I believe the lawsuit you're refering to here is WWASP v PURE, et al.
My understanding that there was an injunction prohibiting Sue from speaking publicy about WWASP. But then Donna Hedrick died. She had been the, what?, editor? of
http://www.intrepidnetreporter.com. When she died, no one thought to pay the bill, so WWASP took it over.
Then, apparently, Sue snagged
http://www.intrepidnetreporters.com/ and Donna's content. Because of a court order arising from WvP, she probably should not have done that. So Lee found out and took it over. It's worth reading. This content was under developed before PURE ever existed, far less WvP. Of course, Donna didn't have the legal and investigative recourses of a mainstream publication. And I don't think she ever represented that she did. It couldn't hurt to look into the claims made in the original text.
If you're interested, talk to the people who wrote the content, not just the people who have a vested interest in your adopting their view of things.
What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that
they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long.
--Thomas Sowell
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
American drug war P.O.W.
10/80 - 10/82
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
Anonymity Anonymousfor clarity,
[ This Message was edited by: Antigen on 2004-01-01 22:06 ]