Month: February 2017

Fantastic news coming from the official BCSC Twitter account today.   We are very pleased that the BCSC indicates they have an “Inquiries Group” that is “here to answer your questions and concerns related to the securities industry”.  

We are extremely please that finally someone down at the BCSC has taken the time to appoint this team that will answer the public’s questions and alleviate concerns.   

Truly a fantastic day!  I am expecting correspondence from them quickly!  Stay tuned – I will keep you posted!

Proving once again the complete incompetence of the Chair of the British Columbia Securities Commission, Brenda Leong has finally responded to our Freedom of Information request from October 18, 2016 – some 132 days ago!

 BCSC’s Brenda Leong

As we blogged last fall, we had inquired as to the job status of the inept Elizabeth “Liz” Chan – the self-described Senior Investigator at the Commission that was the lead investigator in our matter.  We had noticed that she was not on a list of BCSC employees that was put out by the local Vancouver Sun.

We submitted to the FOI office at the BCSC our request and have repeatedly received the run-around by Staff at the BCSC for months now.  With respect to these delays, it is abundantly clear that Staff at the BCSC (including Associate General Counsel Alan Keats) appear to have delayed getting this information to us within legal time frames administered under the FIPPA Act.   I mean really – how does it take 132 days to do what should have taken 30 days.

This is the BC Government again – showing that the applicable laws are just simply words in their mind – and that they have no intentions of playing by the rules and regulations!   Time for a switch down on Georgia Street and over at the Legislation building in Victoria.   One can only hope….

A couple of days ago we entered into a “Twitter War” with Paul Henderson – a local deadbeat writer for the Chilliwack Progress.     We have written previously regarding our discontent with the way he (and others) handled the “reporting of our story” during our issues with the BCSC.  To be clear, we just simply wanted a reporter to report the story from both sides WITHOUT biased opinions.   We still don’t think this was too much too ask.

Today, when I checked my Twitter account I received the following post from Henderson:

Of course I replied back to him….lol!

There you go – it appears Henderson feels its appropriate to attack a person and accuse them of something they did not do WITHOUT having any proof that I tried to hack into his Facebook account?  On what planet does he think this is OK?  This is a clear cut case of Libel and he seems to think he is above that.    Henderson made this post public on my Twitter feed which is most unfortunate.

Moments after I posted my reply he blocked me from his Twitter account – kinda says it all don’t you think?  Another spineless keyboard tough guy that wants to promote his own agenda – no matter the facts.

Seems to be too much of that going on nowadays – what happened to the good ole days where reporters reported on stories – and did not try to spew their own bullshit opinions that really no one wants to hear or read.

Paul Henderson’s Former Employer’s Building (Circa 2015)

 

 

In the time leading up to the investigation by the BCSC into my company, we had met Chilliwack Times journalist Tyler Olsen (“Olsen”) on a couple different occasions – he was always civil and we talked about different things including a common bond we had in hockey – namely the Chilliwack Bruins – a WHL hockey team that played in Chilliwack from roughly 2006-2011.

          Tyler Olsen (Reporter)

Source:  Facebook

When the BCSC brought forward their allegations on June 14, 2013, understandably Olsen wrote a very negative article which he took from the biased press release sent out by the BCSC.   Olsen did make contact with me and asked if I wanted to make a comment with regard to the allegations.   I provided him a letter that indicated the allegations were just that – allegations and that we were very much focused on a settlement of some sort that would see the investors in FCC and DCF still participate in the project at the Falls.    This should sound VERY familiar to many of you reading this knowing that we did everything to get the Staff at the BCSC to accept the Settlement Offer.  See earlier post in this blog for proof.

I didn’t see/hear from Olsen again until the first day of the hearing (April 7, 2014) when I noticed him lurking around the hearing room like a human parasite.

After that first day of the hearing, he approached me as I was exiting the hearing room – I remember wondering why a little 2nd rate reporter from a small newspaper would travel all the way to Vancouver and he replied he had been hired freelance by the Vancouver Province to further update the story – that he had written on the previously June.

We talked as we entered the elevator and I asked him directly if he was going to cover the rest of the hearing and he said that the Province had only paid him to cover the first day of the hearing that was scheduled for 10 days.   I told him that was unfortunate because the fraud allegations against me in the amount of $5.45 million were extremely inaccurate and I told him about the Settlement Offer that I had desperately tried to get ANYONE at the Commission to even review (let alone except).    I asked him to please come back to my hearing and report on the extensive cross-examination I had planned for the flunky BCSC investigator Liz Chan – I told him that I thought I was going to be able to get to the bottom of her accounting of the $5.45 million fraud and that I would do so by conducting an extensive cross-examination of Chan.   He said that he would need to be “paid” to do that.   I literally remember thinking the guy was a complete scum bag for saying something so very inappropriate.

