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

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