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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's worth mentioning that if Sharp issued himself 5M Series A preferred shares and 1M common shares, he didn't retain control. Calasse had 5M Series A preferred shares and 50M common shares.
While Sharp originally tried to issue himself 300k preferred shares with special voting rights, he didn't realize at the time that Series A preferred shares already existed. I don't think there is any distinction between the first 300k and the remaining 4.7M preferred shares, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
The SEC's actions clearly states that they took the position that Calasse didn't commit fraud and was duped or conned when he was given the CEO position.
This is a flat out lie. I challenged you to post documentation proving this and you couldn't. All you could muster up was a false bravado threat about the DOJ coming after me because you didn't like my post. That doesn't make what you posted true.
Where does it "clearly state" that the SEC stated that Calasse didn't commit securities fraud and that he was "duped" or "conned?" You can't produce that documentation because it's a lie.
I'm guessing that English is not your native language. Again, I consider this a case where he should have used a better word ("shows" or "demonstrates" instead of "states"), but the meaning is clear to everyone but you. Try phrasing it like this:
The SEC's actions clearly shows that they took the position that Calasse didn't commit fraud and was duped or conned when he was given the CEO position
Then Calasse just blames his previous lawyer for his horrendous representation and supposed "abandonment" which was not true. The district court decided that Calasse was not abandoned by his lawyer. Courts don't have "do overs" because of hiring crappy lawyers.
First, just because the district court said something doesn't mean that it is accurate. That's why appellate courts exist, and why Judge Williams has been reversed 34% of the time.
Second, courts do offer do-overs when crappy lawyers result in egregious errors. Did you bother reading the case law cited about that? The judge actually misquoted one of the cases, stating that abandonment didn't occur because Calasse's first attorney was physically present (the case he cited concluded the opposite, that an attorney effectively abandoned his client despite being physically present).
the fact that the lower court found that Calasse did "aid and abet securities fraud" is significan't in this case.
We've been over this, but the district court didn't really make any determinations or anything. Sharp's attorney copied their arguments and pasted them into the "decision," and the first attorney didn't contest it (further proof of abandonment).
You might as well quote a tweet from Sharp and claim it is the truth, it's equally one sided.
I'm so glad that the detailed SEC description of the aiding and abetting fraud that Calasse comitted as CEO of GOFF was allowed to be presented as evidence again as it was in the lower court case.
Calasse's lawyer side-steps the SEC description of Calasse's aiding and abetting fraud completely and is arguing that all that happened was a simple breach of contract and ran with that false assertion throughout the brief which is a joke.
Then Calasse just blames his previous lawyer for his horrendous representation and supposed "abandonment" which was not true. The district court decided that Calasse was not abandoned by his lawyer. Courts don't have "do overs" because of hiring crappy lawyers.
...but the aiding and abetting securities fraud that the lower court found Calasse perpetrated is significan't in this case.
the district court found that Appellant’s “only service was to aid and abet securities fraud” and therefore cancelled Appellant’s Stock.
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.”
The New Caledonia Bank case shows more than "conjecture" and "speculation."
It in fact described actual fraud by Calasse's fake made up press releases and fake made up documentation about a gold and diamond mine that did not exist.
The district court ruled that the Corporation did not “receive any value” for Appellant’s 50 million common shares and 5 million preferred shares.
Enough said.
in spite of the clear dereliction of duties by Appellant’s former counsel – the district court stated that because Appellant “was represented by counsel at the time of the February 9, 2022 hearing on the motion to cancel his shares in Goff Corp … he was not effectively abandoned by his counsel and cannot avail himself of either NRCP 60(b)(1) or NRCP 60(b)(6) relief.” II AA 269.
Enough said.
If this evidence that was submitted to the court isn't proof that Calasse committed fraud, then I don't know what is.
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.
I suugest you need a brain scan Stat because I have proven many times as well as Yolo but you are so married to WNFT/Sharp - you don't seem to be able connect the dots.
Again, you provide no documentation proving that the SEC "took the position that Calasse didn't commit fraud and was duped or conned when he was given the CEO position."
