| Inquisitor |
|
Oct 2, 09, 12:30PM
| #1 |
Joined: Oct 2, 09
Threads: 1
Posts: 11
|
I know I'm probably stepping into a minefield here, but what the heck... as a qualified lurker on these pages, I might as well step into the spotlight with a biggie :)
I've been reading up on the ***** vs. SNR case, and bloody hell it was torturous, but worth it in the end. This is a case that gets mentioned a lot on here. Might it be useful to get straight what actually happened?
Now I might be wrong, and if I am then please just let me know. I have no agenda here, I just want to see if I'm right about my interpretation of what happened.
My understanding is that ***** (a Pakistani company) filed a complaint against SNR (a New Jersey company) in a New Jersey court on 14th November 2007. ***** were claiming that SNR operated a site called essayfraud and were using it to defame SNR.
Prior to this, ***** had filed subpoenas that had led them to proof that SNR owned essayfraud.
It was agreed that SNR would respond on 4th February 2008. On that date, SNR admitted to owning essayfraud, but defended that site, claiming that all the information on it was true. Furthermore, SNR counter-claimed against ***** for copyright violation.
SNR then filed a Rule 11 letter (something to do with frivolous court actions?) regarding *****'s subpoenas, i.e. the subpoenas that ***** had used to determine that SNR owned essayfraud. (You still with me?).
Because of some mistake when pursuing the subpoenas, *****'s attorney quit. ***** then decided to 'go it alone', i.e. pro se and without an attorney, but this isn't allowed for a corporate entity in New Jersey, so the judge entered a default ruling against *****, to the sum of $700k, relating to the copyright claim (over some papers, I think?).
Meanwhile, in Pakistan, ***** filed a suit against SNR for damages (not sure what exactly for - anyone? the essayfraud thing?) and because SNR chose not to contest this in Pakistan, ***** won a default judgement of $6m (seriously!?!?).
Phew. Okay, I think I'm still with it so far. Can you tell I'm not a legal expert?
So the result seems to be that ***** was awarded $6m damages against SNR in a Pakistani court, SNR was awarded $700k damages against ***** in a New Jersey court, and neither side has much hope of receiving any money from the other, because of the different jurisdictions.
Now, we come to the question of site ownership. There seems to be some confusion, with some sources claiming that some sites that SNR claimed were owned by ***** were, in fact, merely hosted on the same servers, and were owned by various other companies, including one called BASCO(?).
So... I'm sure some of this is wrong, so I'd love it if people would step in and correct the bits that are wrong, and add other details. It just seems this topic gets talked about soooo much, it would be useful (at least to me) to get to the bottom of it.
Incidentally, essayfraud now seems to be parked, up for sale, and currently owned by Wind Gather Ltd, whoever they are.
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Oct 2, 09, 12:57PM
| #2 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678
|
Inquisitor: Because of some mistake when pursuing the subpoenas
Starting there, everything that you typed is completely incorrect, based mostly on propaganda out of Pakistan.
Discussion of the case in this forum arose in relation to specific aspects of *****'s enjoined conduct that are particularly relevant to the current, ongoing conduct of EssayWriters.net. This is not the place to discuss generalities of the case. The topic has already been beaten to death, with actual facts, so I request that the mod delete this thread.
|
|
| Inquisitor |
|
Oct 2, 09, 01:21PM
| #3 |
Joined: Oct 2, 09
Threads: 1
Posts: 11
|
Hi, I have no problem with that. Before the thread's deleted, or in a PM, could you point me in the direction of what you consider to be a reliable account of it all? I'm sure you'll agree that, with all the apparent misinformation, it's a right old kettle of fish!!
|
|
| cocklejoe |
|
Oct 2, 09, 01:23PM
| #4 |
Joined: Jul 21, 09
Threads: 3
Posts: 133
|
WritersBeware: Starting there, everything that you typed is completely incorrect, based mostly on propaganda out of Pakistan.
I don't always agree with WB, but I think she's right on this. You wouldn't believe the propaganda surrounding this industry, I think they spend more writing spam than writing essays for schoolkids
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Oct 2, 09, 01:45PM
| #5 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678
|
Inquisitor: Hi, I have no problem with that. Before the thread's deleted, or in a PM, could you point me in the direction of what you consider to be a reliable account of it all?
