BC Securities Commission a Fraud: 2016

Tuesday, 15 March 2016

ARE WE LIVING UNDER AN OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT? IT SEEMS THAT CANADA IS NO DIFFERENT!

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

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

— C. Northcote Parkinson

ARE WE LIVING UNDER AN OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT?

IT SEEMS THAT CANADA IS NO DIFFERENT!

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

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

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

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

Subject: BCSC Wrong Doing

Dear Mr. de Jong,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully Submitted,

Peter Harris

Monday, 15 February 2016

WE ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES WHO KNOW THE TRUTH - THE BCSC IS A SHAM!

See here for the source or see below.. the BC Securities Commission is a FRAUD
http://www.genuinewitty.com/2012/11/22/why-is-this-con-artist-dancing-because-the-bc-securities-commission-sucks/

[UPDATED] Why Is This Con-Artist Dancing? Because The BC Securities Commission Sucks…

November 22, 2012

Ha! He called the BCSC- what a maroon!

UPDATE: In the end, during the second investigation into Gregory Carrington, David Baines helped bring him to justice. In retrospect, after writing this article, I was a little hard on Baines- BC is the securities fraud capital of the world, and he has a hard job keeping on-top of things. Regardless, Carrington is busted now, and hopefully no others will be subjected to his criminality in the future.
_______________________
I ran across a perverse advertisement for the British Columbia Securities Commission. Not perverse in a soft-porn sense like a TIDES Canada video, thank god. It’s much more perverse than that- it’s a propaganda video that misrepresents one of BC’s most inept law enforcement organizations as if they were effective.
When I say inept I’m being kind. We could only wish they were simply inept- the reality is that their ineptness (long ago) crossed the line into being a danger to BC (and consequently the rest of Canada). How bad are they? Glad you asked- they are, in fact, so bad that BC has become a global laughing stock for the poor quality of securities law enforcement.

I learned about the BCSC working as a technical director in a company that was fleecing its investors. I was a whistleblower, the first staff member to bring evidence to them about the fraud. When I went to their office for our first meeting they told me they had been investigating the company for some time. The problem is that they really didn’t know that much- including some of the basics that were already publicly available.
When I realized how inept they were I took the next step and called David Baines, the Vancouver Sun’s ‘intrepid’ securities fraud reporter. I was told that Baines was the man to talk to, and he was- but, there was nothing he could to to help us (the employees & victims I’d been working with).
But, what he had to tell me blew my mind…
Our story was a ‘non-story’ for the Vancouver Sun. First, frauds like what happened with my employer are a dime a dozen, and hardly worth reporting. More importantly, he had practically zero confidence that the BCSC would be able to act- despite the fact there were 10’s of millions of hard working people’s dollars stolen. He called the BCSC ‘toothless’ and told me we were wasting our time.
In the BCSC’s video they depict a con-artist on the phone with one of his victims. The victim has obviously figured out that he was being ripped-off and was trying to get him to give him his money back. The con-artist brushes him off and responds with a ‘the cheque’s in the mail’ tactic. So, the investor starts to get tough and threatens to call the BCSC.
In real-life this would be the point where the con-artist starts laughing hysterically to the point of spitting-up phlegm on the camera lens. It’s very obvious that the actor playing the con-artist has never had to turn to the BCSC for help- if he had, he’d probably not be able to play that part with a straight face. The world’s greatest actors would be challenged if they were in that position.
In real life, when the con-artist hears the knock on the door at the end of the video, his only fear would be vigilante justice. In the case of the company I blew the whistle on there were no arrests or charges laid. It was only earlier this year that the CEO got arrested- but, that was two scams later…
So, who cares? We’re talking about bankers ripping off bankers- right? Not quite, it isn’t as much the bankers who are getting ripped off in BC as it is the 99%. It’s mom, and pop, grandma & grandpa who lose their investments- banks have resources to investigate the claims of who they invest in.
The BCSC is a wart on BC’s economy, they are ineffective and dangerous. It’s really time for a change- and, with an election coming, now is the perfect opportunity for some enthusiastic candidate to campaign on a platform for fixing it. I can think of the perfect campaign slogan for them:
“It’s time for BC to get its dignity back…”.

