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.

[Click on the link…]

December 30, 2013 – LEGATT to RESPONDENTS

 Regardless of the judgements against the likes of Mr. Wharram, Mr. Burke and many others battling out of control financial regualtors the truth remains that under the rule of law even the guilty deserve a fair trial.

 The BCSC, the IIROC, OSC etc have proven themselves to operate outside the law.

BC SECURITY COMMISSION - THE PERJURY FILES

 BCSC is caught lying below

And here again BCSC employees attempt to force respondants to pleading guilty to all allegations if they want settle, even the unproven ones. this is illegal.

Thursday, 28 January 2016

MS MITCHELL-BANKS INSIST WE PLEAD GUILTY EVEN THOUGH THE BCSC KNOWS WE ARE NOT GUILTY OF THEIR ALLEGED CRIMES INCL STEALING $1.7 MILLION

 

 

SM00188 - All must admitted to all the allegations for a settlement to be accepted



On 20/11/2014 10:49 AM, TERESA MITCHELL-BANKS WROTE:

Mr. Harris,

The matter is under review. There cannot be any settlement until all the Respondents, individuals and corporate, have admitted all the allegations. Are you all prepared to do so? If the allegations are agreed to then we can propose a settlement on sanction. Any settlement would have to include financial penalties.

FROM: PETER D. HARRIS - Echo Partner Ltd. [mailto:p.harris@telus.net] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 10:37 AM To: Mila Pivnenko Cc: Christopher Burke, Director - Echo Partners Ltd; Dr. Michael Kwasnek, Treasurer - Echo Partners Ltd.; John Thibert, Director - Echo Partners Ltd.; Lorne Cire, President & CEO - Echo Partners Ltd.; James Torrance; Teresa Mitchell-Banks Subject: Re: SPYru / Echo Partners ** Appeal for settlement based on humanitarian grounds Importance: High

Appeal for settlement based on humanitarian grounds Good morning Ms. Pivnenko, I'm contacting you today to make sure that our application for SETTLEMENT is still active. If I understand correctly we should be receiving your settlement offer some time in early December? Please confirm this is correct. Cheers, Peter Harris



On 04/11/2014 8:31 PM, PETER D. HARRIS - ECHO PARTNER LTD. WROTE:

Appeal for settlement based on humanitarian grounds



Pursuant to Management Hearing - October 31, 2014

British Columbia Securities Commission Ms. Mila Pivnenko, B.A., J.D.,

Litigation Counsel, Litigation Branch

Good evening Ms. Pivnenko, As agreed at the October 31st Management Hearing, please see attached letter pertaining to

our appeal for settlement agreement. Sincerely, Peter Harris Attached: Echo-129 - APPEAL FOR CASE SETTLEMENT - November 4-14-signed.pdf

--

Peter D. Harris

Director

Echo Partners Ltd.

Phone: 250-765-8213

Email: p.harris@telus.net

Email: peterh@echopartners.ca

On 22/11/2014 3:23 PM, TERESA MITCHELL-BANKS WROTE:

Mr. Harris,

You have indicated that:

1. You will not be attending your hearing

2. You wish to be held in contempt rather than pay fines

3. You do not wish to settle.

1. Hearing Attendance

It is up to you whether you attend your hearing as you have not been summonsed to do so. Your hearing will occur whether you attend or not and we will be seeking financial penalties and orders against you banning you from the markets and being a Diirector.

2.Being held in contempt

As you are under no legal requirement to attend your hearing, you will not be held in contempt. You cannot avoid financial penalties and orders against you by demanding to be sent to jail for contempt.

3. Settlement

We confirm you do not wish to settle. If you change your mind, please understand that the preconditions to settlement negotiations concerning the amount of financial penalty and length of the orders against you include that you admit that every paragraph in the NOH is true and that there will be significant financial penalties and length orders issued against you.

 

 

 Below is an email from Ms. Teresa Mitchell-Banks that proves Mr. Burkes claims regarding the BCSC destorying/withholding recording certain hearings. This is illegal once again and certainly leads one to not trust the actions of the regulators, according to Mr. Burkes Blog they did so because BCSC employees said very self incriminating things  that would be on the transcripts

 I could keep going with a lot of further evidence regarding this case however the purpose is not to dwell on this case..

The reason it is wise however to consider the claims of individuals such as Mr. Burke, Mr. Wharram and many others regarding our financial regulators is that if even a small amount of these allegations are true they are cause for serious concerns as well as questions regarding SLI. On this post alone I have posted enough evidence of Criminal actions by BCSC employees to warrent concern. The BCSC is not above the law, the Securities Act does not allow it to disregard the rule of law and the fundamentals of justice. Not recording and/or withholding transcripts is not legal.. Not allowing a respondant to make a settlement offer and attempting to force them to settle on unproven allegations is illegal. How is the BCSC protecting investors?