Sometimes-- not always -- I suggest "appearances" can be deceiving. That is different than suggesting something is/was "improper."
Things that get "brushed off" about JBI-Delaware:
1. John's Delaware company is the "source" of the "IPO" shareholders. Those shareholders are at a "base" below the current share price and therefore should be considered as a contributor to the current selling pressure.
2. The "assets" were sold to JBI-Nevada, but the "contracts" are serviced through JBI-Delaware. When the "point" of John's salary is brought up, it blindly focuses on JBI-NV's "agreement" and "heralds" John for it (the act, contribution, noble deed, etc.). So until the "funds" (as worded in the 10K) from each contract start/end at JBI-NV, John may indeed be getting paid through JBI-DE. Nothing improper about it, but by not accounting for this, the posts about the $1 salary are "deceptively" promulgated IMO
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
