Everlert Inc. (EVLI)

[Hi_Lo]

Sorry reaper,

EVLI filed a motion to dismiss almost 2 months ago and Sharp hasn't objected to it.

As usual you haven't been keeping up to date on Sharp's current and open custodianship court case against EVLI. Your information is sadly mistaken.

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

Under "Docket Entry Information"

Blankenship's motion to dismiss was originally (incorrectly) filed on May 10th:

9. 2305 - Mtn Dismiss with Prejudice
05/10/2022
Extra Text: DFX: EXHIBTS FILED INCORRECTLY - DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS - Transaction 9040508 - Approved By: CSULEZIC : 05-10-2022:12:05:25

George Sharp then objected to EVLI's motion to dismiss on May 24th:

6. 2645 - Opposition to Mtn...
05/24/2022
Extra Text: OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - Transaction 9064742 - Approved By: YVILORIA : 05-24-2022:13:54:46

So Sharp DID OBJECT TO BLANKENSHIP'S MOTION TO DISMISS. So Sharp not objecting to Blankenship's motion to dismiss is blatantly false.

Blankenship's lawyer then corrected the incorrectly submitted motion to dismiss on June 1st (the original date of the motion to dismiss is noted in the entry as being May 10th):

3. 3860 - Request for Submission
06/01/2022
Extra Text: Transaction 9075677 - Approved By: NOREVIEW : 06-01-2022:07:02:30 DOCUMENT TITLE: MOTION TO DISMISS FILED MAY 10, 2022 PARTY SUBMITTING: DAVID LIEBRADER ESQ DATE SUBMITTED: JUNE 1, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: YV DATE RECEIVED JUDGE OFFICE:

So stating that Blankenship had a motion to dismiss that Sharp didn't object to has been proven false.

This explains the lack of any objections in court on behalf of Sharp.

Again, false info that I already disproved with links to the actual court docket with entry dates.

The likely outcome based on information at this time, is the court will grant EVLI's motion to dismiss.

There is absolutely no proof of that. Plus the judge still has to make a decision on Sharp's objection to Blankenship's motion to dismiss that I referenced above. What you are stating is purely subjective false speculation that has no basis in facts from what we can see in the court docket.

Blankenship will decline Sharps offer to an unconditional surrender

You have already concluded something that hasn't even happened as as fact. Again all subjective speculation. And even if Blankenship declines Sharp's offer, the custodianship case will continue. Also why would Sharp re-open the case with three lawyers representing him (where Blankenship has none) at great expense on May 10th just to watch it "die a slow death" as you state? Your argument is illogical and false.

EVLI is likely to die a slow death since everyone seems to agree that blankenship will not be able to bring it current.

Who is everyone? I and a few other EVLI followers here sure would disagree with you about EVLI not being able to get current. Plus it won't be Blankenship who will bring EVLI current. Why do you think George Sharp re-opened the custodianship case on May 10th? He did it to take control of EVLI so he can make it current himself.

2510. 1325 - ** Case Reopened
05/10/2022

Sharp also testified on a video court hearing in his current and open custodianship court case that he has already begun bringing EVLI current himself.

I have already begun bringing it (EVLI) current myself.

Notice how I use links and reference dates from the court docket so that people can verify what I say.

By the way, how's Robert Myers doing?