i have a tough time believing that that sec complaint was actually *authored* by a *purported* sec employee
it's easy to DD prior complaints within the boston office and do some comparisons
there aren't any quite as >> er >> wordy essentially stating the same *info* 20 times over it struck me as odd from the git go >> almost as if compensated by the word written
just another oddity in amongst a few others where the sec and jbi and domark are concerned
A SEC attorney used the word 'purported' in a Federal Fraud case
The company's own auditor used the words 'adverse opinion' in their audit.
The company management used the words 'We have not performed an in-depth analysis to determine if in the past undiscovered failures of internal controls exist'
Thanks for reminding everyone of that specious wording. Maybe there is some reason to think that there are influences biasing the prosecution of JBII by the sec.
Who here would claim that the sec is immaculate???