Finston V Christofferson

2:15-cv-12013-AJT-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 1 of 6
Pg ID 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
MATTHEW FINSTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
TAYLOR CHRISTOFFERSEN, SAMUEL
CHARLES CARY, BRADY FARRELL, and
ADDISON BRADLEY BACHMAN,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff Matthew Finston, through counsel, states as follows for his Verified Complaint
against Defendants Taylor Christoffersen, Samuel Charles Cary, Brady Farrell, and Addison
Bradley Bachman (Defendants):
1.
Matthew Finston is a New York resident who maintains his principal residence in
New York, New York.

2.
Taylor Christoffersen is a Kansas resident who maintains his principal residence
at 1356 155th, Olathe, Kansas 66062.

3.
Samuel Charles Cary is a Texas resident who maintains his principal residence at
17810 White Tail Court, Houston, Texas 77084.

4.
Brady Farrell is an Arizona resident who maintains his principal residence at
32203 North 16th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85085.

5.
Addison Bradley Bachman is a New Mexico resident who maintains his principal
residence in Columbus, New Mexico.
6.
Pg ID 2
Upon information and belief, Defendants are the owners, operators, and
administrators of the website www.mmj.today.

7.
Upon information and belief, www.mmj.today is not owned or operated by an
independent corporation or partnership.

8.
www.mmj.today is a website purporting to inform the community about the
science, industry, lifestyle, health, business and politics surrounding medical marijuana around
the world and related industry subjects.
9.
www.mmj.today is viewable, and has been viewed, by residents in the state of
Michigan.
10.
Jurisdiction is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332 because
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the dispute is between citizens of different States
and a foreign state.
11.
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(3) because each
of the defendants are subject to this Courts personal jurisdiction.

General Allegations
12.
Finston is an online author who writes about investing and corporations.
13.
Fisnton regularly posts articles on a website seekingalpha.com, where he has
posted at least 75 articles on a wide variety of subjects.

14.
Finston has published a number of articles regarding companies that are vying to
supply the anticipated legal marijuana market in Canada.

15.
On occasion, Finston has been critical of a company called CEN Biotech.
16.
CEN Biotech trades under the symbol FITX.
17.
Pg ID 3
Defendants, through www.mmj.today, published an article on May 8, 2015
entitled Potential Criminal Indictment of Stock Basher Matthew Finston.
(Ex. A, the
Article.)
18.
Defendants appear to have updated the Article since May 8, 2015 to include the
words From our viewpoint and allegedly. Such statements do not make the article any less
defamatory.
19.
The Article maliciously and falsely claims that Finston has engaged in obvious
and admitted fraudulent conduct and willful misrepresentations with the intent to manipulate the
price of FITX and cause a loss of value to shareholders stock as sellers or purchasers. His
alleged fraudulent conduct satisfies all of the elements . . . necessary to constitute a Rule 10b-5
violation. (Ex. A.)
20.
The Article is defamatory. Finston has not engaged in fraudulent conduct, and
Finston has not made willful misrepresentations to manipulate stock prices or cause a loss of
value to shareholders stock.
21.
The Article was published maliciously, with knowledge that it was false, or with
reckless disregard as to whether it was false.

22.
On May 10, 2015, Finston demanded a retraction of the Article. (Ex. B.)
23.
Defendants did not respond to Finstons demand for retraction, and Defendants
have not removed the article from the website.

24.
The Article constitutes defamation per se, which is independently actionable
pursuant to MCL 600.2911.

25.
Finston has been damaged as a result of the Article.
26.
Finston seeks judgment as set forth below.
Pg ID 4
Count I - Defamation
27.
Finston incorporates the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth here.

28.
The Article makes false and defamatory statements about Finston.
29.
Specifically, the Article falsely states that Finston committed a crime by
fraudulently manipulating stock prices.

30.
The Article is capable of being viewed by anyone in the world with internet
31.
The Article was published maliciously, with knowledge that it was false, or with
access.
reckless disregard as to whether it was false.

32.
The Article was per se defamatory pursuant to MCL 600.2911(1).
33.
Finston has been damaged by the Article.
34.

Count II False Light Invasion of Privacy
35.
Finston incorporates the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully
set forth here.

36.
The Article placed Finston in a false light in the public eye.
37.
The Article gave Finston unwanted publicity.
38.
Upon information and belief, the Article was viewed by thousands of people, if
not millions of people, because it is capable of being viewed by anyone in the world with internet
access.
39.
Defendants knew or acted with reckless disregard as to the falsity of the Article
and the false light in which it placed Finston.
40.
Finston has been damaged by the Article.
41.
Pg ID 5
Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Finston respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment:
A.
Awarding Finston money damages sufficient to compensate him for all forms of
economic loss including, without limitation, actual, incidental, consequential, and/or exemplary
damages;
B.
Awarding Finston punitive damages pursuant to MCL 600.2911;
C.
Awarding Finston all legal fees and costs associated with bringing this lawsuit;
D.
Awarding Finston any and all such other relief as this Court deems just, equitable
and
and appropriate under the circumstances.

Jury Demand
Finston demands a jury for all matters so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
BOYLE BURDETT
Dated: June 4, 2015
By:/s/H. William Burdett, Jr.

