Paula Reeves Response
To 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.