Worldwide NFT Inc (PK) (WNFT) Quote

Even if he was the one writing and issuing the press release, if he did it based on a good faith belief that what he was saying was true, then it wouldn't be fraud. Basically, if he was fed wrong information by the fraudsters, he isn't complicit even though he's the one that issued the press release.
What a pile of crap.

Now you and i-Glow have devolved into crackpot conspiracy theories with no actual proof of any of it to try to protect Calasse (for some unknown reason)..

It truly is pathetic.

The aiding and abetting of securities fraud that the district court found Calasse perpetrated still stands and the chances are overwhelmingly in Sharp's favor that the NVSC will rule in his favor - most appeals fail.

Whether Sharp has a merger candidate is irrelevant at this stage and doesn't interest me at this time, especially after the GVSI fiasco. I'm in WNFT for the court decision.

https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=64060&csIID=64060&deLinkID=909774&onBaseDocumentNumber=23-23834

the district court found that Appellant’s “only service was to aid and abet securities fraud” and therefore cancelled Appellant’s Stock.

It's not a summary, as he quoted it verbatim.

And it's not a nice summary regardless, as he doesn't understand the legal issues and his grasp of the filings is tenuous outside of these excerpts he's posted over and over.


In fact, I don't think the NVSC will even consider that evidence in reaching their decision. It simply won't get that far. The only way it may be considered is by the lower court if the decision is remanded for proper service.

If this evidence, that was submitted to the NVSC, isn't proof that Calasse committed fraud, then I don't know what is.

It is evidence, but hasn't been verified. If someone else could issue press releases in Calasse's name, then he wouldn't be guilty of anything.

Even if he was the one writing and issuing the press release, if he did it based on a good faith belief that what he was saying was true, then it wouldn't be fraud. Basically, if he was fed wrong information by the fraudsters, he isn't complicit even though he's the one that issued the press release.

Funny how you and i-Glow mention the Caledonian case only when it suits you and when the SEC in the Calendonia case mentions Calasse's fraud in detail, you say it has nothing to do with Calasse and even try to convince everyone that the fraudulent press releases that Calasse wrote and published were actually done by someone else.

Again, our point is that despite this multi year investigation into the pump and dumps, with detailed allegations and evidence showing who profited from the scam, the SEC chose to charge Mulholland and his associates and didn't charge Calasse or any of the other CEOs involved.

The fact is, Calasse didn't sell a single share. If he was complicit in the fraud, why would he keep them and not profit himself?! Look at how quickly Sharp sold his common shares...



At the end of the day, I don't care what you think. I've shared what I think is compelling evidence, but even then I don't think it matters. The NVSC will be ruling based on the jurisdictional defects, they likely won't even consider whether Calasse did or did not commit fraud. It simply isn't relevant at the moment, because either a) Sharp didn't have proper jurisdiction to cancel the shares, or b) Calasse doesn't have standing to appeal.

Whichever way they rule, the allegations you keep copying and pasting are completely irrelevant.

Why didn't the SEC name or file a complaint against Calasse if he was guilty of fraud.

Why did the SEC make Sharp return the stock he stole from Calasse.

From the SEC comments on the Form 10.

"Organizational History, page 2


2. We note your disclosure with regard to the treatment of shares held by Warwick Calasse as treasury shares. Please provide your analysis as to why these shares should not be treated as issued and outstanding.

Response: We have revised our disclosure to treat the Series A preferred issued to Warwick Calasse as issued and outstanding and to make clear that Mr. Sharp has retained control of Goff Corp. through the issuance of 5,000,000 shares of Series A preferred and 1,000,000 shares of common stock."

Sharp was busted for stealing the Calasse stock.

The SEC understood that GOFF was a puppet CEO for GOFF and never created or issued any press releases.

That is exactly why the SEC held harmless and didn't charge him with fraud.

You have used every excuse possible as to why the SEC never charged Calasse with securities fraud - one was hilarious - they didn't charge him with fraud because he didn't respond to a letter. That was hilarious but not close to being accurate.

Your obsession with Calasse is too funny - you still don't understand it doesn't matter who wins or losses - Sharp never had a company lined up and never will. The Calasse lawsuit has zero to do with Sharp halting all operations for GOFF/WNFT. Any competent CEO would have pushed forward.

Instead of tap dancing around the question - why didn't the SEC/DOJ file a complaint or indict Calasse for fraud.

Your obsession of Calasse - is delusional.

No real company will ever go public with a 3 time hijacked shell.

Why hasn't Sharp found a company for SRNW.