Eugene H. Boyle, Jr. (P42023)
H. William Burdett, Jr. (P63185)
14950 East Jefferson, Suite 200
Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan 48230
(313) 344-4000
burdett@boyleburdett.com
Attorneys for Matthew Finston
Pg ID 6
Verittcatio
1,Matthew Finston,ve thtt the bregoing statements are

trlle and correct,to the best ofl y knowiedge,inforFnatiOn and
beliei l ttFtheF Ve nder penaity of peJury that the
foregoing stttement is true and corect.
17 -
Matthew Finston
STATE OF NEW YORK

)
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
SS
SubSCFibed and swom to before me thisitt day Of

2015,by Matthew Finston.
Vl"HERED:
Notary PIb111.state Of New York
p

y
My Comrnissior! Erpires Juo
3r,i01S
2:15-cv-12013-AJT-DRG Doc # 1-1 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
MATTHEW FINSTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
TAYLOR CHRISTOFFERSEN, SAMUEL
CHARLES CARY, BRADY FARRELL, and
ADDISON BRADLEY BACHMAN,
Defendants
_______________________________________/
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
Ex. A -
Article published in mmj.today
Ex. B -
Requests for Retraction
Pg ID 7
Pg ID 8
EXHIBIT A
Pg ID 9
Check Also
Potential Criminal Indictment of Stock Basher Matthew Finston

Updated
Admin
May 8, 2015
Capricious Actions by Health
Business, Scandal and Tension, Tension
3,506 Views
Canada Causing Detrimental
Reliance to MMPR Applicants
In light of recent developments surrounding an alleged campaign to destroy the publicly traded
Capricious Actions by Health
companys share price. CEN Biotech (OTC: FITX), a Canadian subsidiaryactively
engaged
in seeking a
Canada Causing
Detrimental
Reliance to MMPR
licence to grow marijuana under Canadas newly formed MMPR, has
had approximately
100 documented
Applicants
Health Canada
plays favorites ...
negative and defamatory articles written against the company over the span of just 1 year, almost
exclusively (60+) by just a few individuals. One of these individuals, Matt Finston, has contributedover 20
articles to this pool of libel.
Today, we would like to expound further upon some of the evidence MMJ.TODAY brought to lightin a recent
article,
and also to explain, just why Mr. Finston could in fact soon be facing criminal indictment for his
feracious attacks on thecompanyspublicly traded value.

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934is a law governing the secondary trading of securities (stocks, bonds,
and debentures) in the United States.
Section 10 prohibits the willful manipulation of stock and the stock price as well as other fraud. It
also grants a private right of action in the statute. Section 10 is the predominant all-purpose fraud
provision, which includes similar conduct to that identified in Section 9, but less of a threshold of
intent than that required by Section 9 and, unlike Section 9, Section 10 is applicable to
Pg ID 10
unlisted/OTC companies.
10. SEC. 10. REGULATION OF THE USE OF MANIPULATIVE AND DECEPTIVE DEVICES
11. General Purpose and violations of Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Act
The purpose of the 1934 Act is, among other things, to ensure a fair and honest marketplace.
Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Act makes it unlawful in the connection with the purchase or sale of any securities
for any person directly or indirectly by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or
of the mails, to: 1) to employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud; 2) make any untrue statement of a
material fact; 3) to engage in any act, practice or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit
upon any person.
1. Prohibition of Fraudulent Short Sales
Subsection(a)(1) states, to effect a short sale, or to use or employ
any stop loss order in connection with the purchase or sale, of any
security other than a government security, in contravention of such

rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary
or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
(b) To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of
any security not so registered, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention
of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe
1. Satisfaction of Essential Elements
2. Fraud or Deception
3. Concerning a material fact
4. In Connection with purchase/sale of a security
5. Scienter (fraudulent intent knew or should have known it was false when stated)
6. Reliance and Causation Plaintiff must have relied (detrimental reliance) on deception/fraud causing
damages
The in connection with element is an essential one going to the reliance aspect of the tort. Asany fraud
action, the plaintiff must have relied on the misrepresentation. In Semerenko v. Cendent Corp., 223 F. 3rd
165 (3rd Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 US 1149 (2001), where the Plaintiff shows the defendants fraudulent
conduct caused the loss, the in connection element in satisfied, however, showing the conduct was in
Pg ID 11
connection with the transaction does not necessarily prove reliance. See, Semerenko v. Cendent Corp.,
223 F. 3rd 165 (3rd Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 US 1149 (2001).
1. Venue for a Rule 10b-5 Suit
Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over Rule 10b-5 claims,
thus they must be filed in federal district court. Plaintiffs may file
such actions in the federal district court of any district in which any
act or transaction in violation of the rule occurred; or by traditional venue provisions, in the district where
the defendant is found, resides or transacts business.
1. State court claims.