By this time, I was beginning to see the slant this bozo was going to put on the story – I mean, how can you write an article that is not biased if you only know ONE side of the story based on a slanderous press release put out by the BCSC and refuse to listen to both sides unless you are paid?

As we walked through the lobby on the ground floor of the building – we finished our conversation and he says, “Oh, I forgot something and I have to go back this way…”.   I didn’t give it much thought and continued on my way out of the building.

As I walked out the front door and entered the sidewalk – some scum bag photographer (named Arlen Redekop) from the biased media walked up to me and started taking my picture.   Again, it became more and more abundantly clear the slant/angle these people were going to take and I expected the worse…

On the second day of the hearing, I made my way to Vancouver and just as I entered the hearing room I received a phone call from a friend asking me if I had seen the paper – I said I had not and he told me I was on the front cover with a headline that stated “Investors Millions Evaporate”.   I read the article and it was pathetic – he actually made fun of the way I presented my opening statement by opening the article with, “Just like his investors’ millions, Rodney Jack Wharram’s way with words seemed to evaporate Monday at the start of a hearing that could see him banned from the B.C. investment industry.  Wharram, who is representing himself at the B.C. Securities Commission hearing, frequently stumbled over his words as he faced allegations around $9.3 million he is alleged to have raised from investors between 2007 and 2010.”  I was nervous as I had NEVER been in a hearing room before (as a defendant) and I certainly did not know what to expect but I certainly did not stumble over words and I was NOT at a loss for words. Reviewing the transcripts of that day – I asked the Panel Chair several questions regarding procedure as I did not understand many aspects of presenting my evidence.    Considering I only spoke for about 5 minutes that entire day, I fail to see his logic in his reporting.

Second rate journalism is the ONLY way to describe his wording.   When the findings came out in February 2015, the Vancouver Province completely scrub the article written by Olsen – and who can blame them?  This is because the headline and story they (and the BCSC) tried to go with was NOT accurate.  To this day, the only place you can find it is here.  It is pretty ironic that they decided to go with this headline on the front page of the paper and then have an unrepresented defendant blow most of the allegations out of the water, including the money aspect.   Facts are – Investors Millions DID NOT evaporate as they tried to stuff down their readers throats.   It must have been very embarrassing for them ALL!

Fast forward to February of 2015, Olsen either lost his job with the local Chilliwack Times (or was transferred) to to an associated paper in Abbotsford, BC.   His replacement (in Chilliwack) was another so-called investigative journalist named Paul Henderson (“Henderson”).  My issues with Henderson are simple – he NEVER once tried to contact me for my side of the story before he wrote a very slanderous article in December 2015 – after the BCSC issued their decision.

The day this article hit the papers, a friend called me and informed me of the story – I immediately went to the Chilliwack Times to confront him.  I asked why he was not telling both sides of the story and that we had 94% of the dollar amount of the fraud allegations dismissed.  I explained I did not have a lawyer and tried to explain to him what was happening down at the BCSC with Staff not even presenting the Settlement Agreement to the Executive Director – this alone could have protected the investors in the project which IS their mandate!

He went back and edited a small portion of the article that hit the on-line edition of the Chilliwack Times – his story that went physically to press was different than the one that was on the internet – complete gong show!  He couldn’t even co-ordinate that properly – which again leads to questioning his professionalism.

I reached out to Henderson one final time (in May 2016) after I started this blog and asked if he was willing to meet – he made up some excuse of being too busy and said he could meet some time later the following week…I never heard back from him.  Like I said, I feel I have every right to question his professionalism.

Paul Henderson   

Source:  Facebook

A simple search of the internet and one can easily find a very derogatory photo which contains a comment regarding Henderson.   What a terrible thing to have written about you – whether it is true or not.  Albeit, one may conclude the graffiti (on his office wall)  was more than likely done by someone in retaliation for some biased article he wrote in an attempt to sell papers – it questions why citizens would go to this extent to write something so horrible about this man.

