On 24/10/2014 12:03 PM, Christopher Burke wrote: To whom it may concern:
I, Christopher Burke hereby authorize Peter Harris to represent me in any and all matters pertaining to dealing with the BCSC. Please cc and communicate with Mr. Harris anything that is communicated with me.
I will exercise my rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Legal: 10 (b) (c)
My rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Under the Great Writ (Habeas Corpus) to instruct any party I deem fit to represent me and speak on my behalf
Regards
Christopher Burke. On 27/10/2014 10:23 PM, Teresa Mitchell-Banks wrote: Mr. Burke,
I write to make you aware that the staff for the Executive Director will be opposing Mr. Harris representing you at the Hearing. With all due respect, your email makes no legal sense whatsoever. I have given a brief explanation below as to why your email is founded on a grave misunderstanding of the law. I strongly suggest that you take your email (and my response to it) to a lawyer and get some preliminary advice.
The Charter or Rights under 10 of the Charter of Rights (I note you cite b and c) reads as follows:
The Honourable Wally Oppal, QC. Boughton Law Email message exchange betwe en BCSC a n d Echo Partners Ltd . Oc t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 t o Oc t o b e r 23, 2 0 1 4
P a g e 6 o f 8 F r om: P e t e r Ha r r i s T u e s d a y , O c t o b e r - 2 8 - 1 4
Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a) To be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) To retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and (c) To have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not valid.
The bold and the underlining are mine. If you read the section you are quoting you will see that it does not apply to you. You are not under arrest or detention. The meaning of the word counsel is defined in the case law as meaning a lawyer. Mr. Harris is not a lawyer. The commission does not have the jurisdiction to hold a habeas corpus hearing and you are not detained in any event so no court would grant you a habeas corpus hearing. In short, s. 10 has no application to the case at hand.
Similarly, your insistence on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and what you call the ‘Great Writ (Habeas Corpus) are both equally inapplicable to your present case before the BCSC.
The allegations against you and your fellow respondents are serious. You should realize that if you are found liable by the Commission, staff will be seeking very significant penalties against you. Please get some legal advice from someone competent to give it to you. Legal advice may seem expensive but it will not be as expensive as going without it. If you have a defence you should lead it. Talk to a lawyer. On 28/10/2014 3:38 PM, Christopher Burke wrote: Ms. Banks,
Thank you for the clarification that you are NOT a Supreme Court and BCSC has no such jurisdiction to proceed in such a manner. This means however that as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the highest law in the land that all other laws, bylaws and acts both civil and criminal must fall within these guidelines unless a specific act of CANADIAN Parliament States otherwise. Thus the BCSC under the Securities Act must operate within the confines of the law. BC Supreme Court Civil Rules allow me the right to choose any person I deem to speak and act on my behalf. The Canadian Bill of Rights again allows me to choose any party as I see fit to represent myself.
The Honourable Wally Oppal, QC . Boughton Law Email message exchange be tween BCSC and Echo P a r t n e r s L t d . Oc t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 t o Oc t o b e r 23, 2 0 1 4
P a g e 7 o f 8 F r om: P e t e r Ha r r i s T u e s d a y , O c t o b e r - 2 8 - 1 4
Essentially if you are saying that your court does not have the authority regarding previously mentioned law then certainly your court being lesser then the Supreme Court of Canada and British Columbia does not have the right nor authority to tell me who may or may not represent me. Since I have no money for a lawyer and BCSC approved lawyers have no interest in justice in the first place and can clearly be seen as in collusion with the commission (Hence the instance upon one) I authorize Peter D Harris to speak on my behalf in all matters pertaining to the BCSC.
Power of Attorney documents will be produced to affirm said notion. And for the record an email IS now considered a legal document I may use as valid proof in a court of law.
Regards,
Christopher Andrew
I, Christopher Burke hereby authorize Peter Harris to represent me in any and all matters pertaining to dealing with the BCSC. Please cc and communicate with Mr. Harris anything that is communicated with me.
I will exercise my rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Legal: 10 (b) (c)
My rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Under the Great Writ (Habeas Corpus) to instruct any party I deem fit to represent me and speak on my behalf
Regards
Christopher Burke. On 27/10/2014 10:23 PM, Teresa Mitchell-Banks wrote: Mr. Burke,
I write to make you aware that the staff for the Executive Director will be opposing Mr. Harris representing you at the Hearing. With all due respect, your email makes no legal sense whatsoever. I have given a brief explanation below as to why your email is founded on a grave misunderstanding of the law. I strongly suggest that you take your email (and my response to it) to a lawyer and get some preliminary advice.
The Charter or Rights under 10 of the Charter of Rights (I note you cite b and c) reads as follows:
The Honourable Wally Oppal, QC. Boughton Law Email message exchange betwe en BCSC a n d Echo Partners Ltd . Oc t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 t o Oc t o b e r 23, 2 0 1 4
P a g e 6 o f 8 F r om: P e t e r Ha r r i s T u e s d a y , O c t o b e r - 2 8 - 1 4
Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a) To be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) To retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and (c) To have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not valid.
The bold and the underlining are mine. If you read the section you are quoting you will see that it does not apply to you. You are not under arrest or detention. The meaning of the word counsel is defined in the case law as meaning a lawyer. Mr. Harris is not a lawyer. The commission does not have the jurisdiction to hold a habeas corpus hearing and you are not detained in any event so no court would grant you a habeas corpus hearing. In short, s. 10 has no application to the case at hand.
Similarly, your insistence on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and what you call the ‘Great Writ (Habeas Corpus) are both equally inapplicable to your present case before the BCSC.
The allegations against you and your fellow respondents are serious. You should realize that if you are found liable by the Commission, staff will be seeking very significant penalties against you. Please get some legal advice from someone competent to give it to you. Legal advice may seem expensive but it will not be as expensive as going without it. If you have a defence you should lead it. Talk to a lawyer. On 28/10/2014 3:38 PM, Christopher Burke wrote: Ms. Banks,
Thank you for the clarification that you are NOT a Supreme Court and BCSC has no such jurisdiction to proceed in such a manner. This means however that as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the highest law in the land that all other laws, bylaws and acts both civil and criminal must fall within these guidelines unless a specific act of CANADIAN Parliament States otherwise. Thus the BCSC under the Securities Act must operate within the confines of the law. BC Supreme Court Civil Rules allow me the right to choose any person I deem to speak and act on my behalf. The Canadian Bill of Rights again allows me to choose any party as I see fit to represent myself.
The Honourable Wally Oppal, QC . Boughton Law Email message exchange be tween BCSC and Echo P a r t n e r s L t d . Oc t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 t o Oc t o b e r 23, 2 0 1 4
P a g e 7 o f 8 F r om: P e t e r Ha r r i s T u e s d a y , O c t o b e r - 2 8 - 1 4
Essentially if you are saying that your court does not have the authority regarding previously mentioned law then certainly your court being lesser then the Supreme Court of Canada and British Columbia does not have the right nor authority to tell me who may or may not represent me. Since I have no money for a lawyer and BCSC approved lawyers have no interest in justice in the first place and can clearly be seen as in collusion with the commission (Hence the instance upon one) I authorize Peter D Harris to speak on my behalf in all matters pertaining to the BCSC.
Power of Attorney documents will be produced to affirm said notion. And for the record an email IS now considered a legal document I may use as valid proof in a court of law.
Regards,
Christopher Andrew
No comments:
Post a Comment