Worldwide NFT Inc (WNFT)

[Hi_Lo]

The judge didn't write that, or conclude that. Sharp's attorney did, and the opposing attorney didn't rebut it in any way.

Which makes it meaningless.

That's another one of your lies.

Here is the larger section where the quote is for context.

Pages 13 - 15...

https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=64060&csIID=64060&deLinkID=909774&onBaseDocumentNumber=23-23834

b. Cancellation of Appellant’s Stock Was Improper
Pursuant to NRS 78.211...

106. Respondent provided no evidence of his actual investigation into Appellant’s stock ownership and, other than appending an SEC Complaint to which Appellant was not a party, provided no evidence to
support the very serious accusation that Appellant committed securities fraud. The district court also failed to assess the credibility of Respondent (who stood to benefit from the cancellation of Appellant’s
stock).Respondent provided no evidence of any actual fraud in the transaction related to the shares owned by Appellant. Yet, in spite of this dearth of evidence and in direct violation of the conclusive effect of NRS 78.211, the district court found that Appellant’s “only service was to aid and abet securities fraud” and therefore cancelled Appellant’s Stock. I AA 121. The district court’s decision was clearly erroneous because the district court accepted the conjecture and speculation presented by Respondent as proof of “actual fraud.”

This is clearly Calasse's lawyer arguing (erroneously) that the cancelation of Calasse's stock "was improper." It was Calasse's lawyer who stated that the district court found that Appellant’s “only service was to aid and abet securities fraud” - not Sharp's lawyer as you falsely stated. It's just more of your willful disinfomation.