Friday, 12 February 2016

SEE IT ON THE SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS...

http://markets.financialcontent.com/mng-ba.mercurynews/news/read/31486859/How_Are_Fake_FBI_Agents

WHY DOES THE BC SECURITIES HIRE OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNCIL?? ARE ITS OWN LAWYERS NOT GOOD ENOUGH??

My response when Lawyer Leonard T Doust threatened legal action in order to keep me from telling the truth..

Leonard T Doust

Dear Sir,

While I can respect your position on use of the charges pending term I must

differ on all other matters pertaining to Spyru, U-Go Brand, I must also make it

clear to you that we have enough hard evidence to qualify our position to ensure

charges are pressed. Any legal protection granted to the Securities Commission

and its agents by the Securities Act is only applicable if the Agency operates in

good faith. The BCSC has compromised its position from the start. We have

ample evidence to prove these allegations as well as demonstrate bad faith

throughout on the behalf of the securities commission. In addition we consider

the very foundation of the BCSC to be arbitrary in nature, it does not operate in

the best interest of the investors or the BC Economy. The fact that BCSC has to

make rules and regulations that need to be broken to allow BCSC to receive its

funding does not sit in accordance with the rule of law as it is a clear conflict of

interest. As you are now council for the Commission I will inform you that in

addition to Criminal Charges we intend to have the Commission examined with a

Constitutional Challenge in Canadian Supreme Court, the basis of the BCSC is in

many ways without legal merit. No doubt Section 33 of the Canadian Constitution

Act of 1982 will come to your mind but its only applicable if 'good faith' is clearly

demonstrated, not only that the Securities Act must clearly define any actions

that may otherwise be criminal as being legal. The Securities Act does not allow

for criminal acts as the BCSC has committed there are no legislations that give

BCSC the right to operate in the manner it does. Mr. Doust I can assure you that

we have hard evidence to prove our position and we are prepared to use

every legal avenue needed to bring this matter to a fair and just

conclusion even if that means testifying in Canadian Supreme Court in front of

the entire country.

Regards

Christopher Burke

Peter Harris

Stay tuned tomorrow to see how many times the BC Securities Commission will post citizens private banking info online. Also a letter from Leonard T Doust from Law Firm McCarthy Tetrault sent last spring threatening legal action.

And if time permits how Farris Law colludes with the BCSC to entrap unsuspecting innocent victims.. Stay tuned..

BC Securities Commission Illegal Spying

U-GO Brands

PRESS RELEASE

WHY DOES THE BC SECURITIES COMMISION HIDE BEHIND CARDBOARD

CUTOUTS??!

A true story of deception, lies, fraudulent concealment, harassment, betrayal, conspiracy, extortion, racketeering, slander, breach of trust by public officials, greed, abuse of power, intimidation, illegal freezing of personal trust accounts, and the destroyed lives of five honest BC citizens entangled in this web. Included are photos of said cardboard cut-outs and the “Surveillance files” a quick rundown on a few encounters with some of the BCSC's friends in the world of shadows.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/burkechristopher/bc-securities-commission-a-sham-24wgw

This is a true story. All events, names, and details are based on real actual happenings in relation to the BCSC.

Why does the BCSC go to such lengths to suppress the Rule of Law from existing in its “Courts” and “Tribunals”?

How much money has the BCSC spent on choppers and multiple surveillance teams that have hounded us SINCE they ruled against us in December 2015?

I will try to be brief and clear as possible in what is a lengthy and complicated case.

We are being prosecuted for crimes we either did not commit or were entrapped into committing by the BC Securities Commission. The BCSC is responsible for maintaining a financial marketplace that is ethical, fair and just.

The BCSC ensures the “integrity” of the Securities (Stocks and Bonds) markets and “protects” the people by entrapping citizens who go to them for help, illegally seizing their Bank accounts, lying under oath to cover it up, and destroying transcripts of “Court” hearings while denying they ever existed.

They print publications across major news networks accusing citizens they know are innocent of Defrauding their own friend's and family of $1.7 Million dollars. Even after they cannot prove this in their sham of a “Court” they still continue to print falsehoods.