The only factual account has been published by the US Federal District Court of New Jersey. Anything contrary or supplementary to the precise information contained thereat is 100% propaganda.
|
|
| WRT |
Company Representative |
Oct 2, 09, 02:32PM
| #6 |
Joined: Sep 29, 09
Threads: 14
Posts: 1,850
|
SNR is one of the indusry's founders and a highly reputable company. As it was bringing in really big bucks, many assumed that they could do the same. Whether or not they had any industry-knowledge or knew anything of the educational system in the markets they were targetting was (as far as they were concerned), besides the point. ***** was one of these companies and, in total, it built what it considered an empire of 555 sites. The service they provided, however, was of the lowest quality possible. Naturally, students and writers complained and some did so through essayfraud.org (functioned similar to this forum). ***** retaliated against SNR, arguing that Student Network Resource was behind these attacks. SNR countersued *****. Please recall that ***** initiated the lawsuit and did so in New Jersey. The end result was:
1) *****'s own lawyers withdrew from the case, stating that had the plaintiff been honest with them from the start, they would have advised against the (then) current course of action
2) The court found in favour of the defendants (pls note that SNR was the defendant here, not *****) and, among many other things, awarded SNR ownership of *****'s 555 domains.
3) ***** could not take the heat, scurried out of NJ and, to save face, sued SNR in the Pakistani courts.
The facts of the Pakistani case were never documented. ***** says that it was awarded millions upon millions but where are the court documents? The New Jersey case is documented, the Pakistani one is not.
The facts are very very clear and may be accessed by anyone. Any who are interested in the facts may access the New Jersey court document which WB hyperlinked. The one and only truth is in that document.
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Oct 2, 09, 02:43PM
| #7 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678
|
WRT, that is probably the best and most accurate summary of the case that I have ever read.
|
|
| Inquisitor |
|
Oct 3, 09, 01:16PM
| #8 |
Joined: Oct 2, 09
Threads: 1
Posts: 11
|
So what about the court case in Pakistan? Did that even happen? And what was the original problem with essayfraud.org, was it a site like this one, but run by a particular company, and it got closed down for peddling lies, or allowing libel?
I must confess the reason I got interested in the case is the implications in terms of jurisdictions. These two companies seem to each have whopping judgements against them, but neither side looks like it'll have to pay up. I'm actually a third year undergrad law student and I'm thinking of doing a research project on the subject (and yes! I'll write it myself!!), it's quite an interesting area.
Anyway, if I go ahead, I'll let you all know if I find out anything explosive, like counsel for the defence had two heads or something :)
|
|
| Inquisitor |
|
Oct 3, 09, 01:20PM
| #9 |
Joined: Oct 2, 09
Threads: 1
Posts: 11
|
WRT: The facts of the Pakistani case were never documented.
P.S. A court case can't go undocumented. If it happened (and I'm not saying for sure that it did), there'll be documents, however hard they are to find; that difficulty may be down to the nature of the Pakistani court system, which is notoriously behind-the-times when it comes to things like putting legal documents online.
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Oct 3, 09, 01:48PM
| #10 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678
|
Inquisitor, there is no ruling against SNR in any court, in any country. Even if there were a judgment against SNR in Pakistan, it would be absolutely meaningless and utterly unenforceable. SNR is an American company that has no place of business in Pakistan.
Again, this is not the place for general discussion about a legal case. If you want to study the case, use the link that I already gave to you.
Mod, please delete this thread before it leads to even more misinformation!
|
|
| Inquisitor |
|
Oct 3, 09, 02:09PM
| #11 |
Joined: Oct 2, 09
Threads: 1
Posts: 11
|
WritersBeware: Mod, please delete this thread before it leads to even more misinformation!
I respectfully disagree.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who was confused, and it does give everyone a chance to put the record straight. Some people on here have certainly given the impression that there was a judgement against SNR, which does appear to be wrong!
If a thread like this had existed in the first place, I'd never have had to ask, so maybe it's a good idea to have it as reference? Hmm, I'm probably just proving why I'd be a bad mod...
|
|
| Inquisitor |
|
Oct 3, 09, 02:10PM
| #12 |
Joined: Oct 2, 09
Threads: 1
Posts: 11
|
Plus this is a rare thread that (so far) hasn't descended into 'Shut up', 'No you shut up', 'No you shut up', 'right let's have a vote on who should shut up' :)
|
|
| WRT |
Company Representative |
Oct 3, 09, 02:34PM
| #13 |
Joined: Sep 29, 09
Threads: 14
Posts: 1,850
|
I really am beginning to suspect the nature of your so-called interest.
1. You dredged up an old case and posted misinformation
2. We directed you to the court ruling, to a legal document
3. You came back with questions regarding the Pakistani case, insinuating that the case is genuine and that SNR lost.
The one thing I do believe is that you know nothing of the law. If (that is a very very big if) the Pakistani courts ruled against SNR, it was by default.
The fact is that *****:
1) Lied about its nationality
2) Lied about the nationality of its writers
3) Defrauded customers
4) Defrauded writers
5) Violated every copyright law (both national and international) imaginable
6) Libelled SNR
7) Violated every fair trade agreement around
Then had the gall to take SNR to court. They lost, pure and simple. They lost; they were wiped out and the industry is all the cleaner for that.
|
|
| WRT |
Company Representative |
Oct 3, 09, 02:36PM
| #14 |
Joined: Sep 29, 09
Threads: 14
Posts: 1,850
|
WritersBeware: Mod, please delete this thread before it leads to even more misinformation!
Yes, unless rumour-mongering is now the forum's goal.
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Oct 3, 09, 02:46PM
| #15 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678
|
This is a forum for writers and consumers to discuss their personal experiences with fraudulent term paper companies. This is not a legal forum, and it is absolutely not an appropriate venue to invite misinformation about a lawsuit that was already adjudicated!
WritersBeware: Discussion of the case in this forum arose in relation to specific aspects of *****'s enjoined conduct that are particularly relevant to the current, ongoing conduct of EssayWriters.net. This is not the place to discuss generalities of the case. The topic has already been beaten to death, with actual facts, so I request that the mod delete this thread.
WritersBeware: Again, this is not the place for general discussion about a legal case. If you want to study the case, use the link that I already gave to you. |
|
| Inquisitor |
|
Edited by: Inquisitor Oct 3, 09, 03:26PM
| #16 |
Joined: Oct 2, 09
Threads: 1
Posts: 11
|
*Sigh* I read a lot of threads, I saw how volatile this place is, I tried to couch everything in uber-friendly and open terms, and for a moment I thought I'd succeeded...
WRT: I really am beginning to suspect the nature of your so-called interest.
I've been very clear about why I'm interested.
WRT: You dredged up an old case and posted misinformation
I was very careful to state that I was unsure of my facts, and that the reason for my post was so that others could correct what I'd got wrong. I came here because I knew that some people on this site know a lot about this case, and I wanted to hear from them.
WRT: We directed you to the court ruling, to a legal document
Yes. Thank you. I'd already seen those papers, but I still appreciate your help.
WRT: You came back with questions regarding the Pakistani case, insinuating that the case is genuine and that SNR lost.
I think I was pretty reasonable on that score. I asked. You explained. Again, thank you. Believe it or not... I believe you!!!
Where did I insinuate that it was genuine? Do you know what that word means? I merely left open the possibility, which I think is reasonable. For what it's worth, I don't think the Pakistani case is genuine - I think it's, as another member suggested, propaganda - but I still leave open the possibility that it's genuine, until I've finished my background research.
WRT: The one thing I do believe is that you know nothing of the law.
Wrong.
WRT: If (that is a very very big if) the Pakistani courts ruled against SNR, it was by default.
Didn't SNR, technically, if we're being pedantic, win on default?
I've explained why I asked about all this. Now I'll go off and put together my research proposal. Or maybe I should look for someone to do all the writing for me... any recommendations? :p
Anyway, thanks, you have all been genuinely helpful!
|
|
| WRT |
Company Representative |
Oct 3, 09, 03:38PM
| #17 |
Joined: Sep 29, 09
Threads: 14
Posts: 1,850
|
Inquisitor: Where did I insinuate that it was genuine? Do you know what that word means?
Yes I do. Anyway, I believe I owe you an apology and admit that I could have misread your intentions.
Inquisitor: Didn't SNR, technically, win on default?
Why? Because ***** withdrew when the tide turned against it. ***** initiated the lawsuit and then ran away.
When you read the document, you will find that the judge clarified (in very precise terms) why she was ruling against *****. The company violated a host of federal laws (and international trade laws).
Inquisitor: Or maybe I should look for someone to do all the writing for me... any recommendations?
You are going to get PM'ed to death now :)
|
|
| Inquisitor |
|
Oct 3, 09, 03:44PM
| #18 |
Joined: Oct 2, 09
Threads: 1
Posts: 11
|
WRT: ***** withdrew when the tide turned against it
As I understood it, their counsel dropped the case because ***** had misled him, and he claimed that he'd never have taken their case if he'd known the truth. ***** were then unable to find another legal representative, which speaks volumes about the legitimacy of their case!
WRT: I believe I owe you an apology
Thanks, I admit it's hard sometimes to read someone's intentions on the internet, so I understand. And I think that's the first time anyone's ever apologise to me online! Score! Sorry if I seemed unreasonable at any point :)
|
|
| WRT |
Company Representative |
Oct 3, 09, 03:57PM
| #19 |
Joined: Sep 29, 09
Threads: 14
Posts: 1,850
|
Inquisitor: ***** were then unable to find another legal representative, which speaks volumes about the legitimacy of their case!
