaint with the Ethics Commissioner of the Certified Professional Accounts of British Columbia (“CPABC”) with respect to Elizabeth Chan’s actions (or lack of actions) in her role as the lead investigator in our matter. It is our opinion that she was the person that completed a significant portion of the accounting in which other Staff (including Executive Director Paul Bourque) relied upon when bringing the allegations of the $5.45 million fraud. Her math was horrendous and was proven to be in the hearing room as the Panel threw out some 94% of it in their decision.
Investigator Chan WAS a Certified General Accountant (“CGA”) at the time and they are held to what appears to by a very high level. A simple review of the Chartered Professional Accountants Act / CPA Code of Professional Conduct (the “Act”) we easily find:
Our assertion is that Investigator Chan knew (or ought to have known) that she was giving her superiors the wrong information when the brought allegations (in the exact dollar amount) that she prepared. She admitted on the stand that she was the one who prepared the documents presented at the hearing – she had to have known they were “false or misleading”. We think Investigator Chan is the scumbag that intentionally brought wrong information that formed the allegation of the $5.45 million fraud.
In cross-examination, she admitted several times to knowing of other key information that she neglected (or simply omitted) from the work she prepared. According to the Act (in which she MUST adhere to) she is in complete breach of the Act.
Now, this is where the story gets truly bizarre! When we were researching and trying to determine where we could lodge our complaint of Investigator Chan we came across a document on the internet titled “2014-2015 Report to the Public” that was prepared by the CPABC. By clicking on the link above you will see on page 11 (under the complaints section) the name of Liz Chan and Ed Tanaka. Liz Chan is designated as a Director, Ethics and Mr. Tanaka is designated as a Director, Ethics & Documentation.
On September 24, 2016, we sent the complaint letter ( letter-to-cpabc-elizabeth-chan-redacted ) to their office for their review and comment. Only a few days later, we found out that the complaint officer Liz Chan is none other than the Elizabeth Chan (from the BCSC) who we were lodging our complaint about. We came across Liz Chan’s bio in another publication and can confirm this is her from the picture and the wording of the bio.
So, we now have a complaint into an office where Liz Chan works about a Elizabeth Chan who use to work at the BCSC? We can’t make this stuff up! We followed up with a phone call to the CPABC offices and the receptionist indicated she had never heard of an Liz Chan (or even an Elizabeth Chan) in that office. From what we can tell Chan started working at the CPABC office in April 2014 (the same month as our hearing) and was terminated/or quit sometime thereafter – many months ago. By reviewing the member look-up option on their site, we can see that Chan still holds her designation as a CGA in the Province of BC.
We did receive an email from a Nancy Lis (from the CPABC office) indicating she did receive our complaint and will formally respond this coming week. We very much look forward to hearing back from them and to see if they are going to go after one of their own.
As the World Turns down at the Commission – as we said yesterday, why the mass exodus from the Commission? This is the 4th person that had a part in bringing the false allegations of a $5.45 million fraud against the Respondents that has been fired or resigned from the BCSC. If it looks like a rat….smells like a rat…it is more than likely a rat!
One theory, is that the superiors at the BCSC were outraged by the work of Chan that lead to a $5.45 million fraud being unproven by a Respondent that did not even have a lawyer. They spent A LOT of time and money on bringing the case to hearing and did not get their big fancy $20 million in fines and restitution – somebody had to take a fall and why not the person who had conduct on the file??
We need answers – and they cannot come quick enough! But in the meantime, we can’t help but wonder why Elizabeth Chan or Liz Chan (or whatever she decides to call herself this time) cannot seem to keep a job…and we certainly wonder how she will act when she cannot hide behind the power of her badge any longer….
EDIT NOTE: Since we wrote the blog on November 3, 2016, sources confirm Ms. Chan left the CPABC offices in August of 2015. Where she works currently remains a mystery!
15 days ago I issued a challenge to a very quiet BCSC Chair Brenda Leong or ANY one of her spineless employees to answer some VERY direct questions including:
“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?”
We then issued 3 FORMAL CHALLENGES directly to you:
CHALLENGE #1: WE CHALLENGED 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 CHALLENGED 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 CHALLENGED YOU TO FORMALLY ADDRESS THE SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL (AS OUTLINED EARLIER IN THIS BLOG) THAT THE FCC AND DCF INVESTORS WOULD HAVE BENEFITED FROM.
