[I-Glow]

Thanks for the accurate information about the Nevada legal system. That leads to many questions but I won't go into at this time.

IG

[Don Faton]

Man it will be nice for this to one day be over so people can argue bout other stuff

[Yolo]

The issue isn't about the court not having jurisdiction over the corporation, but whether Calasse has standing to appeal. If he lacks standing to appeal, NVSC doesn't have jurisdiction to review the appeal.

WNFT is domiciled in Nevada - Sharp filed for Custodianship in Nevada.

So what is the argument that the NVSC doesn't have jurisdiction in the Calasse lawsuit.

But again, that glosses over a lot of the important things like the fact that the NVSC would simply require Calasse to file a writ instead of an appeal in order to have jurisdiction. He chose the wrong way to contest, but it isn't fatal.

More importantly, that ignores the cited case law where the NVSC had jurisdiction to decide the appeal despite the appellant lacking standing. In Callie v. Bowling, the exact same situation happened, in that Callie was not individually named as defendant and was never served a summons with process. The court ruled that this was inexcusable and Callie's due process rights were violated, leading the NVSC to vacate the district court's judgment.

[I-Glow]

WNFT is domiciled in Nevada - Sharp filed for Custodianship in Nevada.

So what is the argument that the NVSC doesn't have jurisdiction in the Calasse lawsuit.

Calasse made a tactical error in not including Sharp for fraud in District Court when he stated that Calasse didn't exist.

But the NVSC only rules on errors in the lower courts. I believe that Calasse can file a Motion for an en banc review.

"Time for Filing; Effect of Filing on Finality of Judgment. Any party may petition for en banc reconsideration of a Supreme Court panel's decision within 14 days after written entry of the panel's decision to deny rehearing."

IG

[Yolo]

I don't think you've summarized it quite right. You said "the sole legal issue that the court requested briefs on is if the appeal should be dismissed for jurisdiction."

When I go back and read the actions on the case it reminds me that the sole legal issue that the court requested briefs on is if the appeal should be dismissed for jurisdiction. So many issues try so hard to weasel them selves in through the legal briefs but the court's question is really simple.

That isn't quite right. The briefing filed is supposed to address EVERYTHING involved in the appeal. In addition to the normal briefing, the NVSC requested additional briefing about whether Calasse has standing to appeal.

So yes, the court requested briefing on that particular issue, in addition to the normal briefing that should be filed. My hunch is they don't intend to dismiss for lack of standing, otherwise they wouldn't have combined the two. Alternatively, they could state that he lacked standing to appeal but then treat it as a writ and still get to the rest of the legal arguments made in the briefs.

[nickjackson600]

Enjoy! Heartbreaking!

[InspectorBullit]

I thought about that point a couple of weeks back, that the briefs were only to save time in the event they found C had standing. If they rule against him, the briefs are irrelevant (if I'm remembering this process right). I looked at past briefing schedules and decisions. It looks like if they would rule against C on standing, they would do it in 1-2 months. Otherwise, the length of briefing suggests 6+ months' deliberation on the issues. Looks like my hope for the faster outcome might be fading. Who knows.

[I-Glow]

I and others warned you about the GRNF scam but you defended Costello - who got 12 years in Federal Prison - another one of your great investments.

Here is a post about GRNF and it is hilarious:

"Cob1
Re: I-Glow post# 70265
Thursday, 07/23/2020 12:57:33 AM

Going to be epic!!! Look for the kaboom!!! Grnf could go 5.00-10.00 quickly!! Get some shares if you can"

Damn Dawg, you are obsessed with me here is another Costello scam I warned you about:

Hempstract Inc (HPST)
"Cob1
Re: I-Glow post# 2616
Tuesday, 09/15/2020 8:43:20 PM

What are you going to say when the supplemental filings come out and the shell status is removed? I really want to get your answer! You will probably day it’s still a scam no products no revenue. Got your same he better fail because if he succeeds you are going to be roasted like nobody’s business and I will he leading the charge glow!! No where to run nowhere to hide bro!!"

