Followers | 39 |
Posts | 5491 |
Boards Moderated | 0 |
Alias Born | 07/30/2013 |
Sunday, October 08, 2017 5:56:53 PM
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.
Avant Technologies Equipping AI-Managed Data Center with High Performance Computing Systems • AVAI • May 10, 2024 8:00 AM
VAYK Discloses Strategic Conversation on Potential Acquisition of $4 Million Home Service Business • VAYK • May 9, 2024 9:00 AM
Bantec's Howco Awarded $4.19 Million Dollar U.S. Department of Defense Contract • BANT • May 8, 2024 10:00 AM
Element79 Gold Corp Successfully Closes Maverick Springs Option Agreement • ELEM • May 8, 2024 9:05 AM
Kona Gold Beverages, Inc. Achieves April Revenues Exceeding $586,000 • KGKG • May 8, 2024 8:30 AM
Epazz plans to spin off Galaxy Batteries Inc. • EPAZ • May 8, 2024 7:05 AM