IG

Nice summary of what cannot be overlooked if the NVSC does their job!

Kindly look up the SEC v. Caledonian complaint you have quoted from excessively. Who is one of the five listed defendants?
Funny how you and i-Glow mention the Caledonian case only when it suits you and when the SEC in the Calendonia case mentions Calasse's fraud in detail, you say it has nothing to do with Calasse and even try to convince everyone that the fraudulent press releases that Calasse wrote and published were actually done by someone else.

You both are pathetic lying hypocrites.

Here's what the SEC said in the Caledonia Bank case concerning Calasse.

If this evidence, that was submitted to the NVSC, isn't proof that Calasse committed fraud, then I don't know what is.

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2017/comp23921.pdf

57. On March 5, 2013 i.e., two months after the initial transfer of Goff stock to
Caledonian, Clear Water and Legacy Global- Goff filed a Report on Form 8-K announcing a
change-of-control transaction in which an individual by the name of Warwick Calasse bought all of the stock owned by officers o·Flynn and Corkery for $25,000. O'Flynn and Corkery resigned, and Calasse was appointed in their stead. Calasse was supposedly qualified to be sole officer and director of Goff because, among other things, "[f]rom 2006 to 2010, Mr. Calasse held vairous training and management positions with horse farms and stables in the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe." Goff's corporate headquarters moved from Cork, Ireland to Medellin, Colombia. During the tenure of O'Flynn and Corkery, Goff's filings with the Commission did not evidence any activity, operations or transactions in the job placement ( or any other) business.
58. The next week, on March 12, 2013, Goff filed a Reporimt on Form 8-K announcing a
significant change in business: the company's newly created Nevada shell corporation, Golden Glory Resources Inc. ("Golden Glory Nevada") had entered into an Assignment Agreement with Golden Glory Resources S.A., a Panamanian corporation ("Golden Glory Panama"), by which Golden Glory Nevada "acquired an option to purchase a 100% interest in and to a certain Columbian mining concession known as La Frontera (The Frontier) Project, code number LGC-
15011, located in the Aquales region, Cal des Department, Republic of Colombia." The Report Fonn 8-K represented that "we have abandoned our former business plan and entered the business of mineral exploration and are now an exploration stage mining company engaged in the identification, acquisition and exploitation of metals and minerals with a focus on gold and diamond mineralization on La Frontera Property."
59. Beginning three days after its change of business, Goff issued a series of press
releases creating the public impression that it was immediately and actively engaged in gold and diamond exploration in Colombia. For example:
• On March 15, 2013, a Goff press release, entitled "Goff Corp. Subsidiary Golden
Glory Resources Acquires 100 Percent Interest in the La Frontera Gold Project in
Colombia's Hottest Gold Exploration Region," represented that "[a]pproximately two-thirds of Colombian gold production has been from placer deposits in the Department of Antioquia, which is immediacy [sic] adjacent to and straddles about 30% of the leases where Golden Glory's La Frontera Project is located." Goff stated that "this project is seen to be on the order of six times as large as notable prospects with similar gold type and potential."
• On March 18, 2013, Goff issued a press release entitled "Goff Corporation Has
Appointed Experienced Colombian Mining and Explosives Expert Manuel Hernando Serna as a Director of the Board."
• On March 22, 2013, Goff announced that "Golden Glory Resources expects to pursue its exploration program that will employ leading geological consultants and their own geological staff to carry out the program .... This first phase exploration is anticipated within 90 days." On March 25, 2013, Goff represented that Golden Glory Resources "plans to begin a 5,000-rneter diamond drilling program on its La Frontera Gold Project in Department of Caldes, Colombia within 90 days .. ,
• In a press_release on March 26, 2013, Goff's sole officer and director, Calasse,
stated that"he expects gold's current price level will help fuel the company's
efforts to target a bulk tonnage, low-grade type gold and silver project on Golden
Glory's leases, and that the time is right for gold in Columbia." Calasse further
stated that "[w]e will be the first [on the Project] to explore using the full range of
modem gold and silver discovery methods."
• On March 27, 2013, Goff related that "Golden Glory Resources is developing a
comprehensive exploration program for its La Frontera Gold Project in Colombia; Phase One groundwork will provide basis for follow-on planned diamond drilling."
60. Bolstering the Goff press releases was a newsletter posted on April 2, 2013 on a
stock-touting website by the name of Penny Stock Pillager, which stated: "After years of tunnoil, the Colombian government is stepping in to help legitimate mining companies pull gold from their resource-rich soil. By grabbing a plot of land directly in the Colombian gold sector, investors in Goff Corporation could be on the verge of true wealth!" (emphasis original)
61. The representations of Goff and Penny Stock Pillager were never supported by
audited financial statements evidencing true wealth, gold mining interests, or diamond drilling.
On or before March 18, 2013, Goff was required to filed a "super" Report on Form 8-K that included all of the information required in a Report on Form 10. The company did not file such a Report on Fonn 8-K on March 18 or any time thereafter. Goff stopped filing Reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q at all times after March 18, 2013.
62. There is no trading data available for Goff on March 14, 2013, the day before the
company's March 15 press release announcing its mining interest in "Colombia's hottest gold exploration region." On March 18, the first trading day after the release, Goff stock spiked to a closing price of $0.28 per share on a volume of 263,914,096 shares. On April 5, Goff stock at a high of$0.58 per share on a volume of:22,003,500 shares. By June 4, 2013, Goff stock had fallen to a price of $0.01 per share.
63. Simultaneously with the Goff stock promotion, Caledonian, Clear Water, Legacy
Global and Verdrnont sold the stock into the public markets. Theirs were the first sales of the stock to the public. Caledonian Bank sold 35,000,000 shares of Goff stock for proceeds of $6,860,685; Clear Water sold 25,000,000 shares for proceeds of $4,226,689; Legacy Global sold 21,750,000 shares for proceeds of$3,293,816; and Verdmont sold 14,000,000 shares for of $3,526,354. Verdmont sold for the account of customers and received commissions on the sales. Caledonian Bank and Caledonian Securities have represented through counsel that sold for the account of customers and received commissions on the sales.
64. These sales of 95,750,000 shares of Goff stock generated proceeds of $17,907,546.
In making these distributions, the Defendants violated Section 5 of the Securities Act. There was no registration statement in effect for the Defendants' offers and sales of Goff securities. And 1hr, Defendants used the instruments and means of interstate commerce in offering and selling Goff securities.

