I can't speak for anyone else, but I couldn't find an attorney to take my case as a single case. I spoke with several. Each and every one said it was more appropriately a class action situation - but that class action work was beyond their abilities.
All were very interested in the situation, and really spent a lot of time looking at it. One, a retired federal prosecutor, was very interested, and really seemed to want to tackle it - but finely admitted it was beyond his resources. This kind of thing cost so much money - it takes a large and wealthy law firm. He had a friend of his from the FBI call me and come by and take some info. I am not sure whats become of that.
As for the ISAC/PURE thing -I really have no business speaking about it - but feel safe explaining as has been done over and over - ISAC is Not aligned with PURE. I?m not well versed on this - but my impression is, ISAC opposes much that PURE advocates, and so in some ways they are in opposition; and are certainly not aligned.
PURE is Sue's business. The only people who are 'PURE' would be Sue and her employees - at least as far as I'm concerned.
Saying someone is 'PURE' b/c they know who Sue is and have corresponded with her; is as goofy as saying all those who know who Lon is, and have corresponded with him, are part of the 'Woodbury group'. Pretty goofy.
I think all you Program people are just desperate to discount everything you hear by tossing it all aside as coming from PURE, which you Think you know to be discredited.
It just doesn?t work. Sue and her business are a very small part of all this. You can't make it all go away by waving the 'their all PURE' banner; Try as you might.
So, that leaves you having to think about why all these people are saying all this stuff, if its not b/c they are just a bunch of PURest; And you Really don't want to think about that. The answer goes aginst all your core belifes about a program you have put absolute blind faith in.
You have to face the fact, so many are saying these things, b/c its the truth.