All you have provided was a personal attack and guarantees that you and Yolo have provided the documentation before proving that the SEC "took the position that Calasse didn't commit fraud and was duped or conned when he was given the CEO position."
...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.
I suugest you need a brain scan Stat because I have proven many times as well as Yolo but you are so married to WNFT/Sharp - you don't seem to be able connect the dots. When doing real DD you must be able to do abstract thinking and you are operating at a concrete operational thinking with Zero ability to abstract.
Here is where the SEC made Sharp return the stock to Calasse after Sharp attempted to steal the stock.
Because the facts show that the SEC never accused Calasse of fraud by the SEC - they never filed a complaint against Calasse.
If the SEC knew that Calasse had committed securities fraud - why did they make Sharp return the stock attempted to steal?
What is your excuse for the SEC not filing a complaint against Calasse?
Sharp's response to the SEC comments about the Form 10.
"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 failed in his attempt to steal the Calasse stock.
If the SEC thought that Calasse obtained the stock fraudulently they wouldn't have made Sharp return the stock to Calasse.
Then you posted your typical nonsense:
"I challenged you to post documentation proving this and you couldn't."
I did post the documentation to show - "The SEC's actions clearly states that they took the position that Calasse didn't commit fraud and was duped or conned when he was given the CEO position."
This is exactly like what happened in the CYNK pump and dump - a 19 year old boat captain was the puppet CEO - there was documents signed by the insiders using the puppet CEO's name.
3 of the insiders ended up in prison but the boat captain didn't get indicted - just as Calasse didn't get indicted. The SEC knew that Calasse was used as a puppet CEO - ergo Calasse wasn't charged with fraud.
Post your DD to prove that the SEC charged Calasse with fraud.
There is copious information I provided and proven the SEC never thought or charged Calasse with fraud.
Plus, I never stated that the DOJ was coming after you but the SEC goes after big time pumpers - you are just another knucklehead OTC pumper that never moves the needle.
This is exactly why I stated that you operated at a concrete operational level without any ability to abstract - when you post nonsense like the following:
"Where does it "clearly state" that the SEC stated that Calasse didn't commit securities fraud and that he was "duped" or "conned?" You can't produce that documentation because it's a lie."
Jesus H Christ - are you really that dumb that you expect a link etc.
Read the complaint - if the SEC thought Calasse was involved in the fraud he would have been named in a complaint.
Why don't you provide the complaint the SEC filed against Calasse - everyone knows that will never happen because the SEC understands that Calasse was a puppet CEO and had been duped by the insiders.
I posted the proof - but I doubt you can understand it.
The DOJ won't be interested in you because the price has been in a death spiral - your pumping is weak and ineffective.
SEC takes the stance that the OTC is just knuckleheads screwing over other knuckleheads. The SEC wouldn't be interested in your pumping nonsense.
You posted:
"Frauds helping out fellow frauds."
That is absolutely true Sharp has 4 fraudulent shells and his minions like yourself do what can only be called childish pumping. And whining and crying about what you call bashers.
Odd there has never been a SEC filed a complaint against what you call a basher but many pumpers have been sanctioned or face criminal charges.
The SEC's actions clearly states that they took the position that Calasse didn't commit fraud and was duped or conned when he was given the CEO position.
This is a flat out lie. I challenged you to post documentation proving this and you couldn't. All you could muster up was a false bravado threat about the DOJ coming after me because you didn't like my post. That doesn't make what you posted true.
Where does it "clearly state" that the SEC stated that Calasse didn't commit securities fraud and that he was "duped" or "conned?" You can't produce that documentation because it's a lie.
I'm so glad, however, that the detailed SEC description of the aiding and abetting securities fraud that Calasse comitted as CEO of GOFF was allowed to be presented as evidence again as it was in the lower court case.
Calasse's lawyer side-steps the SEC description of Calasse's aiding and abetting securities fraud completely and is arguing that all that happened was a simple breach of contract and ran with that false assertion throughout the brief which is a joke.
Then Calasse just blames his previous lawyer for his horrendous representation and supposed "abandonment" which was not true. The district court decided that Calasse was not abandoned by his lawyer. Courts don't have "do overs" because of hiring crappy lawyers.