   Graffiti outside the Chilliwack Times 

Source: Facebook

In closing, we look at the facts and it is no wonder that the state of “media” is the way it is in this country when we see two reporters like these two who have no desire to get BOTH sides of a story before they go to press with their slanted theory of events.   When I went to Henderson’s office to confront him, he even spun what I said to him in private (off the record) into his story – and when I confronted him on that – he said, “nothing you said to me was private”.

A real investigative journalist should want to get to the bottom of a story and give independent details to inform their reader so that reader can form their own opinion – again, its no wonder people are not reading newspapers the way they use to.  Which leads to the likely reason why so many of these ‘propaganda spewing regurgitating robots’ are losing their jobs across the country.

Recently, we had one of our former investors reach out to ANYONE at the BCSC in an attempt to have her questions answered with respect to the Settlement Offer that would have benefited ALL former investors in FCC and DCF.

As per our suggestion in a previous blog post, she eagerly sent an email to the BCSC’s and awaited a reply.  As you will see in the following emails in this blog, she certainly did NOT get the replies that one would think she would be entitled to – considering what was at stake AND the mandate of the BCSC to protect the investors in the jurisdiction of British Columbia.

In the first email below, you first see newly appointed Executive Director Peter Brady attempt to answer (or as we will call it – deflect) her questions.   Of note, he does reply,

“…However, I can assure you that our policy is to consider all settlement offers…”

We will remind ALL readers that we tried desperately to get our Settlement Offer into the hands of the Executive Director (at the time it was Paul Bourque) but in written correspondence, the lawyers (C. Paige Leggat and Olubode Fagbamiye) acting for the BCSC said they would only present the settlement offer to the Executive Director IF Wharram admitted all wrong-doing alleged in the Notice of Hearing and paid fines and disgorgement of $5.8 million.  

Mr. Brady dances very swiftly around answering the questions – some of which have NOTHING to do with what was inside the settlement offer.   The investor is NOT asking the terms of the settlement agreement – she was simply asking IF there was one and why staff litigators did NOT show it to the Executive Director at the time.   I really don’t think she cared about the “terms” of the settlement offer.

Now, she decided that she did not like the answer she received from Mr. Brady so she decided to email him again – and AGAIN Mr. Brady abruptly shuts down ANY questions regarding the settlement offer and hides behind some sort of confidentiality policy the commission may or may not adhere to.  His response is as follows:

Do any of you now see that these people are hiding something?  ALL former investors in FCC and/or DCF have a right to know why a settlement offer that was presented by Wharram to the BCSC that would have benefited you in NOT none of your business.   These people are hiding behind one of the biggest mistakes made in the history of the BCSC.

In closing – they won’t answer me and I am not part of some confidentiality policy and NOW they wont answer  one of the investors?    Who are they accountable to?  Who will they answer?

 BCSC Executive Director Peter Brady

Source:  Small Business BC

At least we know now what type of man newly crowned Mr. Peter Brady truly is – he fits in with the rest of the spineless amoeba’s down at the good ole BC Securities Commission.

Answer the question Mr. Brady – Why did Staff not take the Settlement Offer (that would have seen the investors in FCC and DCF prosper) to the Executive Director for even a review; instead of trying to extort $5.8 million in fines and disgorgement from Wharram? 

Former Investors – contact the BCSC and demand an answer to this question – it may have caused you the ability to receive a portion (if not all) of your money back out of the Falls project.   Contact them – 604-899-6500!

The hearing into our matter started on April 7, 2014  – on March 24, 2014 (only 2 weeks earlier), Staff sent correspondence to numerous investors in FCC and DCF asking for them to fill out an Investor Impact Statement (“IIS”).    Along with this request, in many instances investors were sent links to the very slanderous press release where the Respondents were WRONGLY accused of not advancing the majority of the funds to the Developer – some $5.45 million dollars.

The problem with sending the IIS in March was the Respondents had not even stepped foot in the hearing room – and we would like to have thought we were innocent until proven guilty – not the other way around! But it does not appear this is the case when one goes up against the BCSC.

And the problems with the IIS statements as a document are MANY – first of all there is NO disclaimer indicating the allegations have yet to be proven.  The document literally using wording such as “the offence” and “the securities violation” in their questions.   This is PRE-LOADING an investors response – putting it in their minds that the Respondents committed the allegations. Take a look:

Investor Impact Statement – Blank

Imagine your being an investor who had just been told that someone you placed money with had committed a $5.45 million fraud, bought his wife a grocery store, and had personal vehicles restored – and then being asked to fill out a document asking you how you felt?   Many of the IIS we received were very one-sided with angry language.   We must admit, we would feel the same way if we only knew half of the story or were told untruths by the government regulator.