The following statement was released by the BCSC on Dec 28 as part of a BCSC press release issued in the Kelowna Daily Courier in regards to the U-Go Brand/Spyru case.

“Harris, Cire, Burke and Kwasnek have been ordered to pay $636,000 to the BCSC. That’s the amount they obtained as a result of their misconduct in relation to U-GO.”

Once again the BCSC insists on printing statements about the respondents it knows are false and misleading for the public's consumption. The statement made here would lead the average lay person to believe we committed fraud and profited from ill gotten gains. The BCSC knows full well this isn't true yet it perpetuates falsehoods in regards to the respondents all the time. The truth is U-GO Brands was destroyed by the Commission based on allegations by the Commission that were known and proven to be false from the beginning.

After the BCSC seizes your Bank account illegally, your Bank should fight hard enough to get it back for you in a week or two. That will give the BCSC opportunity to publicly post your account numbers and all relevant information not once but TWICE on their public website. They did this to us about eight months after one of the lawyers we had retained asked them to pull it down the first time in 2014.

The list goes on and on, I could talk about Ms. Teresa Mitchell Banks who is head of the Criminal Enforcement division and her insistence we plead guilty to ALL allegations not just the proven allegations (as the BCSC manual states is policy ) when she knows the allegations are not true. This is ILLEGAL.

To this day the BCSC continues to perpetuate lies and continue its crime. No one will talk about it or tell the truth.

We filed criminal charges against the BCSC on June 3^rd 2015 and against many of its employees including, CEO Brenda Leong, Ms. Theresa Mitchell Banks and investigator Lindsay Donders who perjured herself under oath and others. We have also laid charges against Micheal De Jong the Minister of Finance and Christy Clark the BC Premier. The list of charges includes but is not limited to Perjury, Collusion, Accessory, Conspiracy, Fraudulent Concealment, Theft, Tampering/Withholding Evidence, and Breach of Trust. The Police have been very helpful and we are told the investigation has gone to a special investigations unit after the first four months of investigation verified our charges but exposed much more.

We are very concerned the crime will simply be swept under the rug and ignored while the BCSC continues to destroy lives and tear legitimate companies apart. We do not deny the need for a Securities Regulator we only ask that they adhere to the Rule of Law. The current system is nothing short of extortion; we know of at least one major scammer operating in BC whom the BCSC is aware of yet they let her continue operation while they try to pin innocent people to the wall.

These are just some of the lengths the BCSC will go to to try and pin a charge on someone they know is innocent.

If the Rule of Law does not apply to the Financial System are we not simply slaves of those who control the system??

Now the BCSC has taken to intimidation tactics to silence the truth including thugs and surveillance vans being sent to follow at least one the respondents in for up to a year.

The BCSC also broke into my hotel room to hack my laptop in Vancouver in early 2015, I have multiple witnesses although the Hotel will not release the surveillance footage from the camera above our door. We caught the perpetrators red-handed leaving the hotel room.

Since the BCSC has released their decision on the U-GO Brands case they have only stepped up their surveillance and harassment campaign against us, why won' they talk to us in a real Court of Law??

Regards

Christopher Andrew Burke

Peter Harris

PETER HARRIS TO FARRIS LAW "IT HAS A VERY STRONG SMELL OF COLLUSION!"

Good day Trevor,

Again, I’ve reviewed the commission’s guidelines in order to quality as an investor in a private company.

Trevor, honestly, do you mean to tell me that you agree with the below set conditions? They are dictatorial and they discriminate against individual’s rights that do not meet the commission’s guidelines.

There are no Federal or Provincial laws on the books other than the “commission” that impose pre-conditions for an individual to be allowed to enter in a commercial or private contractual agreement.

As a Canadian I certainly take very serious objection to the “commission” being this involved in individual personal finances, when these people have never asked for the commission’s involvement or help.

Trevor, to be honest with you this is a bunch of SMOKE and MIRRORS on the part of the “commission” and it has a very STRONG SMELL of COLLUSION.

Let me point out an item THAT REFLECTS THIS VIEW;

In all of my years of dealing with attorneys where you have a plaintiff and an accused, I have never been told by the firm representing me that they cannot advise me or comment on my file until the firm representing me confirms to the plaintiff that they have been paid in advance and that now they will proceed to represent me: REALLY!?