61. The representations of Goff and Penny Stock Pillager were never supported by
audited financial statements evidencing true wealth, gold mining interests, or diamond drilling. On or before March 18, 2013, Goff was required to filed a "super" Report on Form 8-K that included all of the information required in a Report on Form 10. The company did not file such a Report on Fonn 8-K on March 18 or any time thereafter. Goff stopped filing Reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q at all times after March 18, 2013.
62.

...so Calasse not only wrote fraudulent press releases, somehow managed to get "no trading data for Goff on March 14, 2013, the day before the company's March 15 press release" and also abandoned the company directly after the pump and dump. I'm sure the NVSC won't look to kindly on that type of behavior from Calasse.

Defendant Used Offshore Shell Companies in Belize and the West Indies to Perpetrate Numerous Schemes, Including the Manipulation of Cynk Technology Corp (CYNK)
BROOKLYN, N.Y. – Earlier today, Gregg R. Mulholland, a dual U.S. and Canadian citizen and secret owner of Legacy Global Markets S.A. (Legacy), an offshore broker-dealer and investment management company based in Panama City, Panama, and Belize City, Belize, pleaded guilty to money laundering conspiracy for fraudulently manipulating the stocks of more than 40 U.S. publicly-traded companies and then laundering more than $250 million in profits through at least five offshore law firms.

Seeing as he engaged in similar schemes for over 40 companies, maybe you can now understand why he needed puppet CEOs. He didn't want the risk involved with having 40+ co-conspirators, nor would he want to share the profit with 40 other people. Not when he can find someone clueless of his fraud to become CEO and take the fall for free.

Thank you, I-GLOW, for providing context and examples from a similar scheme orchestrated by the Mulholland Group. They were very successful in their schemes, making over $250M in ill-gotten profit, and they were pretty consistent in how they conducted the scam. Obviously all 40+ CEOs were used to further the scam, but it seems clear they were duped and scammed themselves.

That's another in a long list of lies from you that have no evidence or documentation. And CYNK.PK has nothing to do with WNFT.

As usual, it's just more misdirection from you.

If you were capable of even a modicum of research, you wouldn't make erroneous blanket statements like that.

Defendant Used Offshore Shell Companies in Belize and the West Indies to Perpetrate Numerous Schemes, Including the Manipulation of Cynk Technology Corp (CYNK)
BROOKLYN, N.Y. – Earlier today, Gregg R. Mulholland, a dual U.S. and Canadian citizen and secret owner of Legacy Global Markets S.A. (Legacy), an offshore broker-dealer and investment management company based in Panama City, Panama, and Belize City, Belize, pleaded guilty to money laundering conspiracy for fraudulently manipulating the stocks of more than 40 U.S. publicly-traded companies and then laundering more than $250 million in profits through at least five offshore law firms.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/orchestrator-more-40-pump-and-dump-schemes-and-secret-owner-offshore-brokerage-firm

Greg Mulholland was the secret owner of Legacy Global Markets, which he used to profit off of more than 40 pump and dumps.

