Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
In my experience people believe what they believe whether it is right or not. They find their own truths and that defines and supports their existence. Id, Ego, and Super Ego.
If you are a suspicious person, you will always find something to validate your suspicion.
Don't get me wrong, an optimist sometimes misses things that are right in front of their eyes.
There are definitely blind FITX believers. I'm a pragmatist. I want truth and facts and evidence, not conjecture and suspicion nor cheerleading.
It's a conspiracy!!!
Where's his birth certificate? Maybe he's not even who he says he is...
Vegas is a much better place to make money...
Audit what? The current configuration of this company is spec! They only have borrowed money! They don't make money yet! The Bodybuilding nutritional aspect of this company might as well not even exist anymore. That part has failed which is why they are getting in to MMJ.
This play is a bet, a gamble. Everyone knows it! Is it safe? It's a pink! Is it a risk? Yes.
Is it worth a gamble? I believe it is. I've already made $ and I expect to make more.
I don't believe in fairy tales. What I do know is license = grow = $$$. Time will only tell how much money they make. In the US, if you're a publicly traded company, first of all, you're dealing with a DEA Director who is against any MJ in any form. On top of that MJ is classified as an illegal substance in the same category as Heroin. Good luck dealing with the banks who are scared of MMJ. Good luck not being raided by the DEA, the FBI, or being investigated by the IRS.
FITX, warts and all, has a better shot than any US publicly traded MMJ company. Maybe private companies have a decent shot in the US because they fall under state laws, but then they still have to deal with the IRS. Maybe that changes, but not for now.
Simple math:
Canada + MMJ license = $$$
US + MMJ + Schedule 1 classification = DEA
What's going on with Suntech these days? Any one have any info?
Nice endorsement
Via Dan Mirkin @TradeIdeas1: Commented on StockTwits: I figure it can't hurt. Plus I like the product $FITX http://t.co/KClyGDU1be
https://twitter.com/tradeideas1/status/477103677803868160
I've had conversations with him before. He actually does do DD. I believe he did not differentiate between the agricultural grow zoning area and the Value Added agricultural zoning area. I sent an email to Kirk to clarify that the areas are indeed separate, which I believe that they are, but we'll wait for confirmation.
rolphtonair did the research work on the Kestrel and discovered that the deal was real. So give him some credit.
Ok, so what I'm understanding by reading this and the by-laws is that under current zoning CEN will have approx 6000 sq ft to process the MMJ and dry the herb in the Value-Added zoned area. The agricultural area to grow the plants is properly zoned.
Sure I'd like to read it. Speaking of "Value Added," I haven't been on this board much lately.
I understand the arguments. I think each side has a valid point. I think from CEN's perspective, what is the difference between growing, packing, and shipping any agricultural product? Tomatoes are picked, sorted, boxed, and shipped to a distributor or manufacturer. The difference is that MMJ is being picked, dried, packaged, and shipped to a consumer. That's where Lakeshore sees an opportunity for more tax revenue. They determined that CEN, by sending the product directly to a consumer, that it is industrial.
From what I understand "Value Added" has been a point of contention between CEN and Lakeshore and that there lies the problem. CEN doesn't agree that they are adding value. They believe that they are purely agricultural. The disagreement will most likely be settled by the Ontario Municipal Board. It has been documented by The Windsor Star. It really all comes down to taxes. Is CEN agricultural or industrial? Lakeshore wants more tax revenue and CEN wants to pay less. The issue will most likely be resolved.
http://blogs.windsorstar.com/2014/04/08/lakeshore-questions-zoning-for-medical-marjuana-operation/
Nor has Nevada issued any cultivation licenses.
I always appreciate your insight. It is a breath of fresh air to have some pragmatism on this board.
TRTC was turned down for Dispensary licenses, not for cultivation. Those licenses have yet to be awarded.
Again, nice work! So according to your last post, how receptive was he to sharing the information about the tooling with CEN?
He is guilty by suspicion. In fact, CEN has done so many "illegal" things and acted so inappropriately on so many levels that the court of IHub has declared Bill a criminal. Guilty by association, guilty by suspicion, and guilty for not abiding to the code of ethics set forth here by the vigilantes! Off with his head!
Ok, not to jump in on the language here, but isn't that pending a pre-license inspection? Isn't that what checking the facilities and security means? The same thing that CEN is waiting for, but CEN has a building? CEN got the ready to build approval a long time ago.
Here is a question. CEN will be allowed 5 employees of CEN, what about contractors (temps)? Does this limit apply to them since they are not employees of CEN?
I wasn't trashing Tweed. I like Tweed. I was talking about their facility. It is an old chocolate factory that had mold issues. It is cleared up now. It was just a matter for comparison in regards to the facilities and passing inspections for licensure.