Conclusion

I’ve discussed the “commission” with my fellow directors and we have come to the conclusion that the “commission” has no intention of helping us or cooperating with us to settle this off-shore to main land investor transfer and the issuing of new and legal Canadian share certificates. It has been made clear to me that I cannot meet with the “commission” face to face. What has happened to people’s rights to meet face to face to settle conflicts? As we all know Trevor, personal meetings often result in amicable solutions when repeated e-mails cannot. What has happened to the human factor?

Trevor, we have not come to a final decision in respect to the “commissions” handling of the “URGENT” SPYru case now going on for more than three months and this situation IS URGENT, Trevor.

As for U-GO Brands, we are compliant with all of the exemptions listed by the “commission”. In terms of appropriate documentation, we changed our “Subscription Agreement forms” and our “Investor Ledger” as per the commission’s requirements. If we exceed the 50 investor cap, we will be compliant and again process the information, as per the requirements of the “commission”.

SP-065

21-03-2014

In closing, Trevor we are not sure if we want to continue on in this fashion, thus we are strongly considering cancelling our agreement with FARRIS and dealing with the “commission” directly.

As I forewarned you of the impending flood gates opening, well it’s happening. My friends in Montreal have made Christy Clark’s office aware of the situation with the “commission’ and also the Vancouver Sun is now in the fold.

Please understand Trevor, that our actions are reflecting our desperation to protect our investors AT ALL COSTS, as the investors and U-GO Brands directors are victims of a fraud perpetrated by Mr. Klaus Glusing. Why is it that no one seems to understand this?

I will revert late Monday or Tuesday.

Respectfully,

Peter

OPEN QUOTE

The securities commissions say the following for someone to qualify as a “close personal friend”:

“For the purposes of both the private issuer exemption and the family, friends and business associates exemption, a “close personal friend” of a director, executive officer, founder or control person of an issuer is an individual who knows the director, executive officer, founder or control person well enough and has known them for a sufficient period of time to be in a position to assess their capabilities and trustworthiness. The term “close personal friend” can include a family member who is not already specifically identified in the exemptions if the family member satisfies the criteria described above. The relationship between the individual and the director, executive officer, founder or control person must be direct. For example the exemption is not available to a close personal friend of a close personal friend of a director of the issuer.

An individual is not a close personal friend solely because the individual is:

(a) a relative,

(b) a member of the same organization, association or religious group, or

(c) a client, customer, former client or former customer.”
CLOSE QUOTE

WHERE IT ALL BEGAN - CHAIN OF EVENTS IN DEALING WITH BCSC JULY 2013 - FEB 2014.

Ref erenc e: echo 0 47-08-06 -201 4

1

E C H O P A R T N E R S L T D . P e t e r D. Ha r r i s Di r e c tor , Bo ar d S e c r e t ar y P hone : 2 5 0 -765-8213 E -ma i l : p. ha r r i s@t e lu s . ne t We b s i t e : www. e c h o p a r t n e r s . c a

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Hunter Litigation Chambers Greg J. Allen, Attorney Suite 2100 - 1040 West Georgia Street

Vancouver, BC V6E 4H1 Chain of Events Dealing with the BC Securities Commission

From June 2013 to February 2014 Dear Greg,

To assist you in the SPYru case, I’m providing you with a general overview and cronolized chain of events that occurred while dealing with the commission and our subsequent lawsuit against the commission for conducting a biased and un-lawful investigation against U-GO Brands and Echo Partners, including the slandering of our Directors. Sole Reason for Contacting the Commission As you know, we approached the commission as victims of Klaus Glusing and for this reason, we sought out the commission to help us transfer legally SPYru Inc. to Canada and save the SPYru resident investors from losing their investment. Over the next seven months from our initial contact with the commission, we fully co-operated and we voluntary turned over all of the documents requested by the commission. HISTORY and CHAIN of EVENTS