Kindly look up the SEC v. Caledonian complaint you have quoted from excessively. Who is one of the five listed defendants? Here, I'll help you...



I know you're used to being wrong about things, but this is one you should be extra ashamed about.

It was established that Calasse didn't create or generate any press releases.
That's another in a long list of lies from you that have no evidence or documentation. And
CYNK.PK has nothing to do with WNFT.

As usual, it's just more misdirection from you.

You are a waste of time.

Why do you have a odd obsession with GVSI.

WNFT has far more baggage than GVSI - neither will ever do a reverse merger with a real company.

Why is your sig taking a shot at GVSI is posting not enough to satisfy your obsession?

"Why do you have a odd obsession with GVSI.

WNFT has far more baggage than GVSI - neither will ever do a reverse merger with a real company.

"GVSI is delinquent with the SEC, is not SEC registered and reporting, has a FINRA Notice of Deficiency that was never addressed, has a SEC/FINRA restriction on its corporate actions such as a reverse merger and is in violation of FINRA Rule 6490."

That has been established - nothing earth shattering. It seems you believe that you can get GVSI Investors to switch and buy WNFT. Both are scams as is SRNW.

IG

Sharp did steal the Calasse stock and the SEC caught Sharp and made him return the stock to Calasse - obviously the SEC didn't accuse or indict him for securities fraud.

It was established that Calasse didn't create or generate any press releases.

Why are you so obsessed by a puppet CEO (Calasse) that the Awesome Penny Stocks pumping crew - it is amazing that you still don't understand how APS always used a puppet CEO - the SEC understood that is why they didn't file a complaint against Calasse.

You clueless about what happened - APS gave Calasse stock for being a puppet CEO.

What and read the magic.

"The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed civil fraud charges on Friday against a man they say is behind a pump-and-dump scam involving CYNK Technology [CYNK.PK], a penny stock company that briefly rose to a $6 billion value despite having no revenue.
The SEC said that Phillip Thomas Kueber, 54, filed a false and misleading registration statement for the company, and then enlisted a small group of "straw" shareholders and "sham CEOs" to conceal his control of the company's non-restricted shares.

Penny stock companies are often hijacked by fraudsters who seek to pump up the stock with phony press releases so they can quickly dump it before the price plummets.
CYNK grabbed headlines last year because its value skyrocketed despite having no revenue and being listed as a "development stage" company.

At one point during the stock's rally, shares rose more than 20,000 percent in a matter of weeks, hitting an intraday high of $21.95 on July 10, 2014."

Since mid-June, a mysterious penny stock called CYNK Technology has surged an astonishing 25,000%. On Friday, in response to the meteoric rise in CYNK's share price, the SEC halted trading in the company until July 24.

At the height of this trading frenzy, CYNK was technically worth over $5 billion on paper. However, filings show the company had no revenue or assets. It's also a mystery who is really behind the company.

Business Insider has had several conversations with a Belizean man named Javier Romero whose name and career history match descriptions of one of CYNK's CEOs.

Though Romero eventually admitted there was a "proposed transaction" where he was allegedly supposed to purchase CYNK shares, his conversations with us were highly unusual. They were peppered with contradictory information and denials he knew anything about the company.

CYNK has had a handful of CEOs since it was founded in 2008. One of those executives is a man named "Javier Romero." A filing with OTC Markets, the platform where CYNK is traded, described Romero as "the President, CEO, Secretary, Treasurer, and Director of CYNK Technologies, Inc." and said "since 2009 Mr. Romero has been a Fisheries Officer for the Government of Belize."

As you can see Javier Romero was never charged with securities fraud because the SEC understood that he was a puppet CEO. One of the APS pumping crew a ex-Hells Angel received 12 years in Federal Prison.

I met Phil Kueber in Las Vegas - his programmer was a friend and a world Class hacker.

My friend called and alerted me to CYNK at $0.06 but I was smart enough to not get involved.

I hope you have a better understanding of why the SEC never filed a complaint against Calasse. And why he never created or issued any press releases.

Your continued obsession of Calasse is amusing but borderline a sign of mental illness - you have the facts and you continue to post pinkyland wishful thinking - without any facts.

