Replies to post #61490 on Worldwide NFT Inc (WNFT)

[MrNormall]

Exactly. The case sited by the Chief Justice is the only case study we need reference here.

Once again, the forest for the trees seems to be overlooked by the resident google uni. student.

[Yolo]

I'll just go with the case cited by the SC in the order to show cause- Valley Bank of Nevada v. Ginsburg

So everyone, including the SC is wrong, but you? Ok...

I have never said that the SC is wrong. The NVSC identified a potential jurisdictional defect, specifically that he lacked standing to appeal because he was not an aggrieved party. To explain the potential jurisdictional defect, the NVSC cited Valley Bank to show what is required to qualify as an aggrieved party. The OSC then asked Calasse to "demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction."

What I'm explaining here is that, despite not satisfying the requirements listed in Valley Bank to be an aggrieved party, the NVSC still has jurisdiction because Calasse was a required party. Therefore, the NVSC can raise the issue sua sponte and either cure the jurisdictional defect (join Calasse as a party) or reverse the district court decision because he was a required party.

Thus, my argument isn't that the NVSC is wrong, and nothing I said runs counter to what the OSC stated. I'm explaining how they still have jurisdiction to resolve the void judgment even if Calasse lacked standing to appeal.

And of course, they can always choose to grant the writ to guarantee that they have jurisdiction. But I don't think they have to, they can act upon their own motion as explained in the screenshot I shared.