InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 28
Posts 8455
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 02/01/2013

Re: Yolo post# 68748

Monday, 04/22/2024 6:11:23 AM

Monday, April 22, 2024 6:11:23 AM

Post# of 68846

Once again, that's parroting the words written by Sharp's attorney.


That's a lie. It was written by Calasse's attorney concerning the decision given by the district court to cancel Calasse's stock.

But I'll let it go


Let what go? The lie you keep repeating trying to convince everyone that it was written by Sharp's attorney where it's clearly written by Calasse's lawyer stating that the district court found that Appellant’s “only service was to aid and abet securities fraud.”

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.
Bullish
Bullish

GVSI is delinquent with the SEC, is not SEC registered and reporting, has a FINRA Notice of Deficiency that was never addressed, has a SEC/FINRA restriction on its corporate actions such as a reverse merger and is in violation of FINRA Rule 6490.