![](http://investorshub.advfn.com/images/default_ih_profile2_4848.jpg?cb=0)
Friday, April 13, 2018 11:54:31 PM
The argument holds no water.
Right to sue (standing) is one thing. The ability to win is another. In the above question, the vagrant could be held liable for the first owners losses upon sale, but not owing to the second, except when he is forced to leave the property would become more valuable. But, it doesn't change the situation.
Here, the fact they are continuing an act of confiscation is as much the problem as the initial confiscation. While sure, the injuries occurred to the parties holding at the time of the conservatorship (confiscation), and the NWS, but everyday standing enures to the owners of the stock that are in permanent "time-out". So, while injuries would be due those at the time who owned it; doesn't change that today in confiscation damages didn't occur.
FEATURED POET Wins "Best Optical AI Solution" in 2024 AI Breakthrough Awards Program • Jun 26, 2024 10:09 AM
HealthLynked Promotes Bill Crupi to Chief Operating Officer • HLYK • Jun 26, 2024 8:00 AM
Bantec's Howco Short Term Department of Defense Contract Wins Will Exceed $1,100,000 for the current Quarter • BANT • Jun 25, 2024 10:00 AM
ECGI Holdings Targets $9.7 Billion Equestrian Apparel Market with Allon Brand Launch • ECGI • Jun 25, 2024 8:36 AM
Avant Technologies Addresses Progress on AI Supercomputer-Driven Data Centers • AVAI • Jun 25, 2024 8:00 AM
Green Leaf Innovations, Inc. Expands International Presence with New Partnership in Dubai • GRLF • Jun 24, 2024 8:30 AM