I believe that if an old moldy chocolate factory and an abandoned mine can pass inspection, than there is no reason to believe that CEN will not. Just my opinion. There is no way to know for certain.
Speculate!?! Who speculates here??? By the way, good work on your investigation of the Kestrel. Interested to see what else you learn. That is what you call real DD.
It got real quiet in here! Lol!
S.E.C. Vows More Use of a Little-Used Tool
Mary Jo White, the chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, announced a new approach to pursuing violations last week.
It is rare that the Securities and Exchange Commission announces a new approach to pursuing violations. Mary Jo White, the agency’s chairwoman, did just that last week when she pointed to a seldom-used provision of the federal securities laws that the S.E.C. will employ against people who use others to do their bidding.
In a speech at a white-collar crime conference sponsored by the New York City Bar Association, Ms. White said that “One new approach to charging individuals is to use Section 20(b) of the Exchange Act,” which she said can be “potentially a very powerful tool” for pursuing violations. Before discussing the provision, she kindly told her audience filled with defense lawyers that “before you start reaching for your smartphones to look it up, let me save you the trouble” by describing the provision for them.
Section 20(b) provides that “It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to do any act or thing which it would be unlawful for such person to do under the provisions of this chapter or any rule or regulation thereunder through or by means of any other person.” Under the criminal law, this is known as the “innocent instrumentality” doctrine, which allows someone to be held responsible for using another person to engage in illegal conduct if that person did not intend to commit a crime.
For example, if I ask you to go into a neighbor’s house to retrieve my laptop computer, when in fact I do not own it, then you have not committed a crime if you get it for me because you did not have the intent to steal it. But by using you to commit the crime, the law treats me as the perpetrator even though I did not physically engage in the illegal conduct.
The securities laws give the S.E.C. different ways to hold one person responsible for another’s violation, even when they did not directly engage in the misconduct. One part of Section 20 creates liability for a “control person,” which requires showing a high degree of authority over the actions of the actual perpetrator.
The S.E.C. had notified the hedge fund firm SAC Capital Advisors, now called Point72 Asset Management, that it considered suing the firm as a control person for the conduct of its various employees who were convicted of trading on inside information. That approach was later dropped in favor of a guilty plea for violating the securities laws.
Another means to charge those who help contribute to a violation is for aiding and abetting the perpetrator. The Supreme Court rejected accomplice liability for securities fraud in 1994 in Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank. But Congress restored it the next year for S.E.C. enforcement actions — but not private claims — by providing for liability for anyone who “knowingly or recklessly provides substantial assistance to another person” in a violation.
Unlike control person and accomplice theories of liability, however, Section 20(b) has been rarely used by the S.E.C. because there was no real need for it, at least until recently. But that may have changed with the Supreme Court’s decision in 2011 in Janus Capital Group v. First Derivative Traders.
In that case, the court said that only “the person or entity with ultimate authority over the statement, including its content and whether and how to communicate it” could be held responsible for a violation. In explaining how this limitation works, the court pointed to the relationship between a speechwriter and a public speaker, so that “even when a speechwriter drafts a speech, the content is entirely within the control of the person who delivers it. And it is the speaker who takes credit — or blame — for what is ultimately said.”
The approach in the Janus case makes it more difficult to reach those who contribute to a violation but are neither a controlling person nor an accomplice, but instead acted only as the unseen hand — think Tywin Lannister in “Game of Thrones” — behind the fraudulent conduct. It is not entirely clear whether the Supreme Court’s analysis applies to S.E.C. enforcement actions or just private securities fraud cases, and the lower courts have split on that issue.
But Ms. White is not taking any chances by pointing to Section 20(b) as a new avenue to reach those who use others to engage in wrongdoing without committing the violation themselves. Section 20(b) avoids the obstacle thrown up by the Janus opinion and, as Ms. White pointed out, lets the S.E.C. “reach those who have participated in disseminating false or misleading information to investors through offering materials, stock promotional materials, or earnings call transcripts.”
This provision may even allow the S.E.C. to go beyond just misleading disclosures to pursue individuals in other types of cases.
Controversy has swirled lately around the conduct of activist investors who take large positions in companies and possibly leak information about their intentions to entice others to make similar trades. DealBook reported that the S.E.C. is investigating trades in Herbalife after William A. Ackman’s hedge fund, Pershing Square Capital Management, took a large short position and criticized the company as an illegal pyramid scheme. Pershing Square is among those asked to supply information, along with firms founded by Carl C. Icahn and George Soros that bought shares after Mr. Ackman’s arguments against the company became public.
It is not considered insider trading for a private investor to disclose the intention to buy or sell a stock or the reasons for it, even if that information might significantly affect the market price. But there are disclosure obligations for those who own 5 percent or more of a company, and restrictions on trading intended to manipulate a company’s stock price.