And once again I was right about it being a scam.

Then you invested in a SSM hijacked shell - FBCD - FBC Holding Inc. LMAO! The price is $0.0001.

How can anyone pick so many losers. You should start a Master Class in how to lose money.

IG

[I-Glow]

As usual be specific what I have been wrong about and post your facts to prove I was wrong.

But you never post any facts - you are just another - gullible naive OTC investor that is married to the Sharp Shells and you ignore facts and listen to the nonsense from Sharp and Smith.

I have warned you on several OTC scams but you ignored it and lost your ass.

IG

[surfkast]

Thank you for proving how intelligent you are with your phenomenal DD contributing greatly to this board!

[surfkast]

Congratulations on your great DD skills! You really add a lot for investors!

[Cob1]

You are a clown moron! Zero life loser! You have been wrong time and time again! How does it feel to keep
Losing to sharp? Your comments are worthless and will never get me to sell! You are an idiot

[Blue Skys]

When I go back and read the actions on the case it reminds me that the sole legal issue that the court requested briefs on is if the appeal should be dismissed for jurisdiction. So many issues try so hard to weasel them selves in through the legal briefs but the court's question is really simple.
I wonder what level of process is required by the panel? Can a decision be made without scheduling a court appearance? Is this something where the Judges look at it in a panel meeting and make a decision? Any thoughts about what the panel process entails?

[I-Glow]

Averaging down is a horrible investment strategy on the OTC.

The scammers want you to buy fear because sophisticated investors know when to cut their losses. Never get married to a OTC stock especially if Sharp is involved.

IG

[surfkast]

1 Year -72.0%

[Tamboo]

I bought more at .0109 still my limit order standing for tomorrow Today never down .0109 Buy fear

[I-Glow]

You aren't very bright - only a dullard would accept ChatGPT as providing factual information. LMAO!

"I rest my case for all of you who still doubt the existence of 'naked shorting' in the OTC. Even GPT agrees."

You aren't smart enough to understand how ridiculous your post is - ChatGPT used the penny stock pumping rag - OTCshortreport as a source for OTC shorting. SMH! Novice investors fall for that nonsense all of the time.

ChatGPT isn't true AI as it scrapes the internet and compiles the information but it doesn't think.

"ChatGPT is not “true AI.” A computer scientist explains why

Artificial intelligence has been a dream for centuries, but it only recently went “viral” because of enormous progress in computing power and data analysis. Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are essentially a very sophisticated form of auto-complete. The reason they are so impressive is because the training data consists of the entire internet."

I will provide proof. Here is the Question I asked ChatGPT:

How many OTC companies have been naked shorted

ChatGPT isn't very smart - here is the response.

"According to OTCShortReport.com, a leading data provider of naked short position information, a higher than normal number of companies are contacting them with questions ranging from who is shorting my stock to why are their securities being shorted so heavily"

Hey ChatGPT the OTCshortreport uses short volume - it is a penny stock pumping rag. Short volume is meaningless.

So you and a few others were all giddy about non-factual information from ChatGPT.

From the OTCshortreport:

"WNFT
- Short Volume Report (REGSHO)
All RegSho Dated reported by: FINRA"

This fools most novice investors.

Here is a primer about short volume.

It is nothing more than a long trade that gets executed as riskless principle. All trades through a MM have two legs. The initial and offsetting. When the initial is a short sale it gets marked as short VOLUME even though the offsetting "cover" from the seller gets executed within seconds.

Many think it is actually creating short interest, and it isn't, in almost ALL cases. Many promoters take advantage of the ignorance about this to push the "shorting" narrative on a stock when the short VOLUME percentage is high. OTCSHORTREPORT.com is a promoter run website that is frequently linked to.

What FINRA says about short volume:

"https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-051019

As discussed below, the data: (1) does not include any trades that are not publicly disseminated, (2) is not consolidated with exchange data, and (3) does not—and is not intended to—equate to short interest position information"

It doesn't matter whether the short VOLUME is 1% or 99% of the trade volume on a given day for a stock. It bears no relationship whatsoever to short INTEREST on a stock.