Your obsession of Calasse has you believing that he is El Cucuy and responsible for all things bad - which is exactly the storyline wants his cult to believe.

IG

attempted
Attempted is not the same as actually creating and publishing fraudulent press releases and fraudulent corporate documents about gold and diamond mines that don't exist and are now part of the evidence in the case.

Whatever you accuse Sharp "attempted" to do is no longer an issue.

That the district court found that Calasse did "aid and abet securities fraud" is.

Why do you post distorted information about GVSI but ignore all of the problems and red flags associated with WNFT.

All of the Sharp shells are scams.

WNFT has more baggage than any of them.

IG

Why did you constantly post that the Calasse lawsuit would be dismissed immediately and Calasse would be kicked to the curb.

Those type of posts were for pumping purposes only - but now you posted that you don't anything about the Nevada court system - so you were pumping void of any facts. Just more of your pinkyland wishful thinking.

Research and educate yourself before posting.

IG

Your basic reading comprehension is lacking at best - in a letter from the SEC:

"Organizational History, page 2

2. We note your disclosure with regard to the treatment of shares held by Warwick Calasse as treasury shares. Please provide your analysis as to why these shares should not be treated as issued and outstanding."

The Response from Sharp:

"We have revised our disclosure to treat the Series A preferred issued to Warwick Calasse as issued and outstanding and to make clear that Mr. Sharp has retained control of Goff Corp. through the issuance of 5,000,000 shares of Series A preferred and 1,000,000 shares of common stock."

Sharp attempted to steal the Calasse stock and the SEC caught Sharp.

If there was fraudulent activity from Calasse - why didn't Sharp state it - Sharp knew he had been busted and returned the Calasse stock was changed to Issued and Outstanding.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1528188/000149315221028135/filename1.htm

Since you are the one yammering about Calasse obtaining the stock through fraud - why didn't Sharp state it.

I am posting facts and proving Sharp couldn't provide an answer as to why Sharp placed the Calasse stock in the Treasury and not Issused and Outstanding.

Those are cold hard facts.

IG

the SEC has ruled in favor of Calasse.
More bullshit - it's a constant stream of lies coming from you.

I stand by that post. It's just taking longer than anyone originally thought since it's the court system. That's not uncommon.

The NVSC will again decide in Sharp's favor. After that I'll re-think whether I trust Sharp after the GVSI fiasco. I currently don't.

I'm no expert, I just read all the filings and seem to retain it better than others.

Honestly, it seems like something like this should have been filed in federal court instead of being appealed originally. The district court lacked jurisdiction, so it would have been a much easier process to just file in federal court and request that the decision be reversed.

Now that they appealed, I don't know if there is any way to use the federal courts. I think the NVSC will reach the same result the federal court would have, it just is a lengthier and more expensive route.

Calasse and his Attorneys could appeal the case to Federal Court - since the SEC made Sharp return the Calasse stock.

Calasse would have to file a writ of habeas corpus in Federal Court since all his state court remedies are exhausted.

Federal courts may overrule a state supreme court decision only when there is a federal question which springs up a federal jurisdiction.

I would be interested in what Yolo thinks - as the SEC has ruled in favor of Calasse.

IG

But you stated the case would be dismissed in 2022. The District Court Judge didn't have all of the facts because Sharp didn't provide proper service.

"Hi_Lo
Wednesday, 08/24/2022 10:06:16 AM

Calasse will be out of the picture after his appeal. The judge didn't make any mistakes in the ruling against Calasse. WNFT shareholders will just have to wait until the appeal is over and WNFT goes on to have a successful reverse merger...

The court sure thinks that the appellant needs to "show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed."

You are mistaken to think Calasse has nothing to prove, which he hasn't, and that's his error (again) in this case.

Calasse's lawyers have not shown anything from reading their response. And the court has said Calasse "lacks standing to appeal."

It's there in black and white. Calasse has pretty much already lost the case."

What happened to the swift dismissal of the Calasse lawsuit"

If Calasse had obtained his stock fraudulently - why did the SEC make Sharp return the stock to Calasse after Sharp attempted to steal it.

IG

Yes, it's official that you've doubled down on stupid and don't even realize it.

Everything I've stated has been accurate. Try your best to understand it, if you have any more questions let me know.

The signature that decided in Sharp's favor and the only signature that really counts.
The supreme court will also decide on Sharp's favor.

signed by Judge Williams
And so it's official - "the district court found that Calasse's 'only service was to aid and abet securities fraud' and therefore cancelled his stock."

https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=64060&csIID=64060&deLinkID=909774&onBaseDocumentNumber=23-23834

the district court found that Appellant’s “only service was to aid and abet securities fraud” and therefore cancelled Appellant’s Stock.