State claims for common law fraud can be brought in the federal court (Rule 10b-5 action).
1. Application
From our viewpoint, Matt Finston has engaged in obvious and admitted fraudulent conduct and willful
misrepresentations with the intent to manipulate the price of FITX and cause a loss of value to
shareholders stock as sellers or purchasers. His alleged fraudulent conduct satisfies all of the elements
(identified above) necessary to constitute a Rule 10b-5 violation. Finston has stated on more than one
occasion on Twitter that he likes to bash FITX stock and he wanted to short it. He states, I want to short
it. I tried shorting it when it was $.067 would have made a nice 30% return. On
another occasion Finston tweeted, I wish your CEO would reverse split so that the
share price would be higher so its be easier to short. On yet another occasion
Finston states the following about FITX, Ill bash them all on fb, twtr, Ill write their
names on the doors of ___________ if I have to. Fk these guys.
In a one year period commencing with one of the first articles on April 14, 2014,
Matt Finston wrote in excess of twenty articles and hundreds of tweets bashing
Creative Edge; a seemingly inordinate amount of negative articles for one writer to publish about a single
company. Each time an article was published, the stock would suffer a loss in value. In the year long
period during Finstons fraudulent assault (reasonably concludedas such), the stock went from $0.068 on
May 29, 2014 to $0.0085 on May 4, 2015. If you add the articles written by Chris Parry and Grant
Pg ID 12
Robertson to Finstons, it totals over 60 bash articles in the same year long period, and that does not
include other associated websites and bloggers who jumped in on the action based upon the information
from these writers. Between the three reporters, not one positive article was written about the
Company. Each and every one of Finstons articles published false information with apparentintent to
damage and devalue the Companys stock price.
1. Latest Finston Article Aimed at Shareholders

During the month of April 2015, fed up with the lack of protection they were receiving from regulatory
authorities, CEN Biotechs corporate office was ccd on close to 300 letters shareholders written to the
Security and Exchange Commission to identify the many instances of fraud perpetrated against FITX,
(including the alleged fraud perpetrated by Finston), and inquiring into the reason why the SEC refused to
investigate such fraud and requesting that an investigation be commenced. On May 3, 2015, Finston
wrote an article on the blog site Seeking Alpha mocking the hundreds of letters that shareholders had
written to the various SEC offices, by writing his own letter to the SEC offices in Chicago.
The May 3rd article included the content of Finstons letter to the Chicago SEC office, which espoused to
counter the claims of fraud elicited from FITX shareholders.
Although none of the shareholders who wrote letters of complaint received anything more than a form
letter in response to their complaints, Matt Finston actually received a personal email from an SEC agent
in the Chicago office, within 12 hours of emailing his letter to the office. The response from the SEC agent
stated, Mr. Finston, if possible can you contact me regarding the information that you sent to the SEC,
Regards, ________. A second personal email from this SEC agent was sent to Finston stating, [c]an you call
me at: _________. Unbelievably, although we will not show the name and contact information for this SEC
agent, Finston actually published the name and personal contact info of this agent as well as showing
screen shots of the actual emails. Conduct that almost certainly violates SEC internal procedure.
Unfortunately, this SEC agent learned the hard way, or at least should have learned, that Mr. Finston is a
person completely out for his own gain who cannot be trusted.
In summary, we have the SEC immediately responding to Finston, a person whom they learned cannot be
trusted, yet upon information and belief, the SEC has as of yet essentially failed to address any of
Pg ID 13
theComplaints and concerns raised by the hundreds of shareholders, whom the SEC was empowered to
protect. At the very least, the shareholders certainly werent afforded a personal email response from a
specific agent giving them the agents personal contact number, requesting that they call. Therefore, the
basher is treated with more respect than the shareholders.
1. The concept of Bashing

As a side note, I found it interesting that the Bashers deny on the boards that such a thing actually
exists, yet even Wikipedia acknowledges it as a widely known method of stock manipulation, identifying it
as a common method of such Fraud. The entry states
Stock Bashing: This scheme is usually orchestrated by savvy online message boardposters (a.k.a.
Bashers) who make up false and/or misleading information about thetarget company in an attempt to
get shares for a cheaper price. This activity, in mostcases, is conducted by posting libelous posts on
multiple public forums. The perpetrators sometimes work directly for unscrupulous Investor Relations
firms who have convertiblenotes that convert for more shares the lower the bid or ask price is; thus the
lower these Bashers can drive a stock price down by trying to convince shareholders they have boughta
worthless security, the more shares the Investor Relations firm receives as compensation. Immediately
after the stock conversion is complete and shares are issued to the Investor Relations firm, consultant,
attorney or similar party, the basher/s then become friends ofthe company and move quickly to ensure
they profit on a classic Pump & Dump scheme toliquidate their ill-gotten shares. (see P&D)
Consequently, it is somewhat incomprehensible that many regulators dont seem the least bit concerned
with Matt Finston and his cronies bashing and stock manipulation.
The company CEN Biotech is now going through the process of Judicial Review with the Federal Courts in
Canada in response to a denial letter of their license. A denial letter that the company believes was issued
on false pretenses or insufficient evidence, such examples of which can be found through factual and
systematic analysis of the companys progress, coupled with the articles and misrepresentations
mentioned in this article by certain writers.
Mason Godric
Disclaimer: This article does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell securities.If you have any
doubts as to the merits of an investment, you should seek advice from an independent financial
Pg ID 14
adviser.Investment in the securities of smaller companies can involve greater risk than is generally
associated with investment in larger, more established companies that can result in significant capital
losses that may have a detrimental effect on the value of the fund.You should not buy securitiesunless
you are prepared to sustain a total loss of the money you have invested plus any commission or other
transaction charges.
This article constitutes reasonable opinions of MMJ and the general public based upon a plethora of
evidence in support of itssubject matter, as well as hundreds of written accounts from the public.
Readers are advised to determine their own opinions based upon any and all evidence available to them
from MMJ.TODAY and other sources.
Pg ID 15
EXHIBIT B

