Major Profits
18 hours ago
"Lawsuit? Too busy racing his ponies? Certainly not working on a merger is my call."
I dunno but I tend to agree with your last point and I've gotten this feeling for awhile now that GS might actually like the excitement of the courtroom (but perhaps not as a defendant) and now another round of courtroom drama with Calasse again? Yay!
Just checked to see if GS might have a horse in the Kentucky Derby. Nope:
https://www.kentuckyderby.com/derby-horses/
Okay, about Calasse, it's certainly his call that settling isn't what he wants to do but is it really about "winning" or might it be about "delaying". Why not settle and be done with it and is he fighting for what might be best for the shareholders or mainly just for himself and the "win"?
George Sharp - Advocate for truth in the OTC
@GeorgeASharp
Jun 6 [2024]
I will not retire until I have put assets into all the companies, which I am actively working on. Unfortunately, the bad actors in this business have made it a challenge to find LEGITIMATE companies to list on the OTC. I won't deal with pretend companies like $CYBL $OPTI $FLES
Okay, so maybe he is trying to find good "assets". But FOUR YEARS??!! Hell, how hard is he trying, if he is trying, and if he hasn't gotten any "asset" good enough (for him) by now will he ever be able to? Oh, and perhaps his desire to retire isn't all that strong?
Anyhow, I try to keep up with his tweets. so maybe I missed a more recent one than the one below in regards to his "Trifecta" ("REDfecta" to some) tickers:
George Sharp - Advocate for truth in the OTC
@GeorgeASharp
Those retweeting this post will be blocked!
Happy Juneteenth! Here's an update.
$SRNW - working to find suitable candidate but nothing concrete yet.
$GVSI - forget about it until mid 2025.
$FORW - in acquisition/merger discussions with a company in the healthcare industry that is a natural fit with Ligand's ventilators. Although we are on the 5th version of an agreement, I do not know if or when this is going to transpire. Ligand is currently awaiting Ghana FDA approval to sell 5,000 units. I am informed that there is reason for optimism but I have been waiting for this for a while.
$WNFT - Awaiting the ruling on Calasse's appeal from the Nevada Supreme Court. OTC application for access to OTC Link has been filed and will hopefully be approved by Independence Day.
I know waiting is frustrating, but I am not offering stories followed by excuses (see $CNNA $SAPX), nor am I enriching "funders" while the deals "funded" fail miserably also offering nothing but stories and excuses. (see $CYBL $OPTI $SIRC $BLQC $ILUS $QIND etc. etc. etc.) The OTC is unattractive to legit companies at the moment (see the failed $GVSI deal), but it will turn around eventually.
Finger on the BLOCK button. Those retweeting this post will also be blocked.
Last edited
8:48 AM · Jun 19, 2024
"$SRNW - working to find suitable candidate but nothing concrete yet." That tweet was TEN MONTHS AGO!! And about the Calasse case:
Worldwide NFT
@WorldwideNFTInc
$WNFT is not concerned about Calasse seeking a hearing with the Nevada Supreme Court because he is not entitled to one, per the rules highlighted below.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GexOQG7XoAARSfh?format=png&name=small
7:25 AM · Dec 14, 2024
But it now appears that Calasse has filed something else and it appears that yet another court case has been born from the BFD lawsuit. How long will this take? Anything from GS about it at all or just crickets?
Come on, shouldn't an "OTC WIZ" have gotten it all done by now?
Just wondering.
GL
Major Profits
7 days ago
"Now you are saying that maybe because he lost the appeal Calasse will "go on the offense" in the BFD case".
There is no evidence of that.
Oh no? I asked "Google U" this question:
"is to assert claims mean a defendant is going on the offensive?" and got this answer:
Search Labs | AI Overview
Yes, in legal terms, when a defendant asserts claims against the plaintiff, it can be considered an offensive posture. This is because they are essentially initiating a new legal action against the plaintiff, rather than simply defending themselves. This type of assertion is often referred to as a "counterclaim"
What?? "essentially initiating new legal action against the plaintiff"???!!! So that's not "going on the offense"? Ya know, reading some of your arguments you seem to have what is called a "confirmation bias"? From "Google U":
When you have a preconceived notion and actively seek evidence to support it, it's called confirmation bias. This bias involves a tendency to favor information that confirms existing beliefs while disregarding or downplaying information that contradicts them.