Maybe pictures will help. From the appeal brief appendix, here is a transcript of the first hearing. Notice what was discussed and what the judge said. Specifically, notice that he instructed the attorney to draft the order.



Now look at the district court decision, which was signed by the judge, but written by Sharp's attorney as I've repeatedly stated. Also notice that Calasse's attorney did not approve or respond to the email asking for approval, so it was submitted without her input.



Any further questions? Does that resolve your confusion?

You posted that Calasse's attorney and Sharp's attorney both stated that the district court found that Calasse "aided and abetted securities fraud," where only Calasse's attorney stated it which makes it even worse for Calasse since his own lawyer wrote it.

No, I didn't post that. Try reading it again, I'll help you (again, but for the last time) by swapping the order...

Sharp's attorney wrote (in the judgment he drafted for the judges signature, which was not approved by Calasse's attorney):
“only service was to aid and abet securities fraud”


Calasse's attorney wrote:
the district court found that Appellant’s “only service was to aid and abet securities fraud” and therefore cancelled Appellant’s Stock


So Calasse's attorney was quoting the district court judgment, which was written by Sharp's attorney and signed by Judge Williams. Can you understand this very basic concept now?

And it was the district court that mentioned the Calasse's "aid and abet securities fraud" part. Sharp's lawyer did not invent what the district court found, as you try to make it sound.

Are you really too stupid to follow what I have explained multiple times?

The judge didn't write anything. The court relies on both parties to draft and approve a judgment for the judge to sign. In this case, the judgment was exclusively drafted by Sharp's attorney and signed by the judge. Again, try reading the damn filings.

So yes, Sharp's lawyer controlled exactly what was included in the judgment, as I "try to make it sound." If you actually read my posts and weren't a freaking idiot, you would understand that by now.

Never once have you posted real DD - you only cherry pick parts you believe will help your agenda/narrative/false and misleading information.

You don't seem to understand that that the SEC smacked Sharp around when he attempted to steal the Calasse stock - Sharp has to issue a mea culpa and return the stock to Calasse and list them as issued and outstanding.

It is hilarious how you ignore facts as you whistle past the graveyard.

IG

The Black Knight - it is merely a scratch.

Yolo keeps embarrassing you became Yolo posts facts and you post pinkyland wishful thinking.

Everyone is laughing at you and you have Zero credibility.

It is fun watching Yolo eviserates you with facts and you aren't smart enough to realize you have been worked.

But keep trying to pump the Sharp scams.

IG

Calasse's attorney wrote:
the district court found that Appellant’s “only service was to aid and abet securities fraud” and therefore cancelled Appellant’s Stock
That is the only truth you have posted on this thread.

And it was the district court that mentioned the Calasse's "aid and abet securities fraud" part. Sharp's lawyer did not invent what the district court found, as you try to make it sound.

Your posts are so manipulative they're pathetic just as you are.

You posted that Calasse's attorney and Sharp's attorney both stated that the district court found that Calasse "aided and abetted securities fraud," where only Calasse's attorney stated it which makes it even worse for Calasse since his own lawyer wrote it.

You truly are stupid. I already covered this.

Calasse's attorney wrote:
the district court found that Appellant’s “only service was to aid and abet securities fraud” and therefore cancelled Appellant’s Stock

Sharp's attorney wrote:
“only service was to aid and abet securities fraud”


If you can't do 1+1=2, I can't hold your hand or help you with anything more advanced.

Once again, that's parroting the words written by Sharp's attorney.

That's a lie. It was written by Calasse's attorney concerning the decision given by the district court to cancel Calasse's stock.

But I'll let it go
Let what go? The lie you keep repeating trying to convince everyone that it was written by Sharp's attorney where it's clearly written by Calasse's lawyer stating that the district court found that Appellant’s “only service was to aid and abet securities fraud.”

Here is the larger section where the quote is for context.

Pages 13 - 15...

https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=64060&csIID=64060&deLinkID=909774&onBaseDocumentNumber=23-23834

b. Cancellation of Appellant’s Stock Was Improper
Pursuant to NRS 78.211...

