InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 28
Posts 8805
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 02/01/2013

Re: Yolo post# 68781

Sunday, 04/28/2024 3:05:27 PM

Sunday, April 28, 2024 3:05:27 PM

Post# of 69170

There's no reason to think that the chances are overwhelmingly in Sharp's favor, you just claim that to be the case.


Here's some docimentation that proves you are wrong.

https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2016/12/20/just-facts-us-courts-appeals

The vast majority of appeals are unsuccessful: Fewer than 9 percent of total appeals in 2015 resulted in reversals of lower courts



https://www.brownstonelaw.com/blog/how-often-are-appeals-successful/#:~:text=It's%20difficult%20to%20put%20a,favor%20of%20the%20appealing%20party.

It’s difficult to put a number on how many appeals are successful, but many court professionals estimate that fewer than one appeal out of 10 ends in favor of the appealing party.



And you repetitively saying that the district court judge has something like a 30% reversal rate at the NVSC - if true (which is questionable with you), that would still be a 70% chance Sharp will win. Add that to Calasse's documented fraud and the numbers get better.

So there is documented proof that what I say is correct and that you are wrong, but you will desperately, as usual, try to spin the info to make Calasse's chance sound better than they actually are.

Just like you continue to lie about the fact that the district court didn't claim that Calasse only purpose was to "aid and abet securities fraud," Heck, you make it sound as if Calasse won at the district court level - but the truth is he lost, just as he will lose again at the NVSC.

You were wrong in investing in GVSI even after all the negative verified SEC documentation was spoon fed to you for years which you read and ignored (which makes you not that bright) and you paid the financial price.

You are also wrong about Calasse's chances in court.

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.