...but the SEC description of Calasse's aiding and abetting securities fraud evidence that was allowed again in this NV Supreme Court case, and the fact that the lower court found that Calasse did "aid and abet securities fraud" is significan't in this case.
the district court found that Appellant’s “only service was to aid and abet securities fraud” and therefore cancelled Appellant’s Stock.
What Calasse's lawyer then says...
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.”
The New Caledonia Bank case shows more than "conjecture" and "speculation."
It in fact described actual fraud by Calasse's fake made up press releases and fake made up documentation that he published about a gold and diamond mine that did not exist.
The district court ruled that the Corporation did not “receive any value” for Appellant’s 50 million common shares and 5 million preferred shares.
Enough said.
in spite of the clear dereliction of duties by Appellant’s former counsel – the district court stated that because Appellant “was represented by counsel at the time of the February 9, 2022 hearing on the motion to cancel his shares in Goff Corp … he was not effectively abandoned by his counsel and cannot avail himself of either NRCP 60(b)(1) or NRCP 60(b)(6) relief.” II AA 269.
Enough said.
If this evidence that was submitted to the court isn't proof that Calasse committed fraud, then I don't know what is.
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.
But you continue to pump with false and misleading information which is illegal - ComputerBux did the same thing and he was indicted by the DOJ for pumping on iHub and Twitter.
Oooh, I'm shaking in my boots because the DOJ is coming after me because you didn't like my post - you clown.
Here you go - read it and start crying like Sharp.
From the SEC:
Please respond to these comments within ten business days by providing the requested information or advise us as soon as possible when you will respond. If you do not believe our comments apply to your facts and circumstances, please tell us why in your response."
"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."
Sharp's response:
"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 failed in his attempt to steal the Calasse stock.
If the SEC thought that Calasse obtained the stock fraudulently they wouldn't have made Sharp return the stock to Calasse.
So much for your hundreds of posts about Calasse - why do you continue to ignore the facts and keep pumping.
I posted an example about the CYNK CEO and they knew he was duped by the insiders just like Calasse was duped.
LOLOL! Actually I have a great deal of credibility because I don't pump scams and attempt to get others to lose their investment.
It was a typo - but you can't accept the facts that Sharp is using the Calasse lawsuit to keep dragging this scam out.
Why don't you address the facts that Sharp attempted to steal the Calasse stock but when filing the Form 10 in the SEC comments they made Sharp return the stock to Calasse. Are you denying this happened?
Any competent businessman would not have allowed the Calasse lawsuit to completely halt all operations on WNFT.
If there was a company wanting to do a merger the Calasse lawsuit would not have stopped it.
Sharp has never operated a successful business - business is about putting out fires and it daily. Sharp is too immature, insecure and too sensitive to be a successful businessman.
But you continue to pump with false and misleading information which is illegal - ComputerBux did the same thing and he was indicted by the DOJ for pumping on iHub and Twitter.
I was one of those doing real DD to expose the scam.
I have credibility with the SEC - they trust the reports I send them.
Enough said about your credibility concerning this topic.
It's a fucking typo! If you don't have the mental acuity to identify the mistake and still understand the sentence, then "enough said about your credibility concerning this topic." Or any topic, really.
Here is the fixed quote:
Because the facts show that Calasse was never accused of fraud by the SEC - they never filed a complaint against Calasse.
That is a unbelievably poor investment strategy and the reason you will never make any money investing in the OTC.
"The only thing I'm focused on is time and chance. WNFT previously went parabolic from.01 to .45, and on relatively low volume. I knew when the Calasse case wouldn't go away, that I would be holding all the way down simply out of principle, if for no other reason than to see Calasse lose."
Why would anyone knowingly hold and watch their investment disappear? So you hold and lose your investment just to watch Calasse lose.
That is one of the Dumbest posts I have read. You do know you could have cut your losses and used money on another stock - you could Buy back in - but now it is dead money.
The Sharp cult members don't understand the OTC is for trading not investing.
*****any info posted here by kevhead is my own opinion and for informational use only.... PLEASE DO YOUR OWN DUE DILLIGENCE and/or consult with a reputable professional for ALL investment or financial advice
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
.png)
_Home_Twitter.png)