There is NO reason to do this before the hearing –  there are many days/weeks/months  to obtain them after the Findings document was made public by the Panel.   Speaking of the Panel, we argued in our written submissions that there should be little to no weight put on the IIS for the very reasons outlined in this blog.    What did they think?

We were pleased they agreed with us!  But we think that the Panel missed the point raised in our submissions.   The investors that appeared at the hearing appeared to be bitter and were angry at the one-sided story they had been told.  This affects the way the hearing was “heard” by the Panel and created a bias in the hearing room that was very difficult for the Respondent to overcome.   There is NO doubt that the press release and inciting the investor to immediately put their thoughts down on paper influenced our hearing.   How could it not?

But it just shows again how strong Staff at the BCSC thought their case was against the Respondents when it was not.   It’s items like this that really show the pathetic methods ensuring they gain the victory in a hearing room – not appearing to care about ethics.

Inciting the investors to turn against the Respondent BEFORE the hearing is as low as it can get and truly shows this agency feels they are above the law when preparing for a hearing.

Thank you again for reaching out to us….

As for your questions/comments, our answers are as follows (answered in order in which we received them):

1.  No, that is not an option for obvious reasons;
2. Possibly – but we will have to meet you face to face to discuss in detail and this is dependent on the details to be discussed at the meeting;
3. Yes!!!;
4. Yes..but again, we would like to meet in person to discuss;
5. Brenda Leong, C. Paige Leggat, Olubode Fagbamiye, Paul Bourque and Teresa Mitchel-Banks;
6. No;
7. Yes.

We look forward to hearing back from you in the same manner.

Regards,

RW

Today, we attempted to call BCSC Litigator OLUBODE FAGBAMIYE and he hung up the phone like a scared little parasite…

I thought I had seen it all – this might just take it all for the win!   I bet you he nearly jumps out of his seat every time his phone rings!!  What a joke – this is the type of spineless amoeba that the Law Society of BC continues to protect?

It is official – the BCSC (and its Staff) are the laughing stock of Vancouver!!   I mean really – hanging up the phone – I thought only 15 year old little girls did that!!   LOL!

Talk to you soon Mr. Fagbamiye!!

Staff at the Law Society of British Columbia have made it very clear they have no intention of assisting us in our plight to get answers from the Staff at the British Columbia Securities Commission.  They too, have decided to keep their heads in the sand and the fact they will not even investigate our complaint would lead us to believe they too are in on this massive cover-up!

In a recent letter sent to us – the Law Society acknowledge they have received our candid emails sent in December 2016 and the early part of January 2017 but indicate they would like to be removed from our email list.

This is most unfortunate considering they exist because of instances like this – they are there to make sure their lawyers act accordingly as defined in their Act and their Code of Professional Conduct.   One can easily see that they have a portion of their office that is there to investigate complaints regarding lawyers in the Province of BC.   We have a complaint and these people have elected to not do an investigation!   What a joke!

And to be clear, we formally complained about the actions of Staff in 2015 (specifically Staff manipulating the evidence in our case and why Staff did not take our Settlement Proposal to the Executive Director of the BCSC).  That was then – this is now!

Our latest letters focused on the fact that the BCSC’s Cracker Jack Lawyer (Olubode Fagbamiye) has not responded to our numerous letters demanding answers to our simple questions.    This is completely separate from our initial complaint but it appears some flunky named Lynne Knights of the Law Society of BC, is easily confused or she had not read the emails I sent to her.    And we can see that she has opened files in the past – a complaint of a non-practicing lawyer that killed a neighbors rabbits was opened by Knights in 2010.   I guess our complaint just doesn’t make the sniff test down at the Law Society these days – or the bozos at the Commission are immune from accusations of wrongdoing!  This whole system at the Law Society is broke and needs to be fixed!   And it should start with the immediate termination of the incompetent Lynne Knights!

The Law Society of BC’s website boldly states, “The legal profession takes seriously its commitment to maintain high ethical standards.”  but they will not investigate a complaint from a citizen concerned with the actions of one of their members?    This reeks of “protecting their own at any cost” or they are just another agency run by a bunch of misfits.

For any of the former investors in FCC or DCF that want to contact Ms. Knights directly to lodge a complaint about Mr. Fagbamiye, please do so at her email address:

lknights@lsbc.org

She can’t ignore all of us!

