"Are you suggesting that because there is an accepted status, it must be correct and lawful?"

I am suggesting that over time, (in this case more than 3 years since the J3 cases were at a similar stage using similar language), and with court rulings consistent with this status being imparted to TPL, that yes, it provides a level of correctness and lawfulness to the claim. I'm not SURE of this, but it seems the case and I'm asking those who would know better to comment.

"The issue is not theirs to decide or even influence. Hence, what would you have them say?"

I understand your comment on the surface, but considering that PTSC is ALSO a defendant, and that TPL is responsible for procesuting and litigating this mess and for defending PTSC's interest as well, you bettter believe I EXPECT and HOPE that PTSC has vetted their claim THOUROGHLY and has a FIRM legal position that OUR interests are protected regardless of Moore's claims. Otherwise, if TPL's claim proves false, fraudulent, or otherwise compromised, we may be going through a process that can be challenged, and could be thrown out at worse, or could be appealed at best, I would think. So, PTSC's lack of opposition/clarification to TPL's claims SHOULD be grounded in a certainty to their validity, I would hope. Otherwise, I think we're vulnerable on yet another front.

"USA is a free country. TPL is free to claim anything they want."

I get the impression you're being argumentative for the sake of being so, rather than trying to understand the thrust of the question, or because you may not be able/qualified to provide the legitimate opinion I was requesting in my post.

There IS a certain legal legitimacy rendered when another party doesn't oppose a claim but contiues to ignore and go along with it. For example, if you and I were co-owners of a car, and your cousin claimed that you had given him your interest in the car, and that he was now free to join with me in renting the car out for profit, and that he would provide you with your share of the proceeds, I would think I have a responsibility to KNOW whether I'm entering into a legitimate arrangement. Furthermore, if we went out and did so, and you accepted those payments, I think that lends a certain legal legitimacy to your cousin's claims

If after a while becuase of his non-payment to you, you then claim that you never gave him the your interest in the car, but just the right to represent him in the rental deals, then it seems you have interjected a claim that questions the merits of the partnership he and I have. In light of your claims, if I then STILL continued to work that arrangement, and continued to represent as much to the people we were renting the car to, that he rather than you are the co-owner of the car, and we continue to do so not only to rental clients, but the Court, then I would expect that I have some legal exposure if there really was a fraud perpetrated on you by your cousin. It sure seems like I would have some exposure after all of those events occurred if I continued to prosecute cases against renters that he rather than you are the actual owner of the car.

Granted, there may be legal precedent that supports PTSC being able to say TPL has legitimate contracts that show their legal ownership, and that PTSC has vetted those to the extent possible, and thus they are protected. They may be able to claim that they have no way of knowing whether Leckrone obtained those contracts fraudulently or not. In a vacuum, that SOUNDS plausible, but in the context of us also suing TPL for fraud, and Moore suing TPL for fraud, I would sure HOPE that PTSC has ascertained this ownership issue to the furthest level of certainty possible. Otherwise, I would hope they might exercise some level of independence in these current proceedings so that we can't be pulled down with TPL's ship if theirs sinks.

The paradigm you're suggesting that it's not our concern, seems shortsighted IMO, though I hope you're correct.