From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
Pg ID 16
matthew finston matthew.finston@yahoo.com

MMJ.TODAY
May 10, 2015 at 9:59 AM
Christoffersent@gmail.com
In regards to your latest article,
This is a request to remove my name and any reference to my name from your website MMJ.TODAY that you claim association with. You and
your website have made false statements about me. You have falsely called me a criminal and a fraud. I have not been convicted of any crime
nor have committed any crime. A website that you have stated partial ownership of has claimed otherwise. The statements were made with
complete disregard of the truth. and had you asked seeking alpha whether or not my statements violated any disclosure rules you would have
found that they have not.
This is defamation per se."
Defamation Per Se
Slander per se consists of any one of the following:
Statement charging an individual with a serious crime; Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 435 (1992).
Libel per se consists of
[a]ny written or printed article . . . if it tends to expose the plaintiff to public contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace, or induce an evil opinion of
him in the minds of right-thinking persons, and to deprive him of their friendly intercourse in society.Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.,
42 N.Y.2d 369, 379 (1977)
In your article, you claim that my statements are evidence of criminal stock bashing. Not only did I confirm with Seeking Alpha that I have
committed no wrong doing, another shareholder went ahead and first asked the SEC whether or not I have broken any laws.
".
Each and every one of Finstons articles published false information with the intent to damage and devalue
the Companys stock price."
I emailed the managing editor at seeking alpha the following:

"I never shorted FITX but I did state publicly that it would have been nice if I could. Have I violated
any of Seeking Alphas disclosure rules? I didnt think it was wrong to state a desire to make money
as it was clear the stock would inevitably lose in value.
Tuesday, October 07, 2014 8:35:09 PM 42438 Post # of 175204
I am the same Matt Finston that said "I want to short FITX." I called my brokerage and tried shorting it
at .067, well before I wrote that most recent article on the company. Sadly, my brokerage said that to
Pg ID 17
short just 4,000 shares, I had to put up $10,000 for the margin. 4,000 shares? You mean lock-up
$10,000 just to short $268, where my maximum profit would be $268? Yeah, I would love to short
FITX. Just not worth locking up $10,000.
Now If I could have shorted $10,000 worth of FITX at .067, that would've been nice. I could have
taken home $3800 in profit. But $101.84? I'll pass.
Any ideas on how to short this without the crazy margin requirements? Looking at interactive brokers.
any others?
I dont understand why shareholders are making such a big deal about it. Perhaps they are unable to
separate wanting to profit from a stocks change in value versus holding a grudge against the
company?"
Seeking alpha responded with the following:
No. That exceeds any requirement we have. You had no position and said so. I'd like to go long
10,000 shares of Apple, but I don't have the capital to do so. Saying that's my goal indicates my
bullishness on the company though, which is more valuable to readers.
In sum, you're good.
Thanks,
GBM
George B. Moriarty
Managing Editor, Opinion & Analysis
Seeking Alpha"
MMJ.TODAY has committed libel with the following. This is 100% false.
". Each and every one of Finstons articles published false information with the intent to damage and devalue the Companys stock price.----
You claim the following "

"Matt Finston has engaged in obvious and admitted fraudulent conduct and willful misrepresentations with the
intent to manipulate the price of FITX and cause a loss of value to shareholders stock as sellers or
purchasers. His fraudulent conduct satisfies all of the elements (identified above) necessary to constitute a
Rule 10b-5 violation. "
This is what the SEC wrote in response to a shareholder with a similar concern:
RE: Recent complaint by one Matthew Finston regarding CEN Biotech
Paggi, Terry A. (PaggiT@SEC.GOV)
Add to contacts
5/05/15
[Keep this message at the top of your inbox]
PaggiT@SEC.GOV
Opinions provided on internet blogs falls under the First Amendment of Free Speech. Where the line can be crossed is when someone uses a
media to their benefit in securities trading. An example would be if someone held many shares of a stock and spread a rumor online that
would cause others to buy the stock and drive the price up and the person would then sell the stock at the inflated price.
Also, Mr. Finston posting email communication that I sent him is not a violation of any laws. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me.
Regards,
__________________________________________________________________________________
Pg ID 18
cid:image001.jpg@01CB7CFD.95FF0780
Terry A. Paggi, CFE, CAMS
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Division of Enforcement
Chicago Regional Office
175 W. Jackson Blvd.
Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60604
'Tel: 312.353.1050
*E-mail: paggit@sec.gov
"
Unbelievably, although we will not show the name and contact information for this SEC agent, Finston
actually published the name and personal contact info of this agent as well as showing screen shots of the
actual emails. Conduct that certainly violates SEC internal procedure.
and as the SEC states:

"Mr. Finston posting email communication that I sent him is not a violation of any laws. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
me."
And this laughable but also defamatory statement:
The article has also altered numerous statements that complete change the meaning. According to Masson
v. New Yorker
Magazine, Inc. falsely attributing a statement is defamatory.

The article states: "On yet another occasion Finston states the following about FITX, Ill bash them all on
fb, twtr, Ill write their names on the doors of ___________ if I have to. Fk these guys.
No. It wasnt. It was quoting the following https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRq8lMXoAxE
I have publicly clarified this quote numerously yet it continues to be misquoted in order to ruin my character. This demonstrates gross
negligence of the truth and malicious intent.
The article has caused enough damage that Brady Farrell posted the following statement:
Pg ID 19
Anyone who has read this article has now come to associate me with criminal activity.
This is a request to please cease and desist publishing defamatory statements about my person. As you have stated publicly that
MMJ.TODAY was your website, or at least you have shared ownership, that tells me you are taking responsibility for the statements that have
been published. This is the last time I will send an email to you, Taylor Christoffersen, directly. The next time you will hear from me will be
through an attorney. And the address on file is 1356 155Th, Olathe, KS 66062.

From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
Cc:
Pg ID 20
matthew finston matthew.finston@yahoo.com

For your information
May 25, 2015 at 3:32 AM
Editor@mmj.today
samcary777@gmail.com
The following has been posted on your website since May 10th. A similar email was sent to samcary777@gmail.com.
This is not a final warning because you have already received that. This is for your records as well as to let you know that I will be filing a
lawsuit.
This is a request to remove my name and any reference to my name from your website MMJ.TODAY. You
and your website have made false statements about me. You have falsely called me a criminal and a fraud.
I have not been convicted of any crime nor have committed any crime. The statements were made with
complete disregard of the truth. and had you asked seeking alpha whether or not my statements violated
any disclosure rules you would have found that they have not.
Defamation Per Se
Statement charging an individual with a serious crime; Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 435 (1992).
[a]ny written or printed article . . . if it tends to expose the plaintiff to public contempt, ridicule, aversion
or disgrace, or induce an evil opinion of him in the minds of right-thinking persons, and to deprive him of
their friendly intercourse in society.Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 42 N.Y.2d 369, 379 (1977)
In your article, you claim that my statements are evidence of criminal stock bashing. Not only did I confirm
with Seeking Alpha that I have committed no wrong doing, another shareholder went ahead and first asked
the SEC whether or not I have broken any laws.
MMJ.TODAY States:
". Each and every one of Finstons articles published false information with the intent to damage and
devalue the Companys stock price."
"I never shorted FITX but I did state publicly that it would have been nice if I could. Have I violated any of
Seeking Alphas disclosure rules? I didnt think it was wrong to state a desire to make money as it was clear
the stock would inevitably lose in value.
I am the same Matt Finston that said "I want to short FITX." I called my brokerage and tried shorting it at
.067, well before I wrote that most recent article on the company. Sadly, my brokerage said that to short
just 4,000 shares, I had to put up $10,000 for the margin. 4,000 shares? You mean lock-up $10,000 just
to short $268, where my maximum profit would be $268? Yeah, I would love to short FITX. Just not worth
locking up $10,000.
Now If I could have shorted $10,000 worth of FITX at .067, that would've been nice. I could have taken
home $3800 in profit. But $101.84? I'll pass.
Any ideas on how to short this without the crazy margin requirements? Looking at interactive brokers. any
others?
I dont understand why shareholders are making such a big deal about it. Perhaps they are unable to
separate wanting to profit from a stocks change in value versus holding a grudge against the company?"
No. That exceeds any requirement we have. You had no position and said so. I'd like to go long 10,000
shares of Apple, but I don't have the capital to do so. Saying that's my goal indicates my bullishness on the
Pg ID 21
shares of Apple, but I don't have the capital to do so. Saying that's my goal indicates my bullishness on the
company though, which is more valuable to readers.
Thanks,
GBM
George B. Moriarty
Seeking Alpha"
This demonstrates that MMJ.TODAY has grossly erred by stating the following 100% false statement:
". Each and every one of Finstons articles published false information with the intent to damage and
devalue the Companys stock price.---The article further falsely claims the following:
"Matt Finston has engaged in obvious and admitted fraudulent conduct and willful misrepresentations with
the intent to manipulate the price of FITX and cause a loss of value to shareholders stock as sellers or
purchasers. His fraudulent conduct satisfies all of the elements (identified above) necessary to constitute a
Rule 10b-5 violation. "
Add to contacts
5/05/15
PaggiT@SEC.GOV
Opinions provided on internet blogs falls under the First Amendment of Free Speech. Where the line can be
crossed is when someone uses a media to their benefit in securities trading. An example would be if
someone held many shares of a stock and spread a rumor online that would cause others to buy the stock
and drive the price up and the person would then sell the stock at the inflated price.
Also, Mr. Finston posting email communication that I sent him is not a violation of any laws. If you have
any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Regards,
__________________________________________________________________________________
Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60604
'Tel: 312.353.1050
" Unbelievably, although we will not show the name and contact information for this SEC agent, Finston
actually published the name and personal contact info of this agent as well as showing screen shots of the
actual emails. Conduct that certainly violates SEC internal procedure.
"Mr. Finston posting email communication that I sent him is not a violation of any laws. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me."
The article has also altered numerous statements that complete change the meaning. According to Masson
v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc. falsely attributing a statement is defamatory.
The article states: "On yet another occasion Finston states the following about FITX, Ill bash them all on
Pg ID 22
No. It wasnt. It was quoting the following film https://www.youtube.com/watch?
The statement was directed at Chris Parry, Wolf of Weed St, and Matt Finston. It was a quote. And you have
skewed the interpretation of it even though I have made clear on numerous occasions that you have
grossly misconstrued the statements.
Even though I have publicly clarified this quote numerously yet it continues to be misquoted in order to
ruin my character. This demonstrates gross negligence of the truth and malicious intent.
The article has caused enough damage that Brady Farrell posted that my name and
"Criminal is trending #2 on Bing!"
You have falsely and maliciously called me a fraud. You have made numerous false statement that have
caused irreparable damage. These false statements were made with gross neglect of the truth in hopes of
destroying me, my name, and my future. They have brought harm to my family and has impinged on our
ability to make a living.
I have proven with clear and indisputable evidence that your article makes numerous false claims of facts
and I will seek damages. The longer this is up, the greater the damage.
I see no other resolution to this other than legal action.
Pg ID 23
Matt Finston NYU Gallatin School of Individualized Study

