One way to find out. As a shareholder, go ahead and make the request. Let us know what response you get.

We "may soon know" lots of things -- or we may not. The time for "maybe this or that wonderful event will happen soon" is behind us. It is high time for management to show shareholders the money -- not veiled indications that great things may be right around the corner. As for non-shareholders, I don't much care what they do or don't think or say.

Hope is not a strategy.

Let me make sure I understand what you are predicting by asking some simple questions. Are you predicting that jbii is going to run from nineteen cents to $40? Just what is the approximate size of the short position that needs to be covered for such a dramatic run to take place? What is the approximate timeframe when you believe this run will occur?

Where are the processor sales you predicted?

What is the status of the processor sales you've been predicting?

That may have something to do with many people believing that after "all, of the pending news" hits -- they will look down and their socks will still be on their feet.

You keep talking about impending sales and strongly imply that you already know the identity of the buyer(s) -- and that when announced it is going "to blow everyone's minds."

What is holding up the sale(s)?

You may be ready to use the word "when" in that last sentence, but I'm not quite there yet. I think that "if" is still far more accurate.

Yes, I did. Lots of grand hopes and intentions but zero yet in the way of execution and we are almost three months down the road from December 10.

The reality I see is a couple million shares sold for a nickel each and another CFO gone. Hope is really nice -- but hope is not a strategy.

You mean there's even better news on the way besides financing at a nickel and the CFO leaving?? Hot damn, I'm going to run out and buy some knee high socks in the hopes they stay on after the really big WOW WOW news hits!

I can understand the "high fives" over the recent rise in the share price. What I don't understand is selling a couple million shares at a price under one-fifth of the current price! That defies any rational explanation and is pretty hard to "high five" unless you're short.

So there is about to be "news" shared "with everyone." Pray tell, just what would that be? Another few million shares sold to raise less money than the SEC fine? WOW, WOW!!

Do you think that all the "high fives hand slapping" were for the "victory" of selling all those shares at five cents -- or for the CFO leaving?

Deal. I will bring the Harlan Estate, Screaming Eagle and Kistler to wash it down with.

Gort, if this makes it to $4 I'm buying dinner at Rao's or Gotham B&G -- your pick. If it clears $5 we're heading to Le Bernardin.

Are the current rumors even better than the WOW WOW Holy mofo Sheet knock your socks off rumor from last month?? By the way, what ever happened to that one anyway?

I had to buy a new pair of socks after the news from the AGM knocked my old pair so far I still have never found them!

Why do you assume that short covering was taking place?

Whatever the WOW, WOW, WOW news is -- I am hopeful that it rockets this hot little stock back up to thirty cents -- where it was before that AGM that knocked everyone's socks off!

Exactly what is your basis for saying that the sale of 4 and 5 are imminent?

Thank you for clarifying that the number I am seeing for the price per share of jbii is merely the product of a "reset" and not a real number.

Foolish me. I was concerned there for a moment.

Any thoughts yet regarding my questions?

Your post prompts several questions. I am hopeful that they can be answered clearly and concisely (with the possible exception of the last one) but we shall see.

1. When you reference "pros" with "real probs" am I correct that you are referrring to entities who hold an alleged large, naked short position in this stock? By the way, I am expressing no view on whether such a position exists - or whether it has ever existed.

2. Would you agree that if such a position still exists that it has been extremely profitable, to date, for its holders?

3. How does one know whether, and to what extent, these entities have been covering their short positions as the stock has move down over time? Can that be ruled out?

4. Assuming that you are correct in saying that these "pros" are somehow in trouble regarding any remaining short positions, are you now predicting a sharp move up in the share price?

My last question may not be so easy, but I still would like your views. Let's assume that there really are people who want to buy a processor (or several) from jbi. Let's further assume that they are able to read and write, are not village idiots, and are at least sophisticated enough in commercial transactions to the point that they require a meaningful, iron clad performance guarantee for the processor(s) in exchange for their millions of dollars. Given what I believe to be the still uncertain state of the performance of processor 3, and given the financial status of the company, how will a buyer receive a performance guarantee satisfactory to carry through with the purchase?

If you are not concerned about when proof of concept occurs, then you must also not care about the terms of future financings. Because the two are directly related.

The AGM will occur three-fourths of the way through Q4. If you are correct that through-put is steadily increasing through the quarter, do you anticipate that "proof of concept" occurs by the AGM? If not, why? And just how do we measure "proof of concept?"

While the sale of one or more processors in the near future is a nice goal, there are many hurdles to accomplishing that from the standpoint of terms and conditions if a buyer has even half a brain.

Please clarify your post. Who are you referring to when you refer to "the people who are supposed to benefit from the process?"

