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.
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.
With all of the focus on the court case, the lack of debt is something I had not thought about in a while.
Calasse is the only bug on the windshield. Looking forward to his removal.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171343481
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171344188
WNFT - No Debt - Fully Audited - SEC Reporting.
Hey man!... cant reply to your PM as I don't have a $$$ premium account.
But to answer your question, here is a recent post of mine that addresses what you are asking.
You as well...
Hmmm... Because if Sharp wins (which is a lock in my opinion) a 150 million dollar market cap (for starters) would be a very modest valuation for a squeaky clean fully audited SEC reporting shell.
I do NOT like to give price predictions (as i am not a fortune teller)... BUT.. Given the current share structure, a 150 milly cap that puts this ticker at roughly 30 cents.
so at 4 cents and change, yeah... I would say its smart money.
If Sharp loses, not so much... I just don't believe that he will lose because I have actual - real life - living and breathing legal professions in my camp (That actually practice law in real time) that have reviewed this appeal.
What a glorious thing, log in and the first thing I see... My Brother Eliot!...
Its gonna be a good day.
I just want to give a toast when we are race ready here... and in my best Rich guy -Thurston Howell - John Houseman voice say:
Extraordinary work T.B.!! ... and then you can say something pompous like ... Indubitably F&G my old friend!!
Then we both look at the camera, hold up our glasses and cover the villagers!! (reference post linked below...)
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171197861
lol...If so, thanks LL!... just got fed some more! Some just don't have the stomach.
Ha Ha!... Nor do I (did I) think so my friend.
Hmmmmm, hello NITE.
Just snagged 300k more shares in real time... Give em up folks, I'll buy more.
Gas-lighting the context and avoiding my point with the passive aggressive mastery Ive come to expect.
...Go get-em Tiger!
...Ive got no more time for you.
Since you brought it up....
NOT a very good example....
Yeah, I hate it when things get exaggerated and overemphasized.
Sure you do.
Ha!... Yeah Ive had a quite few that have equated to abundant pains in my ass as well ....
Thats a real nice thing you said there.. Spot on my friend.
Well Folks... there's not too many guarantees in life... But per my legal council (people that actually practice law) and their thoughts, I expect Team Sharp to drive this home. Court is taking some time and thats no shocker to them (above mentioned).
...and when the decision is handed down, I'm betting the local doubters with feel a kinship with the villagers of Pompeii .... (Vid below..wait for it...).
... On that day, just call me Will Ferrell.
Yes, I think I've heard this somewhere before.
I have re-posted it here as it makes good sense to me:
(Credit to original poster)
This court has suspended the appeal and is asking one simple question: why did you not move to intervene? The case it cited in the OTSC makes that abundantly plain.
If Calasse had moved to intervene, then this court would never have filed this OTSC and Calasse would then be able to make all of these arguments you are making about due process, service, etc. Because those arguments attack the propriety of the lower court’s judgment.
But he messed up. He didn’t move to intervene. The governing case law, which the NVSC cited to in the OTSC makes it plain. He needed to intervene in order to be able to attack any aspect of the lower court’s judgment on appeal.
A motion to intervene could have also served Calasse’s purpose here (prob would have been the better option under the circumstances, actually) and would have made him a party to the underlying lawsuit. He didn’t do that either.
Moreover, despite the error in failing to move to intervene, Calasse was given a chance to prove he properly obtained those shares at issue. He failed in this respect as well.
The judge is saying “in this circumstance, only a named defendant can appeal. You were not named as a defendant. And only a defendant is to be served w/process. Tell me why I should let this appeal go forward if you did not move to intervene to become a defendant.”
He sued the proper party. Notice was given to all shareholders. Calasse stepped in as a non-party and tried to prove his case and failed, no?
He had an opportunity in the lower court to prove that he legally held those shares. He failed, did he not?
An Order to Show Cause is NOT and invitation to discuss all the issues in a case. It is a POINTED inquiry and the parties to whom it is directed to are to respond solely to that query.
The only way anyone can be deemed to be a required party is by a court order/decision. Which is done on motion. A court doesn’t unilaterally decree these things. They decide the issue after it is presented to them.
They should have formally filed a motion to intervene and made a request to the judge to be added as a party. They failed to do so. Big mistake.
GS used the same procedure here as every other custodian who has gone this route in Nevada. Suit naming the company, gaining custodianship, then moving via notice to cancel shares.
Are you suggesting that the NVSC is going to determine on this OTSC whether the way lawsuits to gain custodianship have typically been handled in Nevada is somehow improper?
If Calasse wanted to become a party, the burden was on him to file a motion to intervene. Nevada law could not possibly be clearer on this.
Once again, it was a lawsuit for custodianship. You don’t name anyone personally when you do that. You get custodianship and then you file a motion to cancel shares and notice the shareholders. That’s how it is done in Nevada. Good luck trying to change how they do things.
I like it.
...I love you too Man!
and as always.... the Warriors loudly cry out!!
Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot -
Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot -
Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot -
Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot -
Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot -
Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot -
Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot -
Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot - Eliot !!!!!!!!
Meant to say: "Immediately questioned" not intermediately...lol.
And just like clockwork.... My post was a bit of a snare (albeit it what I truly believe)...
The fact that not a single "WNFT positive" post can ride without being intermediately questioned (by some) speaks volumes to me.
All I know is that a Fully audited - SEC reporting clean shell is worth a LOT of money to a company looking to go public. With Calasse out of the way, that is exactly what WNFT is.
The legal professionals that I deal with on a regular basis (Ones that really and truly exist, with decades of experience, that I have personal relationships with) are giving Team Sharp the nod here (overwhelmingly).
They could be wrong...But I doubt it.
It is a gamble I am willing to take as the upside is huge in my opinion.
back pedaling is actually reeeeally good for ones knees.
From the National Library of Medicine:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10831813/
...and speaking of Calasse, I still wish we could discuss the size of... well, you know...
I'm trying to behave here (and its very difficult)
As do I.....
Or perhaps RUN DMC....
yup...."Its Tricky" ...lol... Schoolin and gettin schooled.
I think Lemmy sums it up best...
OTC theme song
lol... So we must be their enablers....dealers perhaps.
They believe Sharp and crew will emerge victorious. Even if the case does not get dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (and continues forward). They have read trough the latest briefs/motions (and everything attached) and believe Sharps case is much stronger.
So in other words... a lot can happen here, but sooner or later Sharp will emerge victorious (their sentiment is sooner).
Worst case scenario is that Sharp gets stuck with an expensive shell that has a nasty boil attached to it.... If that were the case, the two parties would have to come to some sort of agreement.
That being said, my 40 year law veteran neighbor (the one whose opinion I respect the most) gave Sharp a 7 of 10 to win this based on the latest responses from both parties. Those were his exact parting words on the subject the last time we spoke (shortly after he read the latest response/brief from Sharps team).
Actually, the breach of fiduciary duty move is a "Back-Off" leverage tactic (and a good one at that). The fact that it could prove costly for Calasse if he loses is the actual leverage. Not to mention, Im sure that George also wants to rub Calasse's nose in as much shit as he can.
However...