Exactly! And in litigation-mad USA, of all places. Richard Lee Brock (the guy who sued himself for getting drunk and committing a string of crimes as a result) found a lawyer but ***** couldn't. So they ran to Pakistan :)
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Oct 3, 09, 06:33PM
| #20 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
Inquisitor: 'right let's have a vote on who should shut up'
ROFLMAO!
|
|
| cocklejoe |
|
Oct 6, 09, 01:51PM
| #21 |
Joined: Jul 21, 09
Threads: 3
Posts: 133
|
I vote that I should shut up.
|
|
| pheelyks |
Writer |
Oct 6, 09, 01:53PM
| #22 |
Joined: Jan 20, 09
Threads: 8
Posts: 3,836
|
cocklejoe: I vote that I should shut up.
Apparently, you out-voted yourself. Do you live in a belligerent democracy?
|
|
| MarcOB |
|
Oct 11, 09, 01:22PM
| #23 |
Joined: Oct 11, 09
Posts: 2
|
My goodness me. WritersBeware and WRT are so rude despite people being very polite to them. Sad sad pathetic little people.
|
|
| cocklejoe |
|
Oct 11, 09, 02:06PM
| #24 |
Joined: Jul 21, 09
Threads: 3
Posts: 133
|
Oh my God, someone's being RUDE on the internet!?!?! Where? :)
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Oct 11, 09, 02:15PM
| #25 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678
|
MarcOB, I love you.
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Oct 11, 09, 02:19PM
| #26 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678
|
Hey, Mod, why have you removed AXACT's name? Well, I think that I may know why. Did you receive a removal demand/threat from the Axact "lawyer"? If so, rest assured, you have absolutely NOTHING to fear from Axact's "attorneys." They got pummeled in US Federal Court after trying to pull that intimidation garbage with the WRONG people.
Threats don't work in the US, Axact. This isn't Karachi. Axact's "egregious" (the Judge's word, not mine) conduct and all of the legal proceedings are on public record. Hey, I have an idea: why don't you send a removal threat to justia.com? Better yet, why not send one of your patented removal demands to the administrators of the US Federal Court's electronic filing system?
From Judge Freda L. Wolfson's "Opinion" document, available in the case docket at justia.com:
------------------------------------------
Axact's false and misleading representations and deceptive practices have led to SNR's loss of customers and goodwill, and have caused SNR economic harm and the loss of prospective economic advantage in an amount not less than $500. Cohen Decl. at ¶ at 54; see Skolnik Decl. at ¶¶ 46-47, 49. SNR has also sustained an ascertainable loss under the Consumer Fraud Act of $843.25, as noted earlier. To penalize and discourage Axact's egregious conduct, the Court shall award punitive damages in the amount of $350,000 for Axact's violations of the Lanham Act, New Jersey common law of unfair competition and tortious interference with Defendants' prospective economic advantage, and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. An appropriate Order shall follow.
------------------------------------------
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Oct 11, 09, 02:35PM
| #27 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678
|
For anyone who's interested, the following is a direct link to Judge Wolfson's opinion of Axact:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/3:200 7cv05491/208337/31/0.pdf
|
|
| Inquisitor |
|
Oct 17, 09, 08:42AM
| #28 |
Joined: Oct 2, 09
Threads: 1
Posts: 11
|
Remember me? I found out one interesting thing to add to the discussion we had before. There definitely was a court case in Pakistan.
On Friday 28th August 2009, at the High Court of Sindh in Karachi, suit 772/2008 appeared before Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar. This was Axact Pvt Ltd. vs. Student Network Resources Inc. It was listed in the court files as 'Final Hearing / Disposal'.
On Wednesday 30th September 2009, at the same court, before the same judge, there was another hearing related to the same case. Both appearances were, obviously, subsequent to prior appearances, details of which I'd try to ferret out if I had the inclination.
As my legal background is UK-based, I've been working to get my head around the Pakistani legal system, which is very different in some key respects. But I thought some of you would appreciate the update. On a personal note, I've decided I'm not going to focus on this case for my dissertation, but it was interesting research nonetheless.
|
|
| Inquisitor |
|
Oct 17, 09, 09:47AM
| #29 |
Joined: Oct 2, 09
Threads: 1
Posts: 11
|
By the way, I'm not trying to stir anything up. Over and out.
|
|
| pheelyks |
Writer |
Edited by: pheelyks Oct 17, 09, 12:13PM
| #30 |
Joined: Jan 20, 09
Threads: 8
Posts: 3,836
|
Inquisitor-
Thanks for trying, but this isn't new information. In fact, it's easy to find with a simple Google search. What happened was this: Axact filed suit in the US against SNR. Their case was so ridiculous that their lawyers ended up dropping them; Axact failed to have a representative show up for the final ruling, so a default judgment was entered. Given the strength of the judge's wording in this judgement, it is extremely likely that Axact would have lost even if they had managed to find an attorney willing to show up in court for them.
