Worldwide NFT Inc (WNFT)

[FEARANDGREED]

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.