IG

[I-Glow]

I never wish the bottomfeeders - the OTC paid pumpers well.

It is criminal to pump an obvious scam as you started posting on iHub on 07/07/2023 and immediately started pumping the Sharp shells. Several on iHub have been sentenced for pumping to Federal Prison. Keep up the pumping and you might get the 7am knock on your door.

I am not so gullible and naive to - hero worship a clown like Sharp but he provides you with a script on what to use in pumping.

IG

[I-Glow]

You are still posting about naked shorting and you are clueless about shorting.

If there are 500 million WNFT shares that have naked shorted as you have posted numerous times but have failed to post proof.

You are confused between short volume and short interest.

As many novice investors do - you are using the OTCshortreport for your shorting information.

There hasn't been any naked shorting of WNFT - I know this because they have never been on the Reg SHO Threshold List.

You are the one who is copying and pasting your delusional takes on naked shorting.

I had to explain to you close to 10 times about HUMBL Series B stock that had been converted by the insiders and how block trades work.

You have shown a complete lack of knowledge of OTC investing.

And it was funny that you believed the nonsense from ChatGPT - which isn't real AI. Because ChatGPT provided the OTCshortreport as proof of shorting - that was hilarious.

IG

[I-Glow]

You are too funny - it is ChatGPT not "I believe chat gbt..."

You need to understand AI before making another childish post.

ChatGPT doesn't have decision-making capabilities.

You have yet to post anything of value - you are just another Sharp leg rider.

IG

[MrSmith18]

Still pounding sand, "Cut&Paste" I-Glow? You'll learn some day. Maybe or maybe not. I'm certainly not betting on it but will be nice and wish you well in life, while... LMAO!

[Cob1]

I believe chat gbt over you any day of the week you clown! I think you are a moron who has no life! I will continue to add based on your comments! You are a biatch

[I-Glow]

ChatGPT isn't true AI as it scrapes the internet and compiles the information but it doesn't think.

"ChatGPT is not “true AI.” A computer scientist explains why

Artificial intelligence has been a dream for centuries, but it only recently went “viral” because of enormous progress in computing power and data analysis. Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are essentially a very sophisticated form of auto-complete. The reason they are so impressive is because the training data consists of the entire internet."

I will provide proof. Here is the Question I asked ChatGPT:

How many OTC companies have been naked shorted

ChatGPT isn't very smart - here is the response.

"According to OTCShortReport.com, a leading data provider of naked short position information, a higher than normal number of companies are contacting them with questions ranging from who is shorting my stock to why are their securities being shorted so heavily"

Hey ChatGPT the OTCshortreport uses short volume - it is a penny stock pumping rag. Short volume is meaningless.

So you and a few others were all giddy about non-factual information from ChatGPT.

From the OTCshortreport:

"WNFT
- Short Volume Report (REGSHO)
All RegSho Dated reported by: FINRA"

This fools most novice investors.

Here is a primer about short volume.

It is nothing more than a long trade that gets executed as riskless principle. All trades through a MM have two legs. The initial and offsetting. When the initial is a short sale it gets marked as short VOLUME even though the offsetting "cover" from the seller gets executed within seconds.

Many think it is actually creating short interest, and it isn't, in almost ALL cases. Many promoters take advantage of the ignorance about this to push the "shorting" narrative on a stock when the short VOLUME percentage is high. OTCSHORTREPORT.com is a promoter run website that is frequently linked to.

What FINRA says about short volume:

"https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-051019

As discussed below, the data: (1) does not include any trades that are not publicly disseminated, (2) is not consolidated with exchange data, and (3) does not—and is not intended to—equate to short interest position information"

It doesn't matter whether the short VOLUME is 1% or 99% of the trade volume on a given day for a stock. It bears no relationship whatsoever to short INTEREST on a stock.

IG

[MrSmith18]

That third person would be YOU! That's my whole point. Thanks for making it so clear to yourself, once again.

