Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[Johnik]

I should have said that the only things that have been posted to this board are copies of 2 cover letters referencing enclosed summonses . . . .

There you go with the plural "summonses" again. If you still think your links (or the links you copied from someone else) identify more than one summons, then I really don't know what to say. I guess we interpret these differently:

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

I thought that the point of the post was simple enough.
I was responding to the following incorrect assertion:
"If it has anything to do with JBII whatsoever, it is required to describe so by the very regulations cited in the correspondence:"
The linked documents are not required to carry such a description. The order itself hasn't been posted to this board. Hence, the people that provided the documents, having neither identified themselves nor the contents of the order (at least we have had no proof of that ON THE BOARD) have not broken the law.

You are correct in that the "linked documents" are not required by regulation to describe the matter being investigated; but the Commission's order is required to carry such a description. So, if I understand correctly, in your view the recipient of a summons to testify on a matter described in an order issued by the OSC (under section 11) is free to disclose the nature of the investigation identified in the order so long as the recipient does not post the order itself (or quote the "contents of the order")?

If you really believe that does not run afoul of this:

Except in accordance with section 17, no person or company shall disclose at any time, except to his, her or its counsel,

(a) the nature or content of an order under section 11 or 12

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90s05_f.htm#s16s1

. . . then it would seem rather odd that someone would report this reaction to the post in the "anecdotal link" you guided me to:

I forwarded that link to brent hornberger, he is doing the interveiws and was not happy stating that was supposed to be confidential information.

To be clear, it really doesn't bother me one bit that the documents at issue were publicized on a message board. I love to learn the facts. I just find the circumstances of the disclosure, coupled with the defense thereof, rather curious.

If you choose to believe that the documents aren't related to an order that involves an investigation of the activities of
JB/JBI, that's fine.....I'm sure whatever evidence you have of that provides you comfort that that is the case.

That's not what I "choose to believe" at all. I have no idea what those redacted documents, or the suggestive remarks accompanying them, involve. I know that I have not been served with a subpoena, nor have the other JBI shareholders I have spoken to personally about this, but that in no way means that the reported investigation is not related to JBI. (I mention shareholders only because of comments like this: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=74350660.) I would not be surprised to learn that it does have something to do with JBI, whatever that something may be, but unfortunately all that I have encountered so far are a few suggestive assertions and representations on the nature of the investigation by anonymous individuals (i.e., nothing official).

The answer to this question should be provided by the OSC, hopefully soon. I look forward to it and any comments that you might have about it.

Now THAT is a statement I can agree with. I look forward to any comments that you might have as well.