Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
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.
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!
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
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
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.
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?
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
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
“only service was to aid and abet securities fraud”
Once again, that's parroting the words written by Sharp's attorney.
But I'll let it go
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
The judge didn't write that, or conclude that. Sharp's attorney did, and the opposing attorney didn't rebut it in any way.
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.
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
Again, I consider this a case where he should have used a better word ("shows" or "demonstrates" instead of "states"),
...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.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |