Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : SLJB - Sulja Brothers Building Supply, Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Done, gone. who wrote (760)	11/28/2006 8:24:04 PM
From: scion	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1681

I'm sure Cameila had no chance of convincing the bank that it was their error to accept the Vucicevich deposit as shown on the cheque (to use the English-Canadian spelling). Someone evidently altered the amount, and it wasn't her. It must have taken quite a long time to for the various investigations, and it seems the RCMP were involved at one stage. I noticed that her resignation from the Ontario bar was recorded in June 2006. What I find intriguing is that she lost track of Vucicevich until her husband alerted her to the Windsor Star article.

To: Done, gone. who wrote (760)	11/28/2006 8:25:17 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1681

To recap, according to exoskeletal, a $143.00 deposit was put down for a $143,000.00 equipment sale. PV then allegedly altered the check to reflect the full amount: PV was selling some type of machinery for 143 thousand dollars , he got a deposit from the buyer for 143.00 ( one hunderd forty three ) He had the buyer make the cheque out to Camilla to put in the law firm trust act. PV somehow "tampered "with the cheque, and put 143 THOUSAND on it !!! He had Camilla w/d the money out of trust right away, then 5 days later, the cheque came back " TAmpered and forged " Message 23045467 The only glaring problem here is that most people put 10% down for a deposit, or at least 1%, not .01%. But I do believe there is merit to the story and much relevance to SLJB given that it doesn't matter how good a company is if the CEO who controls the purse strings is corrupt. - Jeff