News & Views 

Educational Consultants helping parents and professionals since 1989

Free eAlerts

 For FREE updates... 
enter your email
address and click

Online News

New Perspectives
Visit Reports
Seen n Heard
Employment Listings

Site Guide

Schools & Programs
Discussion Forum
Information Services
Newsletter Archives
Online Store
Contact Us

Posted December 31, 2002 

Paula Reeves Response
Ken Kay

December 29, 2002

Ken Kay's statement in your publication, dated December 19, 2002, is misleading. The Opinion and Order in the case of WWASP vs. PURE, INC., addressed nothing more than a preliminary, procedural matter. The only issue before the Court related to whether there were sufficient minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction in the State of Utah (as compared to possible jurisdiction in another state). Nothing more and nothing less. The Court's Opinion and Order has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the case. The burden of proof is on WWASP, and the truth or falsity of the facts alleged by WWASP is yet to be determined. The facts for a preliminary motion of this nature, are usually taken only from the parties' briefs and arguments.

Please correct this information in your publication. You have permission to print my comments. I have no financial interest in either WWASP or PURE, INC. I assume you want to be fair about your publications.

Paula Reeves

PO Box 1671 | Bonners Ferry, ID 83805 | 208-267-5550
Copyright 1995-2017 by Strugglingteens,LLC. All rights reserved.    Privacy Policy