We concluded at the end of the post that failing to reply back would lead to assumptions that the allegations we made against you to be VALID and NON-CONTESTED.
WE HAVE HAD NOTHING – COMPLETE AND UDDER SILENCE FROM THE BCSC!
Since we posted that blog post 14 days ago, we have discovered that Senior Investigator Elizabeth Chan was no longer employed by the BCSC as of April, 2014. This is the same Invesigator Chan that spoke to many of the former investors in both FCC and DCF. This is the same Investigator Chan that admitted on the stand during the hearing that she assumed evidence to be true during her investigation into our companies. This is the same Investigator Chan that prepared summary “grade 2” calculations that the Executive Director (Paul Bourque) relied upon when bringing allegations of a $5.45 million fraud against Wharram and his companies. This is the same Investigator Chan who sent emails to several of the former investors (BEFORE we got a day in court) pointing them to look at a bogus press release that was simply NOT true – that caused many of you to turn your back on Wharram. This is the same Investigator Chan who worked directly with Staff Litigator C. Paige Leggat in bringing their bogus case to a hearing room.
Now back to the DATE that Investigator Chan ceased being employed by the BCSC – our sources confirm she was done in April 2014. Do any of you remember when the hearing was? It was April 7 – 16, 2014. Elizabeth Chan ceased working for the BCSC in the same month as our hearing! It is NOT hard to connect the dots here:
STAFF LITIGATOR C. PAIGE LEGGAT – Resigned/Terminated in November 2014
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PAUL BOURQUE – Resigned/Terminated in June 2016
TERESA MITCHELL-BANKS – Terminated in November 2015
INVESTIGATOR ELIZABETH CHAN – Resigned/Terminated in April 2014
It is NOT far fetched to believe that after the $5.45 million fraud allegation was essentially thrown out for LACK OF COMPELLING EVIDENCE – that the “higher ups” at the Commission were pissed off at the people completed the work. And remember their case was blown out of the water by Wharram who had never set foot in a hearing room before and had NO legal assistance. These paid professionals definitely had egg on their face as their case was VERY poorly investigated and tried in the hearing room.
NOW THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A MOMENT – These are the 4 KEY PEOPLE that worked (or made MAJOR decisions on our matter) – whom have all been terminated or have resigned. This is a disgrace at a very high level.
To ALL Former Investors – read between the lines here – these people are the ones that did not even look at the Settlement Offer that would have seen you participate in the Deercrest project – and NONE of then are currently working at the BCSC. The Deercrest property is a complete success with all units sold for very high numbers. The owners are making money. You would have made money!
And now we have these complete incompetent bozo’s at the Commission not responding to repeatedly requests for answers as to why they have conducted themselves this way! As I have said in other posts in this blog – you, as a former investors in FCC or DCF, have a right to these answers. They cannot ignore ALL of us or put us off forever. These people are NOT above the law and will NOT be able to hide behind the flimsy BC Securities Act forever.
Please contact them and ask them these five questions – do NOT take NO for an answer:
Thank you ALL for your support! We sincerely appreciate the kind words and encouragement.
As with the $45,000 that was returned to the FCC bank account, the Respondents also returned $20,000 to the DCF account on August 5, 2011.
When cross-examined during the hearing, Staff’s Lead Investigator, Elizabeth Chan (“Chan”) indicated she knew about this repayment but DID NOT include it in any of her summary work she completed but that she “might have seen this bank draft previously when I was reviewing the bank records” and that, “…I don’t know what this draft is for…” (Source: Hearing Transcript, April 14, 2014, page 61/62)
Chan’s credentials include having a Bachelor of Commerce degree from the University of British Columbia and a Chartered Accountant designation from the Institute of Charter Accountants. Understanding she is highly trained, one would think she would understand that summary evidence (when the Executive Director had the onus of proving the exact allegations outlined in the Notice of Hearing) simply would not meet any sort of test needed.
And the fact that she admits to knowing about this cheque, and the others (the $45,000 to FCC), one needs to question the motives behind the Executive Director and his Staff…and are they promoting a “fair, efficient, and innovation in the Canadian capital markets” as their website boasts? Our feeling is that Staff, when alleging a huge multi-million dollar fraud with the consequences so strong for the Respondents and their INVESTORS, they need to come to a hearing with accurate numbers – not just throw a bunch of stats at the wall and hope they all stick.
A copy of the cheque showing the repayment of the funds yet NOT included by Staff: