George Sharp Custodianship Plays

[Hi_Lo]

MOST RECENT EVLI INFORMATION WITH LINKS FOR APRIL

George Sharp has three lawyers representing him in the EVLI court case.

https://www.washoecourts.com/Query/CaseInformation/CV21-00906

Sharp is also an EVLI shareholder. 

There is a false rumor that was started by a Sharp follower that George Sharp is not an EVLI shareholder.

Court case video link:

Video time mark: 53:30
George Sharp's lawyer: "Mr. Sharp, are you a shareholder of Everlert?"
George Sharp: "I am."

Video time mark: 1:11:30
"I have been a longtime advocate for shareholders and as a shareholder myself, I wanted to make sure the shareholders were protected"

When the judge asked George Sharp about bringing EVLI current:

Video time mark 1:29:10
"I already started the process of bring it current myself."

There is a false rumor that was started by Sharp followers that EVLI will lose Pink Limited designation or will go gray. That is a false statement.

According to Sharp's Lawyer concerning delisting of EVLI on OTC Markets:

Video time mark 39:50
"It's essentially in a holding pattern until there is some resolution of the control despute of Everlert."

Sharp misspoke about not being interested in EVLI custodianshop.

On February 22nd George Sharp tweeted:

The $EVLI Motion to Seek Cause has nothing to do with getting the judge to give me custodianship.

The $EVLI Motion to Seek Cause has nothing to do with getting the judge to give me custodianship. https://t.co/Y5rpH7Xt1D

— George Sharp - Advocate for truth in the OTC (@GeorgeASharp) February 22, 2022

Then right after he tweeted this:

So I may have misspoke about the purpose of the Order to Show Cause. It may because $EVLI has not appeared with new counsel as ordered by the court, as with the $RETC order here. With so much going, I might have confused, but that is why I pay counsel to keep things straight. https://t.co/Y5rpH7Xt1D pic.twitter.com/rtZShng9p2

— George Sharp - Advocate for truth in the OTC (@GeorgeASharp) February 22, 2022

So I may have misspoke about the purpose of the Order to Show Cause. It may because $EVLI has not appeared with new counsel as ordered by the court, as with the $RETC order here. With so much going, I might have confused, but that is why I pay counsel to keep things straight.

So that would mean that Sharp misspoke and his motion to seek cause does have to do with getting the judge to give him custodianship even though he mistakenly (he confused EVLI with RETC) tweeted the same day that he wasn't interested in EVLI custodianship.

I'm amending the $EVLI complaint to add a Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty against the officers/directors. EVLI has not responded to the Motion to Amend & their attorney, David McElhinney, quit. The Motion to Show Cause seeks to amend without their response.

— George Sharp - Advocate for truth in the OTC (@GeorgeASharp) February 22, 2022

I'm amending the $EVLI complaint to add a Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty against the officers/directors. EVLI has not responded to the Motion to Amend & their attorney, David McElhinney, quit. The Motion to Show Cause seeks to amend without their response.

That would be an ammendment to ADD a cause for breach of fidiciary duty - it's an ADDITION to his original complaint seeking custodianship.

George Sharp also filed an OBJECTION to the judge's PROPOSED order denying him appointment as custodian. Sharp's OBJECTION is CURRENT in the court docket.

https://www.washoecourts.com/Query/CaseInformation/CV21-00906

SUBMISSION OF OBJECTION TO [PROPOSED] ORDER: (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CUSTODIAN;
Why didn't Sharp just quit after the judge's PROPOSED order denying him custodianship or remove his complaint seeking custodianship (his original complaint and purpose of the lawsuit against EVLI) but filed an OBJECTION to the proposed order denying him custodianship? Why did he ammend and add to his original complaint (custodianship) and not replace it?

Plus Robert Hymers who is the largest shareholder approached Sharp to do a deal and Sharp refused.

At any rate, at this point, I would refuse custodianship of $EVLI even if it was offered to me. In fact, Robert Hymers, the largest shareholder (and I believe creditor) last year tried to make a deal with me and I refused. https://t.co/kJGr3Umkrr

— George Sharp - Advocate for truth in the OTC (@GeorgeASharp) February 22, 2022

George Sharp quote: "In fact, Robert Hymers, the largest shareholder (and I believe creditor) last year tried to make a deal with me and I refused."

Refusing to do a deal with the largest EVLI shareholder (and creditor) definitely tells me Sharp wants control.

Sharp obviously has the resources (three lawyers) and intends to see this case to its conclusion.

Why did Blankenship's (EVLI's CEO) lawyer recently quit? Did he realize that Blankenship doesn't have a case? Blankenship just got a new lawyer. Let's see how long he lasts furthering Blankenship's case given that Blankenship is a convicted felon on parole.

You just have to read Sharp's actions in court to figure out his intentions. I don't understand why Sharp muddied the waters with a rat's nest of confusing tweets concerning EVLI on February 22nd? But like I said before - I'm selective as to what I believe from his tweets. I'll stick to what he's doing in court to get a better picture of what's going on with EVLI.

I think we'll get a resolution to the EVLI court case in the next two months - sooner than GOFF and SRNW having their reverse mergers. Then EVLI will file its financials and Form 10 will be submitted soon after.

Sharp is spending a good amount of money and effort in his court case against EVLI. Blankenship can't financially match Sharp's effort in court.

Blankenship and his lawyer have to respond to Sharp's order to show cause for breach of fiduciary duty (to protect shareholders) in court on April 15th.

Blankenship, who is a convicted felon on parole, has done NOTHING for his company or shareholders and hasn't filed financials for EVLI in years.

You have to pass a backround check for OTC Markets.

https://blog.colonialstock.com/otc-markets-15c211-guidelines-updates/

The OTC Markets background check is something that Sharp's lawyer said Blankenship couldn't pass because of his felony conviction and currently being on parole. This evidence hasn't yet been submitted in court (just talked about by Sharp's lawyer in court) but Sharp's lawyer said he was working on gathering the evidence which should be easy to do.

Let's see how long Blankenship can continue fighting Sharp in court.

All the information in the court case docket and everything that has been stated in George Sharp's court case is still valid since the court case is still active and hasn't been finalized.

Sharp says he isn't interested in custodianship (which he misspoke about) but ALL HIS COURT ACTIONS AND MOTIONS INDICATE OTHERWISE.