This is a request to remove my name and any reference to my name from your website
MMJ.TODAY. You and your website have made false statements about me. You have falsely called
me a criminal and a fraud. I have not been convicted of any crime nor have committed any crime.
The statements were made with complete disregard of the truth. and had you asked seeking alpha
whether or not my statements violated any disclosure rules you would have found that they have
not.
Defamation Per Se
Statement charging an individual with a serious crime; Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 435
(1992).
[a]ny written or printed article . . . if it tends to expose the plaintiff to public contempt, ridicule,
aversion or disgrace, or induce an evil opinion of him in the minds of right-thinking persons, and
to deprive him of their friendly intercourse in society.Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 42
N.Y.2d 369, 379 (1977)
In your article, you claim that my statements are evidence of criminal stock bashing. Not only did I
confirm with Seeking Alpha that I have committed no wrong doing, another shareholder went
ahead and first asked the SEC whether or not I have broken any laws.
MMJ.TODAY States:
". Each and every one of Finstons articles published false information with the intent to damage
and devalue the Companys stock price."
"I never shorted FITX but I did state publicly that it would have been nice if I could. Have I violated
any of Seeking Alphas disclosure rules? I didnt think it was wrong to state a desire to make
money as it was clear the stock would inevitably lose in value.
I am the same Matt Finston that said "I want to short FITX." I called my brokerage and tried
shorting it at .067, well before I wrote that most recent article on the company. Sadly, my
brokerage said that to short just 4,000 shares, I had to put up $10,000 for the margin. 4,000
shares? You mean lock-up $10,000 just to short $268, where my maximum profit would be $268?
Yeah, I would love to short FITX. Just not worth locking up $10,000.
Now If I could have shorted $10,000 worth of FITX at .067, that would've been nice. I could have
taken home $3800 in profit. But $101.84? I'll pass.
Any ideas on how to short this without the crazy margin requirements? Looking at interactive
brokers. any others?
I dont understand why shareholders are making such a big deal about it. Perhaps they are unable
to separate wanting to profit from a stocks change in value versus holding a grudge against the
company?"
No. That exceeds any requirement we have. You had no position and said so. I'd like to go long
Pg ID 24
10,000 shares of Apple, but I don't have the capital to do so. Saying that's my goal indicates my
bullishness on the company though, which is more valuable to readers.
Thanks,
GBM
George B. Moriarty
Seeking Alpha"
This demonstrates that MMJ.TODAY has grossly erred by stating the following 100% false
statement:
". Each and every one of Finstons articles published false information with the intent to damage
and devalue the Companys stock price.---The article further falsely claims the following:
"Matt Finston has engaged in obvious and admitted fraudulent conduct and willful
misrepresentations with the intent to manipulate the price of FITX and cause a loss of value to
shareholders stock as sellers or purchasers. His fraudulent conduct satisfies all of the elements
(identified above) necessary to constitute a Rule 10b-5 violation. "
Add to contacts
5/05/15
PaggiT@SEC.GOV
Opinions provided on internet blogs falls under the First Amendment of Free Speech. Where the
line can be crossed is when someone uses a media to their benefit in securities trading. An
example would be if someone held many shares of a stock and spread a rumor online that would
cause others to buy the stock and drive the price up and the person would then sell the stock at
the inflated price.
Also, Mr. Finston posting email communication that I sent him is not a violation of any laws. If you
have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Regards,
__________________________________________________________________________________
Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60604
'Tel: 312.353.1050
" Unbelievably, although we will not show the name and contact information for this SEC agent,
Finston actually published the name and personal contact info of this agent as well as showing
screen shots of the actual emails. Conduct that certainly violates SEC internal procedure.
"Mr. Finston posting email communication that I sent him is not a violation of any laws. If you have
any questions, please feel free to contact me."
The article has also altered numerous statements that complete change the meaning. According to
Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc. falsely attributing a statement is defamatory.
Pg ID 25
The article states: "On yet another occasion Finston states the following about FITX, Ill bash them
all on fb, twtr, Ill write their names on the doors of ___________ if I have to. Fk these guys.
No. It wasnt. It was quoting the following film https://www.youtube.com/watch?
The statement was directed at Chris Parry, Wolf of Weed St, and Matt Finston. It was a quote. And
you have skewed the interpretation of it even though I have made clear on numerous occasions
that you have grossly misconstrued the statements.
Even though I have publicly clarified this quote numerously yet it continues to be misquoted in
order to ruin my character. This demonstrates gross negligence of the truth and malicious intent.
The article has caused enough damage that Brady Farrell posted that my name and
"Criminal is trending #2 on Bing!"
You have falsely and maliciously called me a fraud. You have made numerous false statement that
have caused irreparable damage. These false statements were made with gross neglect of the
truth in hopes of destroying me, my name, and my future. They have brought harm to my family
and has impinged on our ability to make a living.
I have proven with clear and indisputable evidence that your article makes numerous false claims
of facts and I will seek damages. The longer this is up, the greater the damage.
I see no other resolution to this other than legal action.
Reply Like 1 Follow Post May 10 at 10:16am
Matt Finston NYU Gallatin School of Individualized Study