Cuban had offers to settle from the SEC but told them no. I would estimate that his defense cost somewhere between five and ten million dollars. To him, that is a rounding error -- a meaningless sum of money. Not many people (or companies) are in that financial position. As today's Wall Street Journal notes (p.A14), rather than spend the money to fight the SEC, "Most people pay the fines and move on." JBI clearly was not in the same financial positon as Mark Cuban. Thus, they did what most people do.

It is easy to judge the SEC's case against Cuban in hindsight, after a verdict. But you have no better ability to judge the strength of the case against JBI than the rest of us -- there is often a huge difference between the claims made in pleadings and what the real "evidence" will turn out to show. For you to profess to somehow be able to "predict" the outcome of a trial is absurd.

Few things are worse than erroneous speculation.

Total bs.

You say that "formal discovery had not taken place" but then say that "there were depositions made public."

One of these statements has to be false. Which is it?

If you are that upset with the terms of Mr. Heddle's most recent investment, call the company and raise hell. IR is always happy to speak with concerned shareholders!

"Not surprising for a scam company."

Are you saying this company is a scam?

I had very little concern over the Nevada suit before this. Now my concern level is somewhere below zero.

I also find it highly interesting that these important questions have been met with silence. That silence speaks volumes, in my view.

I'm glad that people have now figured out who the "puppet master" was.

I appreciate John Wesson blowing the whistle on what was an intolerable situation with "leadership."

While I believe that Sherlock's comments have some merit, as a long-time shareholder, I am not nearly as spun up about the situation. Is it ideal? Of course not. But I doubt that there was much in the way of more attractive financing alternatives available to the company right now. If I am wrong about that, I would like for someone who really knows to spell them out the facts in detail. In addition, my impression is that leadership has taken a decided step up in the vitally important "integrity" category -- and now also has meaningful "skin in the game." I tend to place value in the views of real live shareholders. Others -- not so much.

It will be interesting to learn more about the Nevada federal court suit and who is really behind it. Notice I said who is really behind it. As I think Johnik pointed out earlier on this board, the allegation on behalf of the plaintiff is that a "breach of contract" results in a "federal question" giving rise to jurisdiction in U.S. district court. That demonstrates an utter and complete lack of understanding of federal court jurisdiction and I will leave it at that.

Gort, thanks to you and the yacht club gang for interrupting the gin rummy game long enough to take out those blocking shares.

Gort, have one of the yacht club guys knock out those blocks right ahead of us and we're off to the races. He could do it for less than the cost of a tank of fuel on a 175 footer.

Interesting that since the decision on the motion didn't dispose of the whole case that you regard it as merely a "commentary about a motion." On the contrary, I think that the decision on the motion has, in reality, effectively disposed of the whole case. When a plaintiff is the subject of findings that strong, they are circling the drain -- and the drain plug is nowhere to be found.

I'm not sure I understand the upshot of your last paragraph, but I agree with you that neither of us knows or cares much about Sandra Elsley. So I'll pass on the invitation to delve into anything she does (or doesn't do) any further. But you holler loud if you have a change of heart.

I have paid little attention to the case before Judge Nightingale since his decision last March. Given the judge's findings, there wasn't any reason to do so. I don't recall seeing the complaint in the case but the judge's decision is so complete that I doubt that it left much for the imagination.

The court made some extremely significant (and repeated) findings which do not bode well for Ms. Elsley as litigant. First, the judge found that she had not even made a prima facie case. When you are a plaintiff and the judge says that about your case -- you are in a world of hurt. Beyond that, the judge also made repeated findings of material "nondisclosure" by the plaintiff, in addition to finding that she provided information to the court that was "clearly wrong." Again, when a litigant is on the receiving end of findings that strong there is a major problem.

So if Ms. Elsley files another lawsuit, she is going to have Judge Nightingale's numerous and repeated findings regarding her veracity and truthfulness (or lack thereof) presented to the judge in the new case. If you think that doesn't poison the well, you had best think again. If she had meritorious claims, she would have presented them in the case before Judge Nightingale. She didn't. So I'm not too concerned about any other lawsuit she may file. But that's just my opinion. If you (or others) want to wring your hands speculating over any of her possible futher claims, have at it.

The Ontario judge pretty much laid waste to the veracity of Ms. Elsley and her "claims" in no uncertain terms. She will have an uphill battle with any additional lawsuit she files and shareholders shouldn't lose much sleep over anything additional she concocts. The motive of her and her handlers is pretty clear by now.

Your final statement is correct.

Yet another clear indication that the company is intentionally delaying in seating a BOD. I have sent similar emails to the company and have received the same response -- nothing. Given the stonewalling behavior, you have done the correct thing by going public.

As I have said before, there is no question in my mind but that there are powerful forces at work here and they don't have the best interests of the rank-and-file shareholders in mind.