Replies to post #63190 on Worldwide NFT Inc (WNFT)

[dmcghee86]

If Calesse wasn't properly notified, then that goes back to LAZAR. To keep all of the facts honest, custodianship was granted to Lazar and Sharp gained custo from Lazar due to a judgment debt..... So to say Sharp "hijacked" GOFF is fully incorrect... Maybe Lazar did, but you cant put that on Sharp.

[dmcghee86]

Ive been in under Lazar since Aug-2020. I hadnt even heard of Sharp until the price started going up, I checked here to see what folks were saying, then I started to see Sharp name thrown around about becoming the new custodian.

[BigMoneyChalupa]

Read it and weep:

https://casetext.com/case/loza-v-leverty-assocs-law-chtd

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside a default judgment. Ninth Judicial District Court, Douglas County; Thomas W. Gregory, Judge.

Review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, appellant is not a party to the action with standing to appeal. In the proceedings below, appellant was named and served only as a corporate officer, administrator or trustee of certain defendant trusts. She was not named and did not appear in her individual capacity. This court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal only where the appeal is brought by an aggrieved party. See NRAP 3A(a). A person or entity is not a party within the meaning of NRAP 3A(a) unless that person or entity has been served with process, appeared in the court below, and has been named as a party of record in the trial court. See Valley Bank of Nev. v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 448, 874 P.2d 729, 735 (1994). Here, appellant, in her individual capacity, does not appear to have been served with process, or been named as a party of record in the district court proceedings.

Moreover, the district court order denying the motion to set aside the default judgments makes no reference to appellant; the order denies only motions filed by the defendant business entities. Accordingly, appellant does not appear to be aggrieved by the order in her individual capacity. NRAP 3A(a). Additionally, appellant, a non-lawyer, cannot represent on appeal the trusts that are named as parties below. See NRAP 46A(b)(2); Salman v. Newell, 110 Nev. 1333, 1336, 885 P.2d 607, 608 (1994) (business entities may not appear or file documents without counsel); State v. Stu'$ Bail Bonds, 115 Nev. 436, 436 n.l, 991 P.2d 469, 470 n.l (1999). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal, and

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED

This is very similar to the response we will receive from the Supreme Court when the Calasse appeal is dismissed IMO

And before any of you “legal experts” respond by citing other cases or examples as to why the contrary will happen, keep in mind that the Supreme Court in the OTSC named the exact reasons why they believe Calasse does not have standing to appeal, which are also the exact reasons why this specific appeal was dismissed.