Replies to post #63136 on Worldwide NFT Inc (WNFT)

[Cob1]

Great post

[Pecos Billy]

Wow! Excellent post, dude!

That is a fine post there, Bro!!!!!!!!

WNFT $$$$$$$


PB

[I-Glow]

This isn't true because Calasse wasn't properly notified - which is the exact reason Sharp's application for Custodianship was rejected on two other shells - Sharp didn't provide proper notification.

So did the lower court make an error in the ruling on Calasse and did Sharp fail notification about filing for Custodianship?

If so the NVSC could send it back to District Court. Or rule it was an obvious error - someone should send the NVSC something similar to a Amicus Brief and inform the Court of 2 previous rulings that Sharp tried some subterfuge to circumvent the law on notification.

IG

[I-Glow]

Once again this isn't true - "Once again, it was a lawsuit for custodianship. You don’t name anyone personally when you do that. You get custodianship and then you file a motion to cancel shares and notice the shareholders. That’s how it is done in Nevada."

You do name previous management and beneficial owners.

"An applicant on whose behalf a stockholder has applied to the district court for a custodianship pursuant to subsection 1 shall provide the following information, along with an affidavit attesting that such information is true and correct, to the district court:

Evidence of a demand by the applicant to the officers and directors of the corporation for which the custodianship is sought that the corporation comply with the provisions of chapter 78 of NRS and that the applicant did not receive a response.

Evidence of reasonable efforts by the applicant to contact the officers and directors of the corporation for which the custodianship is sought."

IG