Replies to post #68775 on Worldwide NFT Inc (WNFT)

[gr8grins]

Nice summary of what cannot be overlooked if the NVSC does their job!

[I-Glow]

Why didn't the SEC name or file a complaint against Calasse if he was guilty of fraud.

Why did the SEC make Sharp return the stock he stole from Calasse.

From the SEC comments on the Form 10.

"Organizational History, page 2


2. We note your disclosure with regard to the treatment of shares held by Warwick Calasse as treasury shares. Please provide your analysis as to why these shares should not be treated as issued and outstanding.

Response: We have revised our disclosure to treat the Series A preferred issued to Warwick Calasse as issued and outstanding and to make clear that Mr. Sharp has retained control of Goff Corp. through the issuance of 5,000,000 shares of Series A preferred and 1,000,000 shares of common stock."

Sharp was busted for stealing the Calasse stock.

The SEC understood that GOFF was a puppet CEO for GOFF and never created or issued any press releases.

That is exactly why the SEC held harmless and didn't charge him with fraud.

You have used every excuse possible as to why the SEC never charged Calasse with securities fraud - one was hilarious - they didn't charge him with fraud because he didn't respond to a letter. That was hilarious but not close to being accurate.

Your obsession with Calasse is too funny - you still don't understand it doesn't matter who wins or losses - Sharp never had a company lined up and never will. The Calasse lawsuit has zero to do with Sharp halting all operations for GOFF/WNFT. Any competent CEO would have pushed forward.

Instead of tap dancing around the question - why didn't the SEC/DOJ file a complaint or indict Calasse for fraud.

Your obsession of Calasse - is delusional.

No real company will ever go public with a 3 time hijacked shell.

Why hasn't Sharp found a company for SRNW.

IG

[Yolo]

If this evidence, that was submitted to the NVSC, isn't proof that Calasse committed fraud, then I don't know what is.

It is evidence, but hasn't been verified. If someone else could issue press releases in Calasse's name, then he wouldn't be guilty of anything.

Even if he was the one writing and issuing the press release, if he did it based on a good faith belief that what he was saying was true, then it wouldn't be fraud. Basically, if he was fed wrong information by the fraudsters, he isn't complicit even though he's the one that issued the press release.

Funny how you and i-Glow mention the Caledonian case only when it suits you and when the SEC in the Calendonia case mentions Calasse's fraud in detail, you say it has nothing to do with Calasse and even try to convince everyone that the fraudulent press releases that Calasse wrote and published were actually done by someone else.

Again, our point is that despite this multi year investigation into the pump and dumps, with detailed allegations and evidence showing who profited from the scam, the SEC chose to charge Mulholland and his associates and didn't charge Calasse or any of the other CEOs involved.

The fact is, Calasse didn't sell a single share. If he was complicit in the fraud, why would he keep them and not profit himself?! Look at how quickly Sharp sold his common shares...



At the end of the day, I don't care what you think. I've shared what I think is compelling evidence, but even then I don't think it matters. The NVSC will be ruling based on the jurisdictional defects, they likely won't even consider whether Calasse did or did not commit fraud. It simply isn't relevant at the moment, because either a) Sharp didn't have proper jurisdiction to cancel the shares, or b) Calasse doesn't have standing to appeal.

Whichever way they rule, the allegations you keep copying and pasting are completely irrelevant.