InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 12
Posts 3480
Boards Moderated 2
Alias Born 07/11/2022

Re: Hi_Lo post# 68726

Wednesday, 04/17/2024 4:46:44 PM

Wednesday, April 17, 2024 4:46:44 PM

Post# of 68846

...which is a lie because the SEC never said such q thing. That was a lie which you just made up.

you don't seem to be able connect the dots.



If you gave the documentation about the SEC "taking the position that Calasse didn't commit fraud and was duped or conned," then people wouldn't have to connect the dots now would they? They would have the evidence to read. But all they have is just your made up lie.



You are correct that the SEC never explicitly stated anything, good or bad, related to Calasse committing fraud. They didn't explicitly state that he didn't commit fraud and was duped or conned, nor did they say that he did commit fraud.

The point being made is that the SEC "appeared to take the position that Calasse didn't commit fraud and was duped or conned." That conclusion is reached by virtue of the SEC:
A) never charging him with anything, despite charging four other defendants, and
B) actively forcing Sharp to treat his shares as issued and outstanding.

(B) in itself doesn't mean anything, as maybe the SEC would protect any shares even if owned by someone who committed fraud. But not charging him is a big omission. Even if they lacked jurisdiction over him, they could have named him defendant or charged him as part of the overall investigation. Yet they didn't.

The truth is never popular.