Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[Johnik]

The thing is, readers of this board have only seen copies of a cover letter and 2 summonses, not the order itself, and as you quoted "An order under this section shall describe the matter to be investigated".

An interesting point, but I am lacking your knowledge of what readers of this board have apparently seen. I see the one summons you linked us to; got a second one for my curious eyes?

Or perhaps you meant a copy of two cover letters and a single summons, which I see from your links.

https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/tTdadx
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/rUiada

That is, one cover letter dated 04/04/12 from Brent Hornberger identifying an enclosed summons, one "Form 1 Summons" from Brent Hornberger also dated 04/04/12, and one cover letter from Helen Daley dated 04/05/12 that identifies the enclosure of one summons and one cover letter from Mr. Hornberger.

If I may ask, why did you opt to post the 04/04/12 cover letter from Mr. Hornberger separate from the 04/04/12 summons from Mr. Hornberger, and instead post Mr. Hornberger's 04/04/12 summons together with the 04/05/12 cover letter from Helen Daley?

Also, I am having trouble reconciling these two assertions:

Whoever has provided these redacted summons copies has thought this through very thoroughly. The law is very clear about it being a violation to either 1)identify themselves or 2)reveal the contents of the order under which they were summoned. They have done neither.

You may not agree, but I think it is common sense that the subject matter of the order somehow involves JBI.....the risk to those who have provided the documents suggesting that that is the case is too great for that implication to have been made falsely.

The person who disclosed this summons either (1) revealed the "nature or content" of the order, or (2) did not. You seem to be suggesting that it is "common sense" that the nature (or subject matter) of the order involves JBI based on the documents disclosed, while at the same time stating that the person who disclosed such documents did not reveal the nature of the order. Which one is it? Or have I misunderstood, and you really do not know one way or another what the nature of the order is in the documents you have linked us to?