Deception and Misleading Undertakings William Ting, BCSC Investigator On June 12, 2013 when I first made contact with Mr. Ting and without Mr. Ting asking, I voluntarily submitted on the same day, a 10 page "Statement of Facts" explaining our commercial activities with SPYru Inc. and Klaus Glusing going back to 2010, in this document we provided detailed information as to why we were seeking assistance from the commission. (See attached "Statement of Facts" for quick reference) Ref erenc e: echo 0 47-08-06 -201 4 2 E C H O P A R T N E R S L T D . P e t e r D. Ha r r i s Di r e c tor , Bo ar d S e c r e t ar y P hone : 2 5 0 -765-8213 E -ma i l : p. ha r r i s@t e lu s . ne t We b s i t e : www. e c h o p a r t n e r s . c a

Several days after my first contact with Mr. Ting, Lorne Cire and I requested that we travel at our own expense to Vancouver and meet with Mr. Ting to explain how we got defrauded by Klaus Glusing and why we were seeking their help before the commission rendered judgment and started an investigation.

After all, our case is unique, as the commission agreed, and we did voluntarily approach the commission for help; we never tried to avoid our responsibilities with the commission.

At the beginning, my dealings with Mr. Ting were very friendly, courteous and on a first name basis. After several weeks of numerous e-mail exchanges with Mr. Ting, answering all of his questions and fully co-operating, out of the blue, Mr. Ting indicated to me that I’m to no longer communicate with him and that I should retain a securities attorney. After all this time, I was under the impression that Mr. Ting was asking for all of the information in order to sort out the matter in the attempt to help us protect the resident SPYru investors. In addition, Mr. Ting never confirmed or indicated to me on June 12th or at any later date that the commission has no jurisdiction or authority over the TCI’s and Klaus Glusing. Thus, the commission had no intention to help us in salvaging the resident investors from the very beginning. We only found out this information from Ms. Mitchell-Banks on February 14, 2014.

Retained Legal Services When we approached the commission, we had no reason to believe that we had violated some of the BC Securities Act, thus we saw no reason to retain an attorney, since we could explain ourselves to the commission, which never happened.

On July 12, 2013 and on the advice of Mr. Ting, we retained the services of Farris Law in Vancouver. From July 2013 to January 2014 our Farris attorney had numerous phone conversations, e-mails and letters to and with Mr. Ting and commission litigators. As a result, our attorney asked that we send an additional 450 documents requested by the commission. In January 2014 the commission requested additional documents of which some of the documents requested had already been submitted to the commission. Ref erenc e: echo 0 47-08-06 -201 4 3 E C H O P A R T N E R S L T D . P e t e r D. Ha r r i s Di r e c tor , Bo ar d S e c r e t ar y P hone : 2 5 0 -765-8213 E -ma i l : p. ha r r i s@t e lu s . ne t We b s i t e : www. e c h o p a r t n e r s . c a

How long should an investigation last? It would seem to me after 11 months of investigating our case, the commission by now would have filed formal charges against us. Now the commission is saying: "Allegations have not yet been proven". That sounds to me like a weasel statement.

After seven months of having spent some $80K in legal fees, and realizing we were no further ahead with the commission for an early resolve, on January 29, 2014, we dismissed our attorney and decided to deal directly with the commission. Our decision was based the commission’s hearing manual clearly stating we could represent ourselves without an attorney present. We had no choice since we had run out of funds by then and we could not afford an attorney or travel to Vancouver. No Longer Cooperating with the Commission Abuse of Power and Intimidation On the same day, January 29th we declared to the commission, we would no longer co-operate in the investigation and our reason was that after all of these months dealing with the commission it was obvious we would not receive a fair and impartial hearing and for this reason we wanted to appear in front of a Supreme Court Judge where we knew we would receive a fair and impartial hearing. It was very clear to us that the investigation was turning out to be vindictive and abusive.

By January 2014, we realized that by standing up to the commission’s allegations, the investigators retaliated by becoming biased, vindictive, and slanderous against our group. The investigators had no justifiable legal grounds to order a cease trade order against U-Go Brands and Echo Partners; this was a clear retaliatory move and abuse of power exercised on the part of the investigators. Retained Investigating Firm Klaus Glusing Background Check We realized the commission was not going to help us, knowing the commission had contacted Klaus Glusing and based on Klaus Glusing’s letter, the commission came to the conclusion that Klaus Glusing had no involvement dealing directly with our resident investors and did not run the company.