106. Respondent provided no evidence of his actual investigation into Appellant’s stock ownership and, other than appending an SEC Complaint to which Appellant was not a party, provided no evidence to
support the very serious accusation that Appellant committed securities fraud. The district court also failed to assess the credibility of Respondent (who stood to benefit from the cancellation of Appellant’s
stock).Respondent provided no evidence of any actual fraud in the transaction related to the shares owned by Appellant. Yet, in spite of this dearth of evidence and in direct violation of the conclusive effect of NRS 78.211, the district court found that Appellant’s “only service was to aid and abet securities fraud” and therefore cancelled Appellant’s Stock. I AA 121. The district court’s decision was clearly erroneous because the district court accepted the conjecture and speculation presented by Respondent as proof of “actual fraud.”

This is clearly Calasse's lawyer arguing (erroneously) that the cancelation of Calasse's stock "was improper." It was Calasse's lawyer who stated that the district court found that Appellant’s “only service was to aid and abet securities fraud” - not Sharp's lawyer as you falsely stated. It's just more of your willful disinfomation.

Once again, that's parroting the words written by Sharp's attorney.

But I'll let it go, you'll learn how things work eventually I'm sure.

Yup 2025 .....only 8 months away...im starting to believe whenever a otc pennie play crashes the owner of the crashed stock needs to wait atleast 2.5 years to start another horsechit pumper n dumper campaign..so if true, look for june 2025....

Gs said nothing for lil bro stock Gvs^ i until 2025...yup yup

Bottom line - the district court found that Calasse's “only service was to aid and abet securities fraud”

"Are you stupid or something?"

I thought we were on the same page. As I previously explained, the parties draft the proposed judgment and the judge approves. If there is a dispute and the parties can't agree on the judgment, they can both submit proposed judgments and the judge will choose one.

In this case, Sharp's attorney drafted a proposed judgment that goes well beyond what the judge actually said during the hearing. But the other attorney never replied, never approved or disapproved, and never submitted an alternative. So the district court entered the judgment drafted by Sharp's attorney without any input from Calasse's attorney.

Do you understand all that? You keeping up?

This is clearly Calasse's lawyer arguing (erroneously) that the cancelation of Calasse's stock "was improper." It was Calasse's lawyer who stated that the district court found that Appellant’s “only service was to aid and abet securities fraud” - not Sharp's lawyer as you falsely stated. It's just more of your willful disinfomation.

So... Since the judge entered the proposed judgment drafted by Sharp's attorney, it became the district courts decision. That is why any later reference mentions that "the district court found" or whatever, because they're appealing this decision. But the words were actually drafted by Sharp's attorney and should be given weight accordingly.

Going full circle, that's why I originally wrote:
The judge didn't write that, or conclude that. Sharp's attorney did, and the opposing attorney didn't rebut it in any way.

Which makes it meaningless.

The judge didn't write that, or conclude that. Sharp's attorney did, and the opposing attorney didn't rebut it in any way.

Which makes it meaningless.


That's another one of your lies.

Here is the larger section where the quote is for context.

Pages 13 - 15...

https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=64060&csIID=64060&deLinkID=909774&onBaseDocumentNumber=23-23834

b. Cancellation of Appellant’s Stock Was Improper
Pursuant to NRS 78.211...

106. Respondent provided no evidence of his actual investigation into Appellant’s stock ownership and, other than appending an SEC Complaint to which Appellant was not a party, provided no evidence to
support the very serious accusation that Appellant committed securities fraud. The district court also failed to assess the credibility of Respondent (who stood to benefit from the cancellation of Appellant’s
stock).Respondent provided no evidence of any actual fraud in the transaction related to the shares owned by Appellant. Yet, in spite of this dearth of evidence and in direct violation of the conclusive effect of NRS 78.211, the district court found that Appellant’s “only service was to aid and abet securities fraud” and therefore cancelled Appellant’s Stock. I AA 121. The district court’s decision was clearly erroneous because the district court accepted the conjecture and speculation presented by Respondent as proof of “actual fraud.”

This is clearly Calasse's lawyer arguing (erroneously) that the cancelation of Calasse's stock "was improper." It was Calasse's lawyer who stated that the district court found that Appellant’s “only service was to aid and abet securities fraud” - not Sharp's lawyer as you falsely stated. It's just more of your willful disinfomation.

Cases are being reassigned to Judges rampantly. This one should be reassigned soon.

Sharp has brain-washed his cult members into believing that all GOFF/WNFT problems are because of Calasse.

One little lawsuit and Sharp folds up like a cheap suit - and Sharp was constantly crying and whining about Calasse - Sharp is always acting like a child - he is too sensitive and insecure to be a competent CEO.

It is hilarious that a few believes everything Sharp tells them to think.

Learn to think on your own - you are going to keep losing money from getting married to these scams.

