InvestorsHub Logo
Post# of 122022
Next 10
Followers 39
Posts 5491
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/30/2013

Re: 29YEARINVESTOR post# 79921

Sunday, 10/08/2017 5:56:53 PM

Sunday, October 08, 2017 5:56:53 PM

Post# of 122022
The intro to SEC's motion:

Defendants Hemp, Inc., Bruce J. Perlowin, Barry K. Epling, Ferris Holding, Inc., and Hobbes Equities, Inc. (the “Hemp Defendants”) intend to rely upon Salli Marinov (“Marinov”) as an expert witness in this matter to opine on (1) whether Defendant Barry K. Epling met the definition of an affiliate for purposes of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act”) and (2) the propriety of the Defendants’ stock transfers based upon the supporting documents submitted to the transfer agent at the time. With respect to the first opinion, Marinov is not qualified to opine on the issue and her opinion lacks any indicia of reliability. With respect to the second opinion, Marinov’s opinion is irrelevant to the issues in this case and would only serve to confuse and mislead the jury. As set forth in detail below, the Court should exclude Marinov’s opinions because they fail to meet the requirements of Rule 702 or Daubert.



Basically, Ms. Marinov is a key "expert" witness, testifying that Epling is not an "affiliate" of Hemp Inc. The SEC is suggesting that Ms. Marinov is not qualified to be considered an "expert" and therefore the court should exclude her testimony from being presented to the jury.

Pretty much SOP for the plaintiff. I'm sure they would prefer to see a key witness excluded.

It's the Judges call on how the court will interpret whether Ms. Marinov should be considered an "expert". There may be merit to exclude Marinov due to her previous association with a fraudulent company "Plasticon", but Plasticon is in no way whatsoever associated with Hemp Inc outside of this case; two mutually exclusive incidents. The Judge might see Marinov's testimony as substantial and deem it admissible at trial.

I don't know what the Judge will do...

... but I don't think it really matters. Epling never had controlling power over Hemp Inc, and never desired to be an affiliate.

Interpretation is ambiguous by definition.

All court documents are accessible via PACER.