Knowing the commission was negligent in its investigation of Mark and Klaus Glusing, we retained the services of Harbor Investigations of Vancouver. We provided the commission with exhibits that proved we sent messages to Klaus Glusing Ref erenc e: echo 0 47-08-06 -201 4 4 E C H O P A R T N E R S L T D . P e t e r D. Ha r r i s Di r e c tor , Bo ar d S e c r e t ar y P hone : 2 5 0 -765-8213 E -ma i l : p. ha r r i s@t e lu s . ne t We b s i t e : www. e c h o p a r t n e r s . c a

recommending we move SPYru Inc. from the TCI and register SPYru in Canada or the U.S.A.

We also provided proof to the commission that this was not Klaus Glusing’s first time being involved in misappropriation of funds. We supplied to the commission information from the Bermuda Supreme Court confirming three judgments against Klaus Glusing totaling approximately USD$4 Million. The victims were Cast Lines, a CP Ships company, the second victim was Michael G. DeGroote, a recipient of the Order of Canada and a Canadian businessman and philanthropist from Hamilton, Ontario. The third victim was a land developer in Bermuda. Klaus Glusing left Bermuda and moved to Vancouver to avoid repaying any of these victims.

The commission did know about Klaus Glusing prior to our June 12th contact. Sometime in 2001, Klaus Glusing started a shipping Line in Vancouver called ValuShip. The commission accused Klaus Glusing of lying to investors, therefore, the commission was already aware of Klaus Glusing’s fraudulent history.

Micro Managing SPYru Inc. Klaus Glusing We sent to the commission numerous copies of e-mail messages from Klaus Glusing to Lorne Cire and myself instructing us on how to proceed on the day-to-day management of the company. Reading Klaus Glusing’s messages clearly shows that Klaus Glusing was in charge of SPYru Inc.

Lorne Cire and I were never officers of SPYru Inc.; Klaus Glusing was the majority shareholder after Mark Glusing’s passing-away and Klaus Glusing never disclosed to Lorne or myself the number of shares he personally held. After several months of working with SPYru Inc. and after Lorne Cire personally invested $5,000.00, Klaus Glusing gave us a combined 5 million shares and made us Directors with no voting rights. Ref erenc e: echo 0 47-08-06 -201 4 5 E C H O P A R T N E R S L T D . P e t e r D. Ha r r i s Di r e c tor , Bo ar d S e c r e t ar y P hone : 2 5 0 -765-8213 E -ma i l : p. ha r r i s@t e lu s . ne t We b s i t e : www. e c h o p a r t n e r s . c a

Slanderous Accusations, Misconduct and Abuse of Power Ms. Donders, BCSC Lead Investigator My dealings with Ms. Donders were exactly the same as with the communication I had previously with Mr. Ting, courteous and on first name basis at first, thereafter, turning nasty on the part of Ms. Donders after several weeks.

I will site the following actions by Ms. Donders that we feel were out of line, illegal and clearly demonstrate abuse of power. Known statement by Ms. Donders as follows: 1. Telling some of our investors we were an illegal company and dishonest Directors and that we were going to be banned forever involving securities trading in BC.

2. Contacting TD Waterhouse Head Office ordering the freezing of the personal trust accounts of John Thibert and Diane Thibert. Subsequently, when Blair Payton of TD Waterhouse, financial advisor to the Thiberts, Mr. Payton phoned Ms. Donders questioning her actions. Ms. Donders was dictatorial towards Mr. Payton and hung up the phone on him. These trust accounts had nothing to do with the SPYru case. Subsequently, after our strongly objecting to Ms. Donders actions, several weeks later the commission lifted the cease trade order against the two personal trust accounts. Ms. Donders’ reckless action caused Mr. Thibert to send her an aggressive e-mail message that was replied to by Ms. Mitchell-Banks advising Mr. Thibert the commission will no longer accept his messages and that he is to conform, otherwise the commission will inform the police to take action against him. As a result Mr. Thibert suffered a nervous breakdown and has been under physician’s care ever since.

