Replies to post #79926 on Hemp Inc (HEMP)

[29YEARINVESTOR]

Thanks much appreciated!

[Det_Robert_Thorne]

SEC: Marinov testimony irrelevant, not an expert

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.

I downloaded and read the main 15-page filing, and I don't believe that this is SOP.

In the first place, the SEC doesn't think that Marinov can opine on Eppling's status as an affiliate because that's not the job of a Transfer Agent, and they support that view in four ways:

1) Transfer agents simply process paperwork supplied by the company and an attorney, and don't conduct independent analysis as to whether or not a shareholder is an affiliate. TAs are not qualified to make a legal opinion on the validity of the Form 144.

2) She's not qualified because her opinion was supplied to her by Perlowin. She conducted no independent research into Eppling's claim of not being an affiliate.

3) Nobody is claiming that once the forms were given to the Transfer agent, they were improperly processed. IOW, her testimony about this is irrelevant to the case.

4) The SEC believes her testimony would be prejudicial, but not probative. IOW, it could confuse the jurors.

The second part of the filing addresses Marinov's claim as to having been an expert witness for the government in the case of United States v. Turek. The Motion goes on to show that Marinov testfied in the case as a fact witness, not an expert witness. The SEC explains the difference (one simply provides facts in the case, while the expert can provide context and weight, then shows that she didn't understand the difference between the two.

Therefore, her opinions don't meet the standards of admissibility.