Replies to post #68599 on Worldwide NFT Inc (WNFT)

[Iggy_Bot]

Happy Easter to you and yours,,

[dannb]

Happy Easter to you and your family brutha. Still missing your Discord.

[LuckyLovie]

Oh geeezus getting the ole scam band back together again starring ...mba subtle pump dump dude...get Pecos billy- were golden...kieferpb50 always a Liar bullchitter...regurgitated headboyjokie corn hole & of coarse the Legend in his own seniel mind short poster Normie coming outta exile to Pump the PIG 1 more time...and the rock 10bagger...give a round of applause for the original Pumpertard ~pumppiters...dos were da days March 2022 thru july7th 2022

Gotta love it....gs begging to get the old scoundrel pumpers back...lol

[Yolo]

Did you really necropost by quoting something from almost a year ago?

It's worth noting that this was his penultimate post on the forum, MBAdude hasn't been seen since June 2nd of last year. Maybe he has since realized that his hope was misplaced and cashed out. We don't know, because he's no longer around.


As for what he said, I am suspicious of anything that frames a legal dispute as "good guys" and "bad guys." Emotions don't even come into play for the NVSC, they look at the law and precedent.

And as much as it sucked for shareholders to have Calasse appear and contest his shares being canceled, if they were canceled illegally, that's a much bigger precedent for the NVSC to set for "decades to come."

Maybe you should question Sharp about why he handled everything the way he did. You can see that he learned from his mistake with GVSI and SRNW, as he (1) named shareholders as defendants, (2) made sure to serve them with process, (3) completed service by publication for those that he couldn't serve, and (4) dismissed any shareholder that contested the cancellation.

I think that's the precedent that the NVSC will want to set for decades to come. Comply with the law and there will be no appeal.

[I-Glow]

You should have read the Yolo post - it was all in favor of Calasse.

This court does not agree that a person or entity generally need not be served to become party. And even assuming the waiver of service of process can satisfy the requirement for service of process, appellant does not asset that such waiver occurred in this case.

Nevertheless, it does not appear that the underlying district court proceedings originated with the filing of a complaint and a service of process. Instead, it appears the district court action began with the filing of a motion to appoint a custodian. While it appears that the motion was served, it does not appear that any person or entity was served with process in accordance with NRAP 4 in this matter. It also does not appear that service of process is required for a stockholder to file a motion to appoint a custodian. See NRS 78.347. Accordingly, it is not clear if service of process was necessary to become a party in context of this appeal.

So far Yolo has owned you and MBAdude on all legal matters.

IG