[Yolo]

Are you confusing yolo and iglow?

Also, why do you revere AI so much? It is meant as a tool of convenience, not precision. If AI said something and an actual human said something else, I'd need a third source to believe AI over the human.

[MrSmith18]

So hard for Yolo to accept facts that don't agree with his rigid thinking. Not even GPT can bend his inflexibility.

[I-Glow]

Ask ChatGPT what OTC companies have been naked shorted and provide facts to prove it.

There is rarely ever any naked shorting on the OTC - because it is so easy for the insiders to manipulate the price.

Ask ChatGPT to list the companies/people who have been charged with naked shorting OTC companies.

IG

[I-Glow]

Why don't you just check with FINRA - the only true short interest is in the FINRA bi-weekly report.

The OTCM uses the FINRA bi-weekly report and the short interest was 1114 shares for the 2 weeks prior to 11/15/2023. No one is shorting WNFT.

Plus, there are Zero FTDs which means there isn't any naked shorting.

IG

[I-Glow]

ChatGPT isn't real AI. It scraps the internet for information and puts combines it.

You still don't understand that WNFT has never been on the Reg SHO Threshold List - which means there hasn't been any naked shorting.

"Short Selling Data

Short Interest: 1,114 shares 11/15/2023

Significant Failures to Deliver: No"

In the previous 2 weeks prior to 11/15/2023 there was a total of 1114 shares listed as Short Interest - which is meaningless.

And Zero FTDs - which means there isn't any naked shorting.

And there has never been any naked shorting of WNFT.

You posted many times that there were 500 million shares of WNFT that were naked shorted but of course you never provided any proof.

There is rarely any naked shorting on the OTC.

IG

[I-Glow]

When did the SEC or Justice Department charge Calasse with securities fraud?

When Sharp filed the Form 4 the SEC asked Sharp why the Calasse stock was put in the Treasury and not listed as Issued and Outstanding shares.

And Sharp replied that the Calasse stock had been changed to issued and outstanding.

Odd the SEC would do that if Calasse had committed securities fraud.

"Once again, Calasse was most definitely involved in a fraud, and you can look at it any way you want."

So you are just fabricating that nonsense - kind of like Sharp does. Because there isn't any actions taken against Calasse - the SEC made Sharp return the stock to Calasse.

You don't have any proof that Calasse was involved in fraud.

The NVSC needs to be made aware of the SEC making Sharp return the stock to Calasse.

More bad news - Calasse wasn't named in the following lawsuit:

"Securities and Exchange Commission v. Caledonian Bank Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 15-CV-00894"

IG

[Yolo]

I thought it worth clarifying this...

Believe it or not, but I don't think upholding the law would be a shock to the judicial system, and if it is, then there are major issues ongoing. It's not about which side should win or if there was fraud or not, it's literally "do we uphold the law or not?*

When I say upholding the law, I mean holding the district court to the standards of the GVSI/SRNW share cancellation. Sharp was still able to successfully serve defendants and cancel shares in both, so Nevada can still be extremely business friendly while satisfying legal and constitutional requirements that were ignored in the WNFT litigation.

[MrSmith18]

I rest my case for all of you who still doubt the existence of 'naked shorting' in the OTC. Even GPT agrees. Nice post!

[Yolo]

Believe it or not, but I don't think upholding the law would be a shock to the judicial system, and if it is, then there are major issues ongoing. It's not about which side should win or if there was fraud or not, it's literally "do we uphold the law or not?*

Additionally, I would argue that Nevada is a very business friendly and custodian friendly state. If the Supreme Court were to rule in Calasse's favor, it would set a case precedent that would shock the judicial system in the Supreme Court of Nevada, without a doubt. That may be what you are hoping for, but considering the extradordinary circumstances and high unlikelihood of a Calasse victory, it seems to remain a distant fantasy imo

I think your desires outcome is even more unlikely and a distant fantasy, but here we are. We will find out eventually.

