Personally I don't know Friedland from Adam, but I
Post# of 15624
(Total Views: 430)
Posted On: 02/24/2018 6:26:29 PM
Personally I don't know Friedland from Adam, but I know he's strongly regarded by those involved with legal cannabis, and that makes me wonder if Session's suggested he be investigated by the SEC.
In general I've seen no SEC involvement in Pinks, regardless of how much they avoid securities rules. I've seen years of missing quarterlies filed without real penalty, stocks there seem to trade with essentially no regulation. As you move up to the OTC, I believe they get more rigorous on enforcement, and it gets significantly tougher as you move to the major exchanges.
I believe this is about Friedland, and because he's associated with us, you've got to believe it involves us as well as all the other companies that he's in any way associated with, and perhaps even his book, if he's pushing it in a way the SEC doesn't deem to be ethical.
I don't know that we'll ever hear anything from this unless he speaks out, or formal charges are made. I'm uncertain if he should be prosecuted if it falls under the SEC or does Justice take over completely.
I believe that the U.S. is conflicted by cannabis and while Session's and others will challenge the businesses, the State's will defend it. Should trials be conducted in State's where it's legal it may not be legal to argue State's rights in Federal Court, but even if it's not, I've got to believe they will be very hard pressed to find juries who will go against businesses that are legally licensed by the State. I suspect this is one of the reason their are so few cases, and now we have the opposite occurring, individuals are taking on Session's and the Justice Dept. for the right to access to cannabis products that greatly benefit certain medical conditions. This include Vets suing the V.A. where they don't permit it. Hopefully the Courts will side with the People and send the Justice Dept. a message to do what the people demand, not the demands of big Pharma who's clearly supporting the politicians who oppose cannabis. As always, JMHO.
Gary
In general I've seen no SEC involvement in Pinks, regardless of how much they avoid securities rules. I've seen years of missing quarterlies filed without real penalty, stocks there seem to trade with essentially no regulation. As you move up to the OTC, I believe they get more rigorous on enforcement, and it gets significantly tougher as you move to the major exchanges.
I believe this is about Friedland, and because he's associated with us, you've got to believe it involves us as well as all the other companies that he's in any way associated with, and perhaps even his book, if he's pushing it in a way the SEC doesn't deem to be ethical.
I don't know that we'll ever hear anything from this unless he speaks out, or formal charges are made. I'm uncertain if he should be prosecuted if it falls under the SEC or does Justice take over completely.
I believe that the U.S. is conflicted by cannabis and while Session's and others will challenge the businesses, the State's will defend it. Should trials be conducted in State's where it's legal it may not be legal to argue State's rights in Federal Court, but even if it's not, I've got to believe they will be very hard pressed to find juries who will go against businesses that are legally licensed by the State. I suspect this is one of the reason their are so few cases, and now we have the opposite occurring, individuals are taking on Session's and the Justice Dept. for the right to access to cannabis products that greatly benefit certain medical conditions. This include Vets suing the V.A. where they don't permit it. Hopefully the Courts will side with the People and send the Justice Dept. a message to do what the people demand, not the demands of big Pharma who's clearly supporting the politicians who oppose cannabis. As always, JMHO.
Gary
(0)
(0)