SEC does not have evidence to support claims.
The SEC is lacking "sufficient factual matter" in the details of the transactions made by those parties they have accused as conducting a "long running", "elaborate and fraudulent scheme". The Hemp defendants have submitted multiple requests for review of those specific details, but the SEC has failed to produce. The SEC, a federal agency with extensive power and resources, has not provided the "factual matter" needed to prove true the transactions they assert as fraudulent, even though the SEC has shown in past cases that they are capable of producing such information; one example being a separate case with literally twice the amount of information, as highlighted in the latest response by the defending parties. This federal agency is making accusations which carry harsh personal implications in the form of penalties, disgorgement, and barring, and they can't bring even the most basic of details of who, what, when, why, and how in regards to their complaint? Therefore, there is adequate basis for the instant motion for judgement. The SEC case was weak from the beginning, and still has not shown the evidence to support their claims.
Epling acknowledges within the deposition in Exhibit 3, as conducted by Ms. Oliver, the statements he made over control of Hemp Inc were false. Epling is on record as not wanting to be an affiliate, and affirms that position as ongoing. He also affirms the sale of stock through various broker/dealers, providing each with the exact same information. Both Epling and Bruce are on record as having a long lasting relationship, with some roles being under contract, while other roles were structured on more a "ministerial" and advisory fashion.
Nonetheless, Bruce and Epling exclusively state they've always taken the law into consideration before acting, and have often employed third-party services to advise on how to conduct business under the parameters of the law. More so, accounting activities are often delegated to those responsible under their employment, with Bruce ultimately executing orders. Since the complaint was filed, the defending parties have been more than compliant and cooperative, and it shows in their personal statements. They have nothing to hide, and they've have always conformed to the rules. On multiple accounts, Epling and Bruce have offered to provide information beyond what was originally sought by the SEC, in good cause, showing there willingness to cooperate with the SEC. The filings speak for themselves.
Through their investigation, the SEC has yet to produce the sufficient factual matter which would show without a reasonable doubt that the transaction of gifted shares were, in fact, fraudulent.
There is no way the court could make judgement in favor of the Plaintiff, if the Plaintiff fails to produce facts.
Weak case, lacking substantial information.
