Replies to post #78722 on Hemp Inc (HEMP)

[JustMyLuck]

Yes, the sec states there evidence for this is 2 informants who had a meeting with Eppling where he stated he wasn't working directly for Bruce and another where Eppling say's he's in charge and nothing else.

Once again, I have read.

[worldisfullofDerps]

SEC is one throwing "Hail Mary"

HEMP's request for judgement is a "Hail Mary" that tries to use the lack of specific info in the initial, 15-page filing as a reason for the judge to throw out the case.

The SEC filed their complaint in June 2016, with allegations of fraud related to events that took place as far out as August 2011.

SEC saw their window closing; threw the "Hail Mary"

If they had a strong case, with evidence to back their complaint, they would have submitted such to the court AND defendant before the discovery deadline. Instead, the SEC is loosely building a case by the seat of their pants, navigating an empty boat in search of whatever they can scoop aboard. This is the standard "shoot first, questions later" tactic. Hence, the reason for their multiple motions to extend through discovery, in efforts to buy more time to build something out of virtually nothing. The defendants mutually agreed to those motions to extend, showing compliance and "good cause" - iow, their willingness to cooperate with the SEC.

It gets even better - the defendants file motion to extend the discovery period to allow the SEC even MORE time, just so the SEC can provide everyone - court and defendants - with the "sufficient factual matter" to back their complaint. That, of course, after multiple requests for this information.

Then the SEC has the gall to decline the motion to extend, stating that the motion came in "too late", even though the motion was entered before the deadline (I mean, the SEC was actually trying to negate the purpose of the agreed-upon deadlines, which is ridiculous.) So... even though the defending parties were willing to allow for more time, the SEC declined, showing they lack the ability to supply the evidence to back their claims.

Look, I'm trying my best to see this from a completely unbiased position, by putting myself in the Judge's shoes. Everyone has access to the same information. With where things stand at this very moment, if I were Judge, I would say:

Judge: What is the nature of your complaint?
Plaintiff: We believe the defending parties made fraudulent transactions (several years ago...).
Judge: OK. Can you show me the transactions you're referring too?
Plaintiff: No.
Judge: What are we doing here? Case dismissed.

That's pretty much what the court is subjected to, as brought by the SEC.

Weak case. Waste of time.

"Time kills all cases".