At the conclusion of our hearing, the Panel Chair NIGEL CAVE instructed both parties to complete Written Submission on Liability.  These documents argued the points brought up during the hearing and gave the parties the ability to prove (or disprove) the allegations brought forward in the Notice of Hearing.

One of the key documents involved in the hearing was the Offering Memorandum(s) (“OM’s”) used by the Respondents to raise capital.  For those that invested with the Respondents, you will remember this document as one you were given at the time you invested.    The BCSC (and other securities jurisdictions) allow an OM Exemption when raising capital in the securities market.

On May 16, 2014, the Respondents received the Executive Directors Submissions on Liability and began reviewing the points brought forward by Staff.    Staff Litigators Olubode Fagbamiye and C. Paige Leggat prepared the document on behalf of the Executive Director.

We read them from cover to cover a couple of different times and soon noticed something very particular….

Unfortunately, at paragraph #10 of their submissions, Staff resorted to physically changing the appearance of the document.   We feel they did this to suite their theory (and main allegation) that the Respondents did not forward the MAJORITY of the funds to the Developer.   This was the big $5.45 million fraud allegation that was ultimately dismissed by the Panel.   Let’s take a look at paragraph #10 as it appears in their submissions….

And now, for those of you that don’t have the FCC or DCF Offering Memorandums in front of you, this is how the document looked – keep in mind this document was relied upon at all times to raise capital for the projects, and Staff were suppose to have the onus of proving the case as alleged in the Notice of Hearing:

Staff (in paragraph 10) took Section 1.2 on page 5 of the FCC OM, merged it with Section 2.2 which is 2 pages later.  They then highlighted both portions they manipulated (in yellow) to give an appearance that they were from the same section.  In the first highlighted yellow box it states, “The Corporation is raising funds pursuant to this Offering for the purpose of lending the majority of the funds raised hereunder for the purpose of meeting its financial contribution obligations as set forth in item 2.2.3 below (the “FCC” Loan”).   The catch here though is they placed the portion from 2.2 above section 1.2 in their submissions.  Section 2.2 includes the word ‘hereunder’ which the reader would automatically think was the second yellow highlighted box.   The second box then uses the words “majority of proceeds” and “financial obligations”.   They complete their manipulation by omitting the title “Use of Net Proceeds” all together.

For those of you that do not understand the significance of these actions of Staff, we will try to explain it this way…originally when the Executive Director brought forward the allegations of fraud, they took a simple grade 2 math equation (the amount of the cheques written to the developer AND the amount of commission paid to sales people were subtracted by the total amount of funds raised).   They did not consider ANY other of the valid business expenses incurred by the corporation that were allowed under the OM’s.   In their allegations, they stated the Respondents did not advance the majority of the funds to the Developer which was wrong!    The Respondents (who did not have a lawyer) proved this allegation to be wrong by repeatedly asking the Lead Investigator (the flunky Elizabeth Chan) questions during the cross examination.   It is VERY apparent that Staff relied on basic, summary evidence that was only a small portion of the actually story – these were very complex, intertwined companies and Staff had all the information (bank records, credit card statements, etc.) but failed to bring strong compelling evidence to the hearing.

To this day, we are not sure why Staff’s Bigshot Litigators felt they needed to manipulate the evidence they had before them.  We have had people speculate that once the hearing was over they realized their case was not as strong as they had once thought so they needed to resort to something like this.   That maybe because the Respondents were self-represented, they thought they might be able to sneak this past.

Either way, this shows the playing field one faces when going against an internally run regulator.    Nobody seems to be accountable – as an example, during the hearing the Respondents asked repeatedly (IN FRONT OF THE PANEL) for the litigator (Olubode Fagbamiye) to explain his actions to which he did not even acknowledge the question.    We still question WHY the Panel Chair did not stop the proceedings and ask the litigator IF my our allegations were true and/or WHY they did this.    The Commission for intense and purposes appears to be a Kangaroo Court – where the judge, jury and executioner all work in the same office space.

Interesting enough, right after the Respondents submitted their Reply Submissions on Liability (in July 2014  where we accused them of manipulating the document) the other Staff Litigator who’s name is on the document (C. Paige Legatt) resigned.    She resigned and we have never had the chance to ask her whether or not she takes credit for manipulation.     Again, what are these people hiding?  Complete scumbags!     If they would have come in with a reasonable number there is a great chance we would have been able to negotiate a settlement and could have had our investors participate in the Deercrest development without any involvement from us.

Shame on the BCSC!!