[Don Faton]

Thank you for checking

[BigMoneyChalupa]

Chat GPT-4 says this when I asked it the following question (please don't shoot the messenger; I have a wife and kids.)

Prompt: What is the current short interest right now for WNFT or Worldwide NFT stock and what are your sources to confirm this information?

"I'm unable to find the current short interest for Worldwide NFT (WNFT) stock. The sources I checked, including Yahoo Finance, indicate that this information is not available (N/A)??. This could be due to various reasons, such as the stock not being heavily shorted, or the data not being publicly reported or updated. For the most accurate and up-to-date information, it's recommended to check financial news websites or contact a financial advisor."

Prompt: What does OTC markets say in terms of the short interest?

The short interest data for Worldwide NFT (WNFT) stock is not available on OTC Markets as well. According to Benzinga, the short interest for WNFT is listed as 0. This information is consistent with what was found on Yahoo Finance, where various short interest-related metrics such as Shares Short, Short Ratio, Short % of Float, and Short % of Shares Outstanding were all indicated as not available (N/A). It seems that either the data is not being reported, or the stock is not significantly shorted to have measurable short interest.

Prompt: Is it possible for over the counter stocks or OTC companies to be naked shorted into oblivion?

"Naked short selling, where sellers short a stock without first borrowing it or ensuring that it can be borrowed, is a practice that is highly regulated and considered illegal in many jurisdictions. However, over-the-counter (OTC) markets, where many smaller and less liquid stocks are traded, can be more susceptible to various forms of market manipulation, including abusive short selling practices. This is due to the OTC market's generally lower liquidity, less stringent reporting requirements, and fewer regulatory oversights compared to major stock exchanges.

In theory, aggressive short selling, including naked short selling, could significantly impact a company's stock price, especially in less regulated environments like the OTC market. However, it's important to note that regulatory bodies like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have rules in place to prevent and penalize such practices. It is also challenging to conclusively determine if a stock has been "shorted into oblivion" solely due to naked short selling, as stock prices can be influenced by a myriad of factors, including fundamental company performance, market sentiment, and broader economic conditions."

God Bless OpenAI and Chat GPT

All IMO

[BigMoneyChalupa]

Absolutely fam. And cheers to you with $SRNW trending in the right direction. A successful reverse merger asset sends it past $2+ imo

Been a wild ride, but we shall reap a harvest eventually lol

$WNFT

[Don Faton]

Let’s go courts make the right decision and dismiss this case. And let’s start the reversal. If and when that happens should be epic.

[BigMoneyChalupa]

Once again, Calasse was most definitely involved in a fraud, and you can look at it any way you want. But do you really the Supreme Court is going to take such evidence lightly or seriously?

Additionally, I would argue that Nevada is a very business friendly and custodian friendly state. If the Supreme Court were to rule in Calasse's favor, it would set a case precedent that would shock the judicial system in the Supreme Court of Nevada, without a doubt. That may be what you are hoping for, but considering the extradordinary circumstances and high unlikelihood of a Calasse victory, it seems to remain a distant fantasy imo.

$WNFT

[BigMoneyChalupa]

Dude I have no idea. But I do know that patience typically wins in the stock market. There is no doubt that what happened to WNFT absolutely sucks and was devastating to many. But at the same time, that's the market and you can't blame retail for dumping into the bid because they were scared. I mean, after all, we knew it was going to be a long wait, and it has most definitely turned out to be exactly that.

Nonetheless, the sun will shine again on WNFT imo, and that's why I'm still here. I don't think this story is over yet. And I also believe a much bigger one may be brewing in due season, one that could set WNFT on a course rocketing skyward, higher than GOFF ever made it. But time and chance shall tell the full story here.

$WNFT

[Don Faton]

Awhile back some explained on here I believe the Short volume report shown on otc for a stock and said it wasn’t accurate. I don’t believe it is accurate at all, I do believe these stocks get shorted but not to the degree that’s stated online. Can someone explain how this short volume listed actually is calculated and it’s faults. Thanks