3. Ms. Donders contacted Mr. Thibert’s personal physician, not requesting medical information, but demanding the information. Ms. Donders phone call was so forceful and demanding that the physician’s assistant was left upset and crying from the phone call. This kind of action on the part of a public servant is total unacceptable.

4. On another occasion Ms. Donders told one of our investors that the commission was taking us to court, when in fact it was a voluntary commission hearing she was referring to, and that we had already courteously replied that we would not attend.

Ref erenc e: echo 0 47-08-06 -201 4 6 E C H O P A R T N E R S L T D . P e t e r D. Ha r r i s Di r e c tor , Bo ar d S e c r e t ar y P hone : 2 5 0 -765-8213 E -ma i l : p. ha r r i s@t e lu s . ne t We b s i t e : www. e c h o p a r t n e r s . c a

Ms. Donders January 2014 Questioning Lorne Cire Intimidation and Un-lawful questioning The first Director to be interviewed by Ms. Donders was Lorne Cire in January 2014 in Vancouver at Lorne Cire’s own expense. The interview was more of an interrogation and our attorney never once raised an objection or intervened in Lorne Cire’s defense to any of the questioning by Ms. Donders. Some of the information requested by Ms. Donders was out of line and illegal to request. Lorne Cire, RBC Cancelation of Corporate & Personal Accounts Including Credit Cards Ms. Donders, BCSC Lead Investigator If Ms. Donders was capable of making slanderous accusations against us to our investors, God knows what Ms. Donders told the Royal Bank about us.

All we know is that after Lorne Cire had a long and detailed phone conversation with the RBC investigator, several weeks later the RBC notified Lorne Cire that they had cancelled all of his accounts.

Lorne Cire had been with RBC for over 20 years as an exemplary client and with Ms. Donders involvement, Lorne Cire’s business relationship with the RBC was severed, the damage is done.

Also, Dr. Michael Kwasnek, U-GO Brands Treasurer, received a letter with no explanation why, indicating that RBC wished to have no future dealings with him. Dr. Kwasnek also had a long and respected relationship with RBC prior to Ms. Donders intervention. Misleading Information, Constant Threatening and Abuse of Power Ms. Teresa R. Mitchell-Banks QC – BCSC Enforcement and Corporate Finance Director Dealings with Ms. Mitchell-Banks were stressful. Ms. Mitchel-Banks demonstrated in her e-mail messages that she does not appreciate any one opposing or questioning the commission’s actions or authority and as a result if you review the exhibits you will see that my message exchanges with Ms. Mitchell-Banks were aggressive on both sides from time to time. Ref erenc e: echo 0 47-08-06 -201 4 7 E C H O P A R T N E R S L T D . P e t e r D. Ha r r i s Di r e c tor , Bo ar d S e c r e t ar y P hone : 2 5 0 -765-8213 E -ma i l : p. ha r r i s@t e lu s . ne t We b s i t e : www. e c h o p a r t n e r s . c a

On one occasion Ms. Mitchel-Banks sent me three e-mails between Saturday and Sunday threatening me with contempt of court if I did not appear at the scheduled hearing. Once she realized I was not going to appear, she sent me an e-mail stating that, in fact the meeting was voluntary, and I did not in fact have to appear.

I even sent a personal message to Ms. Mitchell-Banks asking her to please be more understanding of our situation and that we were virtually without funds since we had paid approximately YTD $130,000.00 in legal fees to our attorneys and the commission. Ms. Mitchell-Banks totally ignored my passionate plea to be more understanding, show some compassion or try to work with us. Rather, she chose to be dictatorial and condescending towards us.

Finally, after dealing with Ms. Mitchell-Banks for some five to eight weeks and her going on vacation, I started to communicate with Mark L. Hilford, BCSC Manager, and Litigation. Misleading Information, Constant Threats and Abuse of Power Mr. Mark L. Hilford - BCSC Manager, Litigation My message exchange with Mr. Hilford lasted two weeks and for the most part was aggressive on both sides. Mr. Hilford demonstrated the same negative and condescending attitude towards us and showed no compassion towards our situation. Aggressive Message to Mr. Ting and Ms. Donders Peter Harris and John Thibert We know the commission will use my message and John Thibert’s to attempt to show the commissioners that we are not to be trusted and our behavior is not acceptable in the business world.

