Replies to post #13270 on Intl BioChemical Industries Inc fka IBCL

[SRT8]

George...I really appreciate your response....I am not as astute in making replies as you are, so I shall respond in blurps and bytes....

I liked Irv a lot and that is why I goaded him so much...it made him come out of his shell...!!!! As a matter of fact he is one of the few that have ever said that they liked me.....ah..how sweet...gives me big..big head...size 13 hat...Offered to buy me a huge steak if I would come and vist him in the PINES.

Poor little thing...stick in eye....not fun....tell your daughter that you will pull up some TIGGER stuff for her to make her hurtie go away and feel better.

A ruse to get you up and off your fanny and problems to post on this "dead pony"...not exactly true, even though I knew that you may respond. My intent was to have some one...any one ...respond and explain to me how this stock shall ever again rise from the ashes....

CBEEMER...I did receive some information from her RB posts that was informative as all I could get from the court site was some basic case info.

give up in defeat not your style....not mine either, however it is difficult to look in the mirror and see what I see...an image of a person that made a very large mistake based on the faith put in the integrity of those at Biosheild....I don't cotton to being "HAD". I am embarrassed to let others know that I had invested in IBCL.

Thanks for the updates on the phone calls...will await later update when you have time.

Say ...HI...to the little one


Point of information....CVS has Labatts on sale....12 cans for 6.99.....great sale here in Mi.

thanks...Larry

[jurisper]

GG:

... it appears the SEC is interested in a customer of IBCL and is using the IBCL case to "attempt" to obtain financial information.

Very unlikely, IMO. The docket cbeemer posted referred to the original SEC action docket (still open). The customer privacy provisions referenced almost certainly refer to the relationship between Bank One, and its (probable) customers TM/IBCL. More than likely, this is part of the penalties determination phase from the original action.

Just to refresh, the wording in the original SEC release:

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr17991.htm

According to the Court's orders, the issue of civil penalties to be paid by IBCL and Moses, if any, will be resolved at a later date.