Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[Johnik]

The law does not prohibit a person from merely acknowledging the receipt of a summons....or shouting it from a rooftop for that matter.

That's interesting, before you instructed as follows:

Maybe you missed the part about it being illegal for those shareholders to tell you that they had received a subpoena, if they had.

I tend to agree more with your prior position, given that one who receives a summons to testify before the OSC should not announce that the OSC seeks to examine them. The OSC noted such in the very letter that was posted here. It is also embodied in the regulation itself:

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; or

(b) the name of any person examined or sought to be examined under section 13, any testimony given under section 13, any information obtained under section 13, the nature or content of any questions asked under section 13, the nature or content of any demands for the production of any document or other thing under section 13, or the fact that any document or other thing was produced under section 13. (emphasis added)

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90s05_e.htm#BK33

What you are missing is that something must have been disclosed to the person who published the documents at issue (again, accepting the veracity of the poster for the sake of argument); otherwise there would be no reason to have published those documents here. Stated differently, absent such disclosure, there would be no reason for someone who merely stumbled across those documents, already in their redacted form, to then somehow surmise that the documents involve an investigation relating to JBI or involve a JBI shareholder, post the documents to this board based on such revelation, and convince readers such as yourself that the documents relate to an investigation pertaining to JBI. In the off chance that the recipient of the summons at issue decided to make redactions to the documents and then send them to the person who in turn posted them here, but without ever identifying his or herself or the nature of the investigation at issue, then sure in that case there is no violation. If that's the case, however, then what would be the basis for concluding that the investigation relates to JBI, and with the confidence reflected in these posts?

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=74350660
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=74360746

I do not wish to beat a dead horse over this any further, so I will leave you with the last word (not that I would ever expect to get it).

As for this:

This is getting a little harder to believe as time goes on:
"To be clear, it really doesn't bother me one bit that the documents at issue were publicized on a message board."

Believe whatever you want, but I will stand by my statements. Indeed, I would like to learn much more about whatever OSC proceeding has been associated with JBI based on those redacted documents. I would prefer, however, to learn the details from a credible source.