And you completely ignored what I asked. That is, why didn't Calasse simply walk away and be done with it all and not have to face the BFD lawsuit (it was going to be dropped if he did, the way I read things)? Well I can come up with two reasons (can you come up with any?). Mine are 1) Calasse simply believes he has a case about something (the shares? Ownership of the ticker? Hell if I know either but what else is there?) and/or 2) he hopes by "asserting claims" Sharp will finally settle and not have to go another year or so with all this. Well, maybe?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=176072540
There is no status check hearing today when the trial date got set for next year. They cancelled this date so there's nothing coming up until next year. The April 15 date got vacated several weeks ago
Next year?
Anyhow, just my thoughts. What do you think? Oh, you already said this elsewhere:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=176077485
And how the hell would I know what Calasse counterclaims would be?
I blew it also. It's not a counterclaim. Again from "Google U":
Search Labs | AI Overview
No, "assert claims" and "counterclaim" are not the same thing, although they are related within the context of a lawsuit. "Assert claims" refers to any claim made by a party in a legal case, while a "counterclaim" is specifically a claim made by a defendant against the plaintiff, typically in response to the plaintiff's initial claims.[bold emphasis mine]
But since you don't know I don't think you can't say for certain that it not about the shares and/or ownership. Might not be, of course, but as I've said before Calasse didn't file that writ but IS IT POSSIBLE that he is doing something similar by asserting claims in the BFD case instead? (Note it's a question!!).
I gotta say, I find it odd that GS hasn't said much for quite a while about any of his own tickers. Well, unless I missed one. Shouldn't he, at least, have given an update here? This is the last tweet I've seen of his:
George Sharp - Advocate for truth in the OTC
@GeorgeASharp
$HMBL and I dismissed as defendants in class action suit.
2:46 PM · Mar 27, 2025
Well, since then it's been amended and refiled. But ever since I found out about it (it was originally filed in 2022) I've been wondering if it might be affecting his companies and the, seemingly, inability for any of the much-hyped "Trifecta" ("REDfecta" to some) tickers to the real "promised land". That is, Step 7 in "the process":
George Sharp
@GeorgeASharp
...The process
...6) Be deemed current
7) Bring asset into deal
DO NOT ask me how long this all takes. It takes as long as it takes.
6:31 AM · Jun 15, 2021·Twitter Web App
Note it's been almost FOUR YEARS!
So I asked this on the HMBL board (no reply, yet):
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=176079463
There's also this there:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=176080829
and:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=176080710
Look, I'm only trying to get to the bottom of what is going on and I think "assert claims" means more than you and some others want it to mean.
Oh, and although Yolo saw it for what it was but you on the other hand...
And yes, some people here are twisting facts (and not very well - mispelling "assert claims" by posting "asset claims") to try to scare longs into selling.
It was a SPELLING MISTAKE! (But I totally understand why you might say otherwise.) Oh, but look, you misspelled "misspelling"? 🤦
Anyhow, for the hell of it I asked "Google U" if "asset claims" and "assert claims" were the same thing and got this:
Search Labs | AI Overview
No, "assert claims" and "asset claims" are not the same thing, although they are related. "Assert claims" generally refers to the act of stating or claiming something firmly, often in a legal or auditing context, while "asset claims" refers to the rights and obligations associated with ownership of assets, as represented in financial statements.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Assert Claims:
This refers to making a formal statement or demand, often with a legal or financial connotation. For example, in auditing, a company might assert its ownership of assets during an audit. In legal settings, someone might assert a claim for damages after an accident. Asserting a claim is about stating the claim, not necessarily proving it.
Asset Claims:
This refers to the rights and obligations associated with owning assets, as presented in financial statements. Assets can include things like equipment, buildings, and inventory. Claims on assets can include liabilities (what a company owes) and owner's equity (the owners' stake in the company). In auditing, assertions related to assets often include the rights and obligations the company has over those assets.
In essence, while asserting a claim might involve claiming an asset, the core meaning and scope of the two phrases differ significantly.
Almost FOUR YEARS!! Where's the assets?
Hi_Lo
1 week ago
Can you eplain ther following? Party to what case? What would the counterclaims be?Thanks.
Definitely not shares or assets or anyrhing having to do with WNFT. Calasse already lost that appeal.
And how the hell would I know what Calasse counterclaims would be? I'm not a party to the case nor one of its lawyers.
