Monday, May 26, 2014 1:26:08 AM
REALITY INDEED
(1) Nobody said free-trading is important and Bordynuik "expressly denies" the allegations, and the OSC accepted that denial and "the allegations against JBI, Inc. are withdrawn."
(2) Since Bordynuik "expressly denies" the allegations, and the OSC accepted that denial and "the allegations against JBI, Inc. are withdrawn," there was no "illegal scheme," then his mother and children weren't "dragged into" anything.
(3) There is no evidence that free-trading was important. That is a made-up allegation for which there is zero evidence to back it up. In fact, Bordynuik "expressly denies" the allegations, and the OSC accepted that denial and "the allegations against JBI, Inc. are withdrawn."
(4) There is no evidence that the 14 recipients of free-trading shares "needed" them free trading versus the shares just happened to be free trading due to the nature of a private transaction in which shares traded hands between free-willed individuals. Furthermore, Bordynuik "expressly denies" the allegations, and the OSC accepted that denial and "the allegations against JBI, Inc. are withdrawn."
(5) There is no reason for the filings to disclose the private exchange of shares between individuals any more than if I were to give some of my shares to my niece in a private transaction as a high school graduation gift. John Bordynuik's filings, likewise, wouldn't have to be updated if they were never his shares to begin with. In other examples of John Bordynuik giving away his personal shares they were disclosed in filings as necessary to be disclosed. Furthermore, there would be nothing new to disclose in the filings since Bordynuik "expressly denies" the allegations, and the OSC accepted that denial and "the allegations against JBI, Inc. are withdrawn."
(6) Likewise, if shares are given for services by a private shareholder to another, they don't have to be disclosed to the company. On another board, somebody pointed out that it's like a private shareholder picking up the electric bill tab as a gift. I'll take it another step -- if a lawyer works pro bono for JBII, the services are booked as free for the filings even if I privately take the lawyer out to dinner and thank him. He can even order dessert, but that doesn't have to be disclosed in the filings. Anything I privately give him while he does work for JBII is none of JBII's business. Either way, it doesn't really matter anyway, since Bordynuik "expressly denies" the allegations, and the OSC accepted that denial and "the allegations against JBI, Inc. are withdrawn."
(1) Nobody said free-trading is important and Bordynuik "expressly denies" the allegations, and the OSC accepted that denial and "the allegations against JBI, Inc. are withdrawn."
(2) Since Bordynuik "expressly denies" the allegations, and the OSC accepted that denial and "the allegations against JBI, Inc. are withdrawn," there was no "illegal scheme," then his mother and children weren't "dragged into" anything.
(3) There is no evidence that free-trading was important. That is a made-up allegation for which there is zero evidence to back it up. In fact, Bordynuik "expressly denies" the allegations, and the OSC accepted that denial and "the allegations against JBI, Inc. are withdrawn."
(4) There is no evidence that the 14 recipients of free-trading shares "needed" them free trading versus the shares just happened to be free trading due to the nature of a private transaction in which shares traded hands between free-willed individuals. Furthermore, Bordynuik "expressly denies" the allegations, and the OSC accepted that denial and "the allegations against JBI, Inc. are withdrawn."
(5) There is no reason for the filings to disclose the private exchange of shares between individuals any more than if I were to give some of my shares to my niece in a private transaction as a high school graduation gift. John Bordynuik's filings, likewise, wouldn't have to be updated if they were never his shares to begin with. In other examples of John Bordynuik giving away his personal shares they were disclosed in filings as necessary to be disclosed. Furthermore, there would be nothing new to disclose in the filings since Bordynuik "expressly denies" the allegations, and the OSC accepted that denial and "the allegations against JBI, Inc. are withdrawn."
(6) Likewise, if shares are given for services by a private shareholder to another, they don't have to be disclosed to the company. On another board, somebody pointed out that it's like a private shareholder picking up the electric bill tab as a gift. I'll take it another step -- if a lawyer works pro bono for JBII, the services are booked as free for the filings even if I privately take the lawyer out to dinner and thank him. He can even order dessert, but that doesn't have to be disclosed in the filings. Anything I privately give him while he does work for JBII is none of JBII's business. Either way, it doesn't really matter anyway, since Bordynuik "expressly denies" the allegations, and the OSC accepted that denial and "the allegations against JBI, Inc. are withdrawn."
The SwingTrade Portfolio is up 18.6% YTD, 83.5% in 2013, and 432.1% since inception.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=99801087