After being beaten like a trailer park whore, Axact turned around and filed a suit for six million dollars--SIX freakin' MILLION!!--in their home court in Pakistan, which of course is well respected by the international community for its remarkably unbiased justice system. When SNR refused to even join the suit (i.e. pay a lawyer to fly to Pakistan to answer a six million dollar defamation suit), another default judgment was entered. In addition to awarding Axact the six million, it issued an order allowing SNR's sites to be shut down.
End result: two default orders, one in the country where both companies do business, and one in the third world where neither actually picks up any customers, and where SNR has exactly zero presence. One where a judge decided things based on the facts of the case, and one where the judge decided simply because one party was a no-show. Two orders for money that will never be paid by either party (jurisdictional issues with collection). Two orders to shut down sites--Axact's sites are gone, but SNR's are still here....I wonder which case counted more?
|
|
| Inquisitor |
|
Edited by: Inquisitor Oct 17, 09, 01:29PM
| #31 |
Joined: Oct 2, 09
Threads: 1
Posts: 11
|
Sorry, I thought there was some doubt about whether the Pakistan ruling happened at all. Someone said:
WritersBeware: there is no ruling against SNR in any court, in any country
which is not true.
Otherwise, Pheelyks, WRT & co., I agree with 99.9% of what you say.
P.S. I think I chose a bad username. 'Inquisitor' makes me sound like I'm some evil nutter with a point to prove. My name was, in fact, an obscure and somewhat geeky 'Red Dwarf' reference :)
The Inquisitor!!!
|  |
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Oct 17, 09, 02:00PM
| #32 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678
|
Inquisitor: Sorry, I thought there was some doubt about whether the Pakistan ruling happened at all. Someone said: WritersBeware: there is no ruling against SNR in any court, in any country
1. If there has been some horsesh*t ruling in a meaningless, Pakistani court, it transpired sometime after my thorough investigations established that no such ruling exists.
2. Until you post a link to verifiable proof that a ruling exists, it doesn't exist.
3. Even if it does exist, it doesn't exist.
|
|
| pheelyks |
Writer |
Oct 17, 09, 02:09PM
| #33 |
Joined: Jan 20, 09
Threads: 8
Posts: 3,836
|
C'mon, WB...you know I'm on your side here, and I agree that a ruling in Pakistani courts counts about as much as a confession in Iran, but #3 is a little much. The ruling almost certainly wouldn't stand up to any attempts to collect, and obviously SNR's sites are still up and running wheres Axact's aren't, which is a clear marker of international legitimacy, but if the Pakistani court ruled in a certain way, then it did...
Admittedly, in my two minutes of searching I have been unable to find a link to an official ruling, but then it doesn't surprise me that the Pakistani civil courts don't have an established web presence.
|
|
| WRT |
Company Representative |
Oct 17, 09, 02:30PM
| #34 |
Joined: Sep 29, 09
Threads: 14
Posts: 1,850
|
Inquisitor: Otherwise, Pheelyks, WRT & co., I agree with 99.9% of what you say.
I really don't believe there was a ruling. Have never come across supporting documentation (official). A case number would suffice - is there one?
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Oct 17, 09, 09:42PM
| #35 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678
|
pheelyks: C'mon, WB...you know I'm on your side here, and I agree that a ruling in Pakistani courts counts about as much as a confession in Iran, but #3 is a little much.
I'm not questioning your position on which party is on the right side of the law. I'm just trying to stay focused on the legal realities. The bottom line is that until someone presents verifiable proof that a Pakistani ruling exists, it doesn't exist. The Pakistani propaganda machine has been working full-time, publishing all sorts of outlandish lies and face-saving claims, since the New Jersey ruling dropped in late 2008. Googlers like Inquisitor have obviously gotten their "information" directly from online branches of that propaganda machine. Since Day 1, the machine's most prominent lie has been that there is a Pakistani ruling against SNR. It was nonsense then, and it's nonsense now (unless some Pakistani court has ruled very recently). Regardless, even if a Pakistani ruling does now exist, it is absolutely meaningless in every way.
|
|