Our defense is that we have been treated like criminals from the start and we lost our tempers by retaliating with aggressive messages. Consequently, both John and myself, sent apology messages to both Ms. Donders and Mr. Ting. Ref erenc e: echo 0 47-08-06 -201 4 8 E C H O P A R T N E R S L T D . P e t e r D. Ha r r i s Di r e c tor , Bo ar d S e c r e t ar y P hone : 2 5 0 -765-8213 E -ma i l : p. ha r r i s@t e lu s . ne t We b s i t e : www. e c h o p a r t n e r s . c a

Consent to Appear in front of an investigator Travel Expenses and Daily per Diem The commission never indicated to us that they should cover our travel expenses to go to Vancouver, the only subsidy we received from the commission was a $20.00 witness daily per diem.

Had we known that our expenses would have been paid, we would have agreed to appear for individual questioning.

One of our reasons for declining to appear was we had no funds on hand to cover the travel expenses for all of our Directors. On many occasions, we made it very clear to Ms. Mitchell-Banks and Mr. Hilford that we had no funds to travel.

Once Ms. Mitchell-Banks returned to work we communicated for another several weeks and again things got aggressive and Ms. Mitchell-Banks instructed me that the commission will no longer accept my e-mail messages or phone calls. Mr. Mitchell-Banks made it very clear that we need to retain a Securities Attorney otherwise things are going to get worse for us. Exemplary and Punitive Damages Reckless Practice by the Commission U-GO Brands and Echo Partners were formed in April 2014 and all U-GO Brands Subscription Agreements and other related documents were created and submitted to the commission by Farris Law. To date the commission has not contacted Farris Law to indicate U-GO Brands is in serious violation of the Securities Act. Corporate and Product Restructuring Due to the failure of SPYru, we have found ourselves having to recreate our flagship product from "SPYru Uberwater" that failed in the market place due to chemical content that consumers no longer wanted to purchase.

Realizing we had to create an all-natural product we formed a working alliance with John Stevens and SuperDrop. Our action plan was based on the undertaking of a new product launch to protect the resident investors, thus SuperDrop was created. Ref erenc e: echo 0 47-08-06 -201 4 9 E C H O P A R T N E R S L T D . P e t e r D. Ha r r i s Di r e c tor , Bo ar d S e c r e t ar y P hone : 2 5 0 -765-8213 E -ma i l : p. ha r r i s@t e lu s . ne t We b s i t e : www. e c h o p a r t n e r s . c a

In the meantime, while we were going through this metamorphosis and being defrauded by Klaus Glusing, we found ourselves publicly accused and slandered by the commission. In spite of all the negatives around us, we still managed to get SuperDrop introduced and well received by the National Retailers and Distributors, YTD, we have produced 85,000 bottles of SuperDrop.

Upon the order by the commission of our having to stand-down from the Noor Energy negotiation or any other negotiation involving securities, all five directors are losing the opportunity to reap earnings for the last three years of dedication, hard work, perseverance. Similarly, we are unable to protect our investors as SuperDrop can no longer move forward.

Please see next page demonstrating earning losses over the next five years. The projected revenues and number of stores are set conservatively versus actuals. Ref erenc e: echo 0 47-08-06 -201 4 10 E C H O P A R T N E R S L T D . P e t e r D. Ha r r i s Di r e c tor , Bo ar d S e c r e t ar y P hone : 2 5 0 -765-8213 E -ma i l : p. ha r r i s@t e lu s . ne t We b s i t e : www. e c h o p a r t n e r s . c a

*SuperDrop Energy Five year Project**
REVENUE FORMULA per STORE
Quarterly Revenue per store location		Annual Revenues per store location
$450.00		$1,800.00
FIVE YEAR PROJECTED REVENUES & ERANINGS
Period	Number of Stores		Revenues
2013-2014	2,000		$3,600,000
2014-2015	5,000		$9,000,000
2015-2016	10,000		$18,000,000
2016-2017	15,000		$27,000,000
2017-2018	20,000		$36,000,000
LOST POTENTIAL REVENUES		$93,600,000
LOST POTENTIAL EARNINGS		$46,800,