so you didn't see this^^^^^???
Reply Like 1 May 17 at 7:33am
Chris Warner Northern Illinois University

And personally I appreciate people like Finston for shedding light and DD on corrupt companies!
Reply Like 1 Follow Post May 10 at 8:01am
Heyam C.Farrell HFCC

Finston can't take a taste of his own Medicine !!
Karma is a Bitch isn't it Finston !!!!
Reply Like 1 Follow Post May 9 at 10:40pm
Brian Kaufmann
Let's hope the shareholders voices will finally be heard!
Brady Farrell Top Commenter Phoenix, Arizona

Matt Finston and criminal is trending #2 on Bing!!
Robert Young Follow Works at Retired and having a ball.

Look at him run for the bathroom to CHANGE HIS UNDERWEAR
Pg ID 26
Genghis Hill Everything at Everywhere

This is good info. DoorMatt is done.
Ericstevenc Sven Cantares Follow Works at Self-Employed

Tawdry escepades sorry
Ericstevenc Sven Cantares Follow Works at Self-Employed

Never does it again......
Joey Strickland Wingate University

Someone is in trouble.
Pg ID 27
Pg ID 28
Susan Barbee Top Commenter Owner at Self-Employed

Paulo Pincaro ,You seem to be at least somewhat objective. And I appreciate that.!
I have to ask you, Is this really your view on what has gone on with Cen Biotech? you made this
comment.
"To me, it's pretty obvious that instead of actually seeking real answers for why the FITX grounds
were never brought up to code in order to be re inspected and licensed, a bunch of naive
investors have essentially started looking for the boogeyman. But guess what? Even if Matt is
indicted (wouldn't it be considered libel to suggest that when you have no evidence of such an
outcome forthcoming???), you still have to ask why months after the initial inspection, Bill didn't
simply bring the building to code to satisfy the requirements as outlined in HC's initial evaluation.
You still have no answers as to why during the last three months you ... See More
Reply Like Follow Post Edited May 11 at 10:55am

From The FAQ .
WHY WAS THE PRE-LICENSE INSPECTION REPORT MADE PUBLIC?
A known shareholder to the company did a Freedom of Information Act request, and received
from the Privacy Commissioner under the Authority from Health Canada, the full inspection
report. So as to not allow this shareholder sensitive inside information, CEN Biotech, Inc.
immediately released the inspection report per their legal obligations to the SEC.
The press release states clearly: As CEN Biotech Inc. continues in its effort to be transparent, it
releases its Health Canada Pre-License inspection report. The report can be viewed HERE. - The
press release can be found HERE.
To address your concern around our inspection report being released; that report was never
provided to us after inspection by Health Canada. A shareholder filed a Freedom of Informa... See
More
Reply Like May 11 at 10:59am
Pg ID 29
James Smiley
I guess the bashers dumped 9,000,000 shares in the final hour and caused the pps to decrease
11%. Maybe not, insiders are making a nice profit on recently unrestricted shares.
Reply Like Follow Post May 14 at 9:45pm
Paulo Pincaro Follow Top Commenter Stock Broker at First Colonial Group
Few problems.
1: you have failed to prove anything he said was false
2: if there was an actual valid claim to be made, why would FITX not take any actual legal steps
3: people short and make their opinions all the time, just ask Bill Ackman... If we're at a point of
completely disregarding first amendment rights, I think we've hit rock bottom. But as I said, there
are many prominent cases of people shorting and making it public. The Soros pound short also
comes to mind. There is nothing fraudulent about that any more than saying you're going long a
stock and posting a positive opinion or fact.
To me, it's pretty obvious that instead of actually seeking real answers for why the FITX grounds
were never brought up to code in order to be re inspected and licensed, a bunch of naive
investors have essentially started looking for th... See More
Ok I stand corrected there is a doc against the minister of health...
Reply Like 1 May 8 at 9:34pm
Pg ID 30
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/creative-edge-nutrition-inc-zoning-172646503.html
The Building was absolutely "up to Code" ZOning and the preinspection.
we would like to release the fact that Health Canada, as a result of their pre-license inspection on
July 31, 2014 did state they were satisfied with our facility and were, in their words, "...the
applicant (CEN BioTech Inc.) will be ready and able to meet the requirements of the MMPR
provided the deficiencies addressed during the inspection debrief meeting were addressed...". We
are happy to report to our shareholders that those deficiencies were immediately addressed and
ask for your continued patience as Health Canada assesses that information given the tremendous
workload they currently have with the vast array of applicants currently before them.
Nice to see you jump on board to Alan.!
Reply Like 1 May 8 at 10:09pm
That's one way not to disprove anything I said. And for the record, I think Alan is an idiot (see:
growlife). Stop being naive, start accepting the con job. If you were building a company in Canada,
would you use the little excess capital you have to buy an apartment in Manhattan? If you cared
for your shareholders, would you make up a story about having purchase orders from GNC and
only PR that it fell through after it got blown up on twitter? This is not a company worth trusting,
period. I think it's hilarious people are still even discussing it and haven't moved on. You say
claims were false but can't point to a single one. What does that tell you?
Reply Like May 9 at 6:35am
View 2 more
Joe Pannu Top Commenter UC Davis