Encouraging others to buy or sell could be the basis for a securities violation even if the actual traders do not violate the law on their own because they did not have the requisite intent. Section 20(b) could be the basis to pursue an enforcement action if one person encourages another to trade to avoid making a required disclosure because the transaction technically falls outside the reporting rules. Using others to do your bidding is exactly what this provision is intended to reach if the government can show intent to violate the law by the person who orchestrated the trading.
In her speech, Ms. White described the use of Section 20(b) as “What Is Old Is New.” Her discussion is a warning that the S.E.C. is planning to dust off an overlooked provision to pursue conduct that skirts the edge of the securities laws by those who use intermediaries to do their bidding. The defense bar will have to figure out how to deal with this new push.
Peter J. Henning, a professor at Wayne State University Law School, is a co-author of “Securities Crimes (2d edition).” Twitter: @peterjhenning
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/s-e-c-vows-more-use-of-a-little-used-tool/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
(Just in case you didn't hear about it)
Huh? And your point being, what? I said, no evidence that he did sell so I can't say that he did. He filed to sell. If you don't understand that I can't help you.
You lose money when you don't make money! If you're not being paid, you don't make money!
You think the only kind lawyer is a Trial Lawyer?!?
Some things change and some don't. Since you have no evidence that he is salaried, all things being considered, I will base my conclusion on the physical evidence. I don't go on conjecture.
Umh, yeah, Lawyers make pretty good money. And your office can be anywhere, wow, even next to a McDonald's. Is he supposed to have a luxury high rise or something? Are you judging him because he doesn't have some bling office??? I have friends who practice law and they don't even have their own building, yet they make 7 figures. 13 years practicing law and licensed in the US and Canada, yeah, probably made a some money.
Just like you, I make deductions based on evidence. May 12 he files a Form 144. May 12 a 5 million block goes through. Coincidence, maybe? Could it have been someone else, certainly.
Well considering that he no longer has an income from his Law firm and CEN doesn't pay him a salary, I understand why he has to sell shares. No one works for free! Do you?
Like I said before, it doesn't bother me.
The large order did go through on May 12, as you, yourself, stated:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=101875510
Here's the outside. Pretty large facility.
http://s1170.photobucket.com/user/Matty_JayJonsson/media/VID_20140601_105615_438.mp4.html
What I said was the last time Bill sold shares it did go through as one big block. The Broker can break it up any way they want, however, there were only three days that an order that large could have gone through May 19-21. It is possible he sold during that time, it is also possible that he did not. I don't recall a lot of large orders. Like you said, we won't know for months when it did happen. It is only my opinion that he did not.
I believe he filed Form 144 because he believes he will get a license and the PPS will go up and then he will be able and ready to sell at a higher price point.
I don't have a paid account so I'll reply here. I like Derek's style much better than our other friend. However, I think the company is a lot closer than people think to going into production. They do have a great board and they have cash on hand from the future sales deal plus leftover from the $20 mil. Canada is also easier to operate in than the US. Share structure will be a major impediment and the stock will not go over a $1 until they either do a reverse split or cancel shares. That all being said I do believe that TRTC and our other friend will both get their licenses and go into production.
There were three days of high volume from May 19-21 which is the only window where he could have sold according to the volume.
When Bill sold the 5 million shares, they were sold to a broker which is why you saw a 5 million sell order. The manner of sale requirements of Rule 144 require securities to be sold in “brokers’ transactions” or in transactions directly with a “market maker.”
I did not see any sell orders that were that large during those days.
http://www.insiderinsights.com/about/form144.php
He has not sold from the May 19 144 filing. It is a notice of proposed sale. He has only filed the paperwork so he can sell.
He does not antagonize anyone! Antagonizing means to incur or provoke hostility and act in opposition to. If people feel misled by his statements then by all means they should get out of the stock. That is up to them to do their DD. If your intention is to insult people and belittle them, then you do a good job at that.
I've made a good chunk of realized profit already, so I can't complain.
As far as the selling of chunks of the company to undisclosed investors and him selling shares, I don't really care. That is is his prerogative. As long as the PPS continues to go up, that's all that matters to me.
You have to know when to get in and when to get out in any investment...
Thank you
What is Derek's plan for how to deal with the money and banks? Assuming Terra Tech gets a license and they grow and sell. I know Colorado has a plan for banking. Does Nevada? I can't imagine with that type of grow op, you'd want to be holding cash. Anyone know?
A Google search will come up with results for both spellings.
You might check this out. They might have some answers. They might even be the composites institute that Bill was talking about.
http://www.compositesinnovation.ca
http://www.dpncanada.com/CAD-Software/News/Composites-Innovation-Centre-takes-weight-out-of-Kestral-concept-car-with-help-of-Siemens-NX.html