IG

The judge didn't write that, or conclude that. Sharp's attorney did, and the opposing attorney didn't rebut it in any way.

And neither did the judge.

No, because the court system relies on the parties to draft the decision, and as it is an adversarial system, the judge only gets involved when the parties don't agree.

As Calasse's attorney abandoned him and didn't object to the proposed decision, there was no reason for the judge to get involved.

Remember, the attorney didn't approve the proposed decision, the attorney never responded and Sharp's attorney submitted it without a signature.

I have no idea if there's any issue with submitting it without the signature, but I do see major issues with you simultaneously claiming that the attorney didn't abandon Calasse but also that the decision written by Sharp's attorney is proof of anything when the opposing counsel had no role in drafting it.

The judge didn't write that, or conclude that. Sharp's attorney did, and the opposing attorney didn't rebut it in any way.
And neither did the judge.

Yeah, you've gotten good at copying that excerpt over and over, while completely ignoring the context.

The judge didn't write that, or conclude that. Sharp's attorney did, and the opposing attorney didn't rebut it in any way.

Which makes it meaningless. But we digress, none of this matters because the decision will be made over jurisdictional defects, it won't even get into the fraud allegation.

Sorry if your over-inflated ego makes you think that I'm at your beck and call. I asure you, I am not.

And you can make as many unfounded conclusions as you want. They simply aren't true.

These are the facts from the district court...

https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=64060&csIID=64060&deLinkID=909774&onBaseDocumentNumber=23-23834

the district court found that Appellant’s “only service was to
aid and abet securities fraud” and therefore cancelled Appellant’s Stock.

Okay. For whatever reason, the SEC, after describing in detail Calasse's fraudulent publications concerning the "diamond" and "gold" mines and fraudulent press releases, decided not to persue him. It doesn't negate the finding, from what was presented as evidence from the SEC (submitted at both the District and Supreme Courts) - by the District Court that Calasse "aided and abetted securities fraud."

Interesting that you'll launch into a multi-page pedantic post over nothing, yet conveniently ignore 2/3 of my post and don't even bother disputing it.

I will chalk it up as proof that clearly shows that you know you're wrong.

The SEC routinely brings actions against people outside the United States. They’re a civil enforcement agency so they only need to serve a defendant with a Summons and Complaint to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant the same as any other civil plaintiff.

Exactly. The SEC routinely brings actions like that, and can easily work with close allies like Canada and the UK.

Thank you for showing that most people here get it, even though Hilo doesn't want to see the truth. Which is always odd, seeing as he's been on Sharp's case about GVSI for years.

The SEC routinely brings actions against people outside the United States. They’re a civil enforcement agency so they only need to serve a defendant with a Summons and Complaint to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant the same as any other civil plaintiff.

The point being made is that the SEC "appeared to take the position that Calasse didn't commit fraud and was duped or conned." That conclusion is reached by virtue of the SEC:
A) never charging him with anything, despite charging four other defendants, and

That's disingenuous because Calasse has always been overseas and outside of the SEC's (or DOJ) reach and jurisdiction.

So much for that argument but it will continue to be posted and misrepresented.

Again, I consider this a case where he should have used a better word ("shows" or "demonstrates" instead of "states"),
Now that isn't what he posted, now is it?! It takes on a completely different meaning if the SEC didn't actually "state" that Calasse didn't commit securities fraud - which is a false statement. Now you are acting as his spokeperson and interpreter because of all of the mistakes he's made.

And the district court found that Calasse "aided and abetted securities fraud" no matter how you might want to twist or misrepresent that fact.

...which is a lie because the SEC never said such q thing. That was a lie which you just made up.

you don't seem to be able connect the dots.


If you gave the documentation about the SEC "taking the position that Calasse didn't commit fraud and was duped or conned," then people wouldn't have to connect the dots now would they? They would have the evidence to read. But all they have is just your made up lie.

You are correct that the SEC never explicitly stated anything, good or bad, related to Calasse committing fraud. They didn't explicitly state that he didn't commit fraud and was duped or conned, nor did they say that he did commit fraud.

The point being made is that the SEC "appeared to take the position that Calasse didn't commit fraud and was duped or conned." That conclusion is reached by virtue of the SEC:
A) never charging him with anything, despite charging four other defendants, and
B) actively forcing Sharp to treat his shares as issued and outstanding.

(B) in itself doesn't mean anything, as maybe the SEC would protect any shares even if owned by someone who committed fraud. But not charging him is a big omission. Even if they lacked jurisdiction over him, they could have named him defendant or charged him as part of the overall investigation. Yet they didn't.