I'm sorry to confuse you once again. I wasn't pointing out the typo, although it did make me chuckle.
It's sad that all you have to refute Calasse's SEC documented fraud is pointing out a typo.
I almost added something correcting it and saying even "unimaginable" doesn't mean what you thought it meant, but I decided that would be snide do I didn't.
And it would be unimaginable for the court to rule in his favor after reading the SEC documented evidence against him when all is said and done - even if he does get standing...
It isn't unimaginable, as it is what I expect to realistically happen.