You posted that Calasse's attorney and Sharp's attorney both stated that the district court found that Calasse "aided and abetted securities fraud," where only Calasse's attorney stated it which makes it even worse for Calasse since his own lawyer wrote it.
the district court found that Appellant’s “only service was to aid and abet securities fraud” and therefore cancelled Appellant’s Stock
That is the only truth you have posted on this thread.
And it was the district court that mentioned the Calasse's "aid and abet securities fraud" part. Sharp's lawyer did not invent what the district court found, as you try to make it sound.
Your posts are so manipulative they're pathetic just as you are.