But like I said about the appeal which Sharp won like I said he would - Calasse also has a losing case here with BFD especially with all the evidence of Calasse's GOFF/WNFT fraud that can also be used in this case.
Straight from the SEC who was the plaintiff in the case where this evidence was submitted. Warwick Calasse is repeatedly mentioned, falsifying company documents (publishing mining gold and diamond quality reports from a mine that didn't exist), publishing fraudulant press releases, buying and selling unregistered stock and taking part in a pump and dump scheme.
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 vaiious 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 Repori 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 fonner 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.
Major Profits
1 week ago
Contrary to popular belief some might be simply trying to figure out what is going on and, well, nobody really has explained much and really seem not to want to see reality. But, for starters, it probably might have helped me to understand things better if I had read the whole thing. Oops.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175972046&txt2find=Calasse
First I wanted to mention this post:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175962124
This case has nothing to do with his control of the shell or anything that was on appeal. This has no bearing on any merger or incoming company imo. WNFT is prosecuting Calasse and going after him for monetary damages, there are no counterclaims from Calasse at all!!!
I really don't think that is entirely true. Yes the recent appeal was dismissed. That's one thing. Now, from reading, there's the BFD lawsuit. I get that also. But here is what was written and I'll ask/comment about what was said along the way. This part is from Sharp's lawyer:
That order was appealed. That's why this case was put on hold for some time period - the appeal was dismissed recently...
I read that as the BFD lawsuit was on hold pending the dismissal of the Calasse case which is mentioned there. Yes, that's over.
...and so I think at the last status conference we advised the Court of the dismissal of the appeal and advised the Court that so long as Mr. Calasse was not going to assert any claims in this action, that we would dismiss this action.
So as long as Calasse "doesn't assert any claims in this action" ("action" I take it to mean the BFD lawsuit) they would drop the BFD lawsuit. Good so far?
But I'm advised now that Mr. Calasse is going to in fact assert claims and so it will not be dismissed as I understand it.
So, instead of Calasse walking away licking his wounds at the recent dismissal, and being done with it all (and giving GS the victory), Calasse, instead, "is going to "assert claims" (and so the BFD lawsuit will not be dismissed), right? That says to me that Calasse is actually going on the offense in the BFD case and he clearly does not even want the BFD lawsuit to be dismissed and may be using it instead of filing that writ. Well, maybe? But why? And it seems people are saying it is Sharp going on the offense (yes, he is) but here it seems Calasse will be also! I mean, why else would Calasse, seemingly, want the BFD lawsuit to go ahead? Why not just be done with it all? Perhaps because Calasse still thinks he has a case?
And, I think, the part I didn't read before says as much. This from Calasse's lawyer:
And so essentially our appeal was dismissed because they said we weren't a party to the case and so we didn't have standing to appeal. And we looked into that as to what we do now and I think the thing for my client is to raise counterclaims in this adversarial with Your Honor.
And so there's not going to be a dismissal at this time...
The way I read that is Calasse didn't file the writ, as we know, but now, instead, is going to "raise counterclaims" in the BFD lawsuit itself. Well, is that wrong? (Note I'm asking a question!) So, again, the way I read that stuff is that, not only did Calasse choose not to walk away (and have the BFD dismissed) he is going to fight it and "raise counterclaims" but about what I do not know. The shares? Ownership of the ticker? Hell if I know but what else is there to "claim"?
Anyhow, having said all that I do think that it should be Sharp telling shareholders what is going on and what means what. Why should it be up to a shareholder(s) to try to figure things out? After all, perhaps some might want to get some real answers instead of having to guess about things. (I just checked and didn't see anything recent about this).
Oh well...
GLTS
P.S. To say something like:
As usual some here are trying to get longs to sell using scare tactics.
Don't fall for it.
That's about as true as if one is "Bearish" on, say, the $GVSI board posting negativity constantly and is doing so to get "longs to sell". Are they really?
Almost FOUR YEARS!! Where's the assets?
Trade smarter, not harder: Unleash your inner pro with our toolkit and live discussions.
Ask ADVFN Intelligence (AI)
surfkast
5 hours ago
St. Sauvage
3 days ago
I-Glow
5 days ago
Iggy_Bot
6 days ago
Drugdoctor
7 days ago
Yolo
1 week ago
Hot Features
Premium