Its a investment... i dont think any person made money on these stocks other then people that
were permoting lemons. Im not saying all companies are bad but 99.9% otc is pump and dump
IMHO. IF you loss money in otc (OF THE COUNTER) PLEASE dont blame anyone but youself.
Pg ID 31
Chris Warner Northern Illinois University

FITX is still moving? I thought it was dead. What do thy have going for it now that Health Canada
shot it down? Sorry but it looks like all the "bashers" were right about this bs company!
Reply Like Follow Post May 10 at 7:59am
Brady Farrell Top Commenter Phoenix, Arizona

Fantastic way to illustrate the potential criminal behavior by this punk. I warned him a long time
ago as did many others, this is the big leagues not a classroom. Oh and Alan please go p*ss on
the CEN property so you will be arrested for trespassing.

Finston V Christofferson

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Finston V Christofferson

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2:15-cv-12013-AJT-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

New York, New York.

Taylor Christoffersen is a Kansas resident who maintains his principal residence

at 1356 155th, Olathe, Kansas 66062.

17810 White Tail Court, Houston, Texas 77084.

Brady Farrell is an Arizona resident who maintains his principal residence at

32203 North 16th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85085.

residence in Columbus, New Mexico.

2:15-cv-12013-AJT-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 2 of 6

administrators of the website www.mmj.today.

Upon information and belief, www.mmj.today is not owned or operated by an

independent corporation or partnership.

www.mmj.today is a website purporting to inform the community about the

www.mmj.today is viewable, and has been viewed, by residents in the state of

Jurisdiction is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332 because

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(3) because each

of the defendants are subject to this Courts personal jurisdiction.

Finston is an online author who writes about investing and corporations.

Fisnton regularly posts articles on a website seekingalpha.com, where he has

posted at least 75 articles on a wide variety of subjects.

supply the anticipated legal marijuana market in Canada.

On occasion, Finston has been critical of a company called CEN Biotech.

CEN Biotech trades under the symbol FITX.

2:15-cv-12013-AJT-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 3 of 6

Defendants, through www.mmj.today, published an article on May 8, 2015

entitled Potential Criminal Indictment of Stock Basher Matthew Finston.

reckless disregard as to whether it was false.

have not removed the article from the website.

The Article constitutes defamation per se, which is independently actionable

pursuant to MCL 600.2911.

Finston has been damaged as a result of the Article.

Finston seeks judgment as set forth below.

2:15-cv-12013-AJT-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 4 of 6

Finston incorporates the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully

set forth here.

The Article makes false and defamatory statements about Finston.

Specifically, the Article falsely states that Finston committed a crime by

fraudulently manipulating stock prices.

reckless disregard as to whether it was false.

The Article was per se defamatory pursuant to MCL 600.2911(1).

Finston has been damaged by the Article.

Finston seeks judgment as set forth below.

Finston incorporates the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully

set forth here.

The Article placed Finston in a false light in the public eye.

The Article gave Finston unwanted publicity.

and the false light in which it placed Finston.

2:15-cv-12013-AJT-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 5 of 6

Finston has been damaged by the Article.

Finston seeks judgment as set forth below.

Prayer for Relief

Awarding Finston punitive damages pursuant to MCL 600.2911;

and appropriate under the circumstances.

Dated: June 4, 2015

By:/s/H. William Burdett, Jr.

2:15-cv-12013-AJT-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 6 of 6

1,Matthew Finston,ve thtt the bregoing statements are

STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

SubSCFibed and swom to before me thisitt day Of

Notary PIb111.state Of New York

2:15-cv-12013-AJT-DRG Doc # 1-1 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 1 of 1