This keeps on coming up. I think it highly unlike

This keeps on coming up. I think it highly unlikely that a private citizen, especially from another country, could influence the SEC to do anything. Now high-ranking officers of the SEC, that is another matter. Or high-ranking officers of bond rating services... they have bonusses on the line. But private citizens influencing the SEC?? I doubt it.

So let's get this straight, you are suggesting that private citizens in Canada somehow created the SEC suit? Do you have any proof of that? I mean hard evidence, not hearsay (referring to another post, rumor, a "friend" said, etc... ). Here is a definition of hearsay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

I would challenge you to prove what you are saying.

It makes no sense. JB's ex-partner has a financial interest in JBI. That is public information. I don't know the extent, but that is  amatter of public record. It would not be in her best interest to see the company go down. If a regulatory body decides to investigate matters on either side of the border, that ex-partner may be involved against his/ her will.

You miss my point on bigger issues. The bigger issues to do with SEC enforement and investor protection are the trends in the market that are allowing fraud to occur more often, allowing more individuals access to information via the internet, and exposing those that don't have an appreciation for Risk to potential huge losses. Also taking away from the Street's fat profits as they lose a share of the trading market.

Some time back I watched a show where a 13-year-old kid was exposed as a pump and dumper that had made $800k through a simple email pump and dump campaign organized by him and his high school buddies. The point of the program was that he had really done nothing wrong. In fact, he was simply doing what Wall Street does, in a different way. I listened to his spiel. He talked about P/E ratios and it actually was not bad.

Have you ever asked yoruself any of the following questions:

1. Why is it that the iBox is always full of positive information? Is that the way things should be? (I am not suggesting otherwise, just wondering if anyone had considered it).

2. Why can't a negative post be a sticky?

3. Do you suppose anybody is getting paid for promoting stocks on any message board?

4. Ever read the disclaimer at the bottom of any email stock spam? It states outright that the information is a paid promo, that is should not be relied upon, and that investing is extremely dangerous. Why would anyone invest in it?

5. Ever considered that the price of an OTC stock may be influenced by individual investors with deep pockets? by MM's (4kids theme)? It is possible...

6. According to the Efficient Market Hypotheses, none of these tricks should work. You can't change the price of apples by going to the market and cleaning them out.

7. Is it a good thing that almost every recent administration has been staffed in financial areas by veterans of Goldman Sachs?

8. The long-term gain on the stock and bond markets over the last 20 years or so (I can't give exact figures) is 5-6%. I can't remember which is which. And, that is the professionals doing it. So, I consider 5-10% good... over 10 years... powerful. If I can do that, and keep the 1-2% fund fees and have fun doing it... I am satisfied. Why take the risk of going for a home run? Chances are (and this applies to JBI) unless it is successful, it will go the other way, and quick, for an almost 100% loss.

The SEC is there to try to regulate and make it a level transparent playing field. That is the big picture. I don't think that regulation is the answer, I think the SEC could never be funded enough to be truly effective. That is the Big Picture, I just disagree with the SI board that the answer is to beef up the SEC.