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.

Pastimes : Plastics to Oil - Pyrolysis and Secret Catalysts and Alterna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SteveF who wrote (21850)	4/6/2012 9:36:33 AM
From: scion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

What I do think could make for problems down the road is that Bordynuik and the company chose to file a joint Answer. janice shell Thursday, April 05, 2012 10:11:39 PM Re: loanranger post# 175381 Post # of 175454 In any legal action, defendants normally don't have identical interests. Should any of them choose joint representation, it can be a problem. siliconinvestor.com loanranger Thursday, April 05, 2012 10:08:09 PM Re: janice shell post# 175345 Post # of 175454 "What I do think could make for problems down the road is that Bordynuik and the company chose to file a joint Answer." I don't think all 3 parties having a common attorney is problem-free either. If all the players weren't so darned angelic I'd guess that some strategically planned interruptions are in our future. siliconinvestor.com Scandle34 Thursday, April 05, 2012 8:49:43 PM Re: janice shell post# 175345 Post # of 175454 holding a super-majority of the voting rights, he is going down with the ship or vice versa, but I see Baldwin taking the fall. siliconinvestor.com janice shell Thursday, April 05, 2012 7:59:25 PM Re: arvitar post# 175256 Post # of 175454 What an adolescent, machismo, irresponsible response to a federal lawsuit by a CEO of a public company. Actually it's a pretty standard Answer. Some people opt to be as brief as possible, reserving affirmative defenses; others go to the affirmative defenses right away. But there's nothing unusual about this filing. What I do think could make for problems down the road is that Bordynuik and the company chose to file a joint Answer. siliconinvestor.com

To: SteveF who wrote (21850)	4/6/2012 9:59:41 AM
From: scion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

...which was ultimately cleared with the SEC. <~~~untlimately [sic] cleared with the SEC? That's it then, if the SEC lawyers can just stop laughing, and carefully read the original post with all the bold and colored parts emphasizing what they missed, they'll have to rethink their entire case, according to this 'analysis'. Rawnoc Thursday, April 05, 2012 11:32:40 PM Re: None Post # of 175454 TOP TEN REASONS THE SEC CASE IS TOAST: (quotes from JBII's response -- my comments in red) (1) Domark’s CEO and “the consultant” stated that the SEC commented on the media credits on Domark’s or Sports Quest’s SEC filings and the valuation of $10 million, which was ultimately cleared with the SEC. <~~~untlimately cleared with the SEC? (2) Further to the referenced Skype message, the message is quoted out of context and the consultant testified under oath that “[Bordynuik] did not ask me to plug numbers, inflate the balance sheet in any way.” <~~~testified under oath defending Bordynuik and this was the star witness against him? (3) Domark assigned the referenced media credits to JBI and that in making such assignment, Domark’s CEO represented that such credits were worth $9,997,134 in print and radio ads. <~~~media credit seller blessed them? (4) JBI booked the media credits using the same methods and reasons used by the SEC reporting company, Domark. <~~~remember, the SEC blessed the media credit valuation for Domark and JBII merely copied that (5) JBI did not rely upon the media credits as “selling points” in either capital raising effort. <~~so no "damages" (6) After review of the media credits valuation through October 2009 and forward, the business consultant ultimately agreed with the recording of the face value of the media credits at $9.997 million. <~~a 4th party now agreed with the valuation (7) Defendants have developed and fabricated a 1 gallon, a 1 ton and two large scale processors that currently operate at a plant in Niagara Falls, NY. <~~currently operating making and selling P2O fuel (8) Defendant Bordynuik also met with a CPA auditor colleague of Gately, who reviewed the form 10-Q in person. <~~yet another who blessed the media credit valuation (9) JBI paid fees to Gately & Associates that may have been used to pay for the principal’s criminal representation, but state that such fees were already due and owing for professional service. <~~so much for the claim of lack of independence (10) Defendant Bordynuik believed that a different individual who was a PCAOB, CPA auditor colleague of the principal of Gately & Associates performed audit procedures on behalf of that firm while the principal was himself unavailable to perform such procedures and the majority of the transactions within JBI (being its subsidiary Pak-It and Javaco) were reviewed and audited by Withum Smith, & Brown <~~looks like the audit was done after all siliconinvestor.com