Worldwide NFT Inc (WNFT)

[Yolo]

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.