InvestorsHub Logo
Post# of 122024
Next 10
Followers 39
Posts 5491
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/30/2013

Re: Det_Robert_Thorne post# 118412

Thursday, 04/09/2020 4:17:46 PM

Thursday, April 09, 2020 4:17:46 PM

Post# of 122024
Hemp Inc NOT subjected to sanctions.

That's the key element of the judges ruling.

The other two objections are barely material to the case.

1) Epling not being able to properly handover his personal tax returns at the SEC's request is not going to prove his relationship as principal of Hemp Inc.

2) The judge will modify adverse instructions at trial. That, itself, is most likely in reference to the SEC's eagerness to leverage this hastily drafted contract made between Perlowin and Epling related to the decorticator, and will impact the direction of this case moving forward. However, its not unreasonable to believe that a lot of business partners do their business outside the bounds of formalized legal instruments. Meetings of the minds happen every day and no paper is signed. More importantly, the contract is not going to prove Epling's relationship as principal of Hemp Inc.

3) The SEC will undoubtedly bring forth the motion for sanctions at trial, there will be zero doubt about that. They will try every tactic available to them. Unless they are ready to fold prior to a motion to move to trial. Maybe they think they have evidence. Haven't heard of any yet. Bruce and the defense seem confident.

Yeah, the only real important part was Hemp Inc not subjected to sanctions. It's not the problem. If the SEC wants to build their case around Epling, and use Bruce as "guilty by association", go for it.

Court adjourned. Hemp Inc goes on.