You are assuming a director is selling stock when there is no factual basis for the assumption, aside from the fact that the director owns shares.
You are also suggesting sinister activity (with references to illusions and tricks), again with no substantial basis other than the fact that a trust was distributed.
Lastly, your assertion that Mr. Wesson's position is substantially reduced is only half correct. His personal ownership of shares has actually increased substantially. Any shares held in trust for other beneficiaries are beneficially owned by the beneficiaries, not the trustee, although the trustee holds legal title during the term of the trust (or so long as the trustee holds his position as trustee).
It bears noting that had the beneficiaries held the shares from the outset, there would never have been the public disclosure of ownership.
I'm not sure what this "harrassment conspiricy" is that you speak of. It is not me who is devising a conspiracy theory in connection with JBI.