Exact Term Papers vs Student Research Organization

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 Exact Term Papers vs. Student Research 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 Exact Term Papers (a Pakistani company) filed a complaint against Student Research (a New Jersey company) in a New Jersey court. Exact Term Papers were claiming that Student Research operated a site called essay organization and were using it to defame the other company.

Prior to this, Exact Term Papers had filed subpoenas that had led them to proof that Student Research owned essay organization.

It was agreed that Student Research would respond on February 2008. On that date, Student Research admitted to owning essay organization, but defended that site, claiming that all the information on it was true. Furthermore, Student Research counter-claimed against Exact Papers for copyright violation.

Student Research then filed a Rule 11 letter (something to do with frivolous court actions?) regarding Exact Term Papers' subpoenas, i.e. the subpoenas that Exact Term Paper had used to determine that Student Research owned essay organization. (You still with me?).

Because of some mistake when pursuing the subpoenas, Exact Term Papers' attorney quit.Exact Papers 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 Exact Term Papers, to the sum of $k, relating to the copyright claim (over some papers, I think?).

Meanwhile, in Pakistan, Exact Term Papers filed a suit against Student Research for damages (not sure what exactly for - anyone? the essay organization thing?) and because Student Research chose not to contest this in Pakistan, Exact Term Papers won a default judgement of $m (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 Exact Term Papers was awarded $6m damages against Student Research in a Pakistani court, Student Research was awarded $k damages against Exact Term Papers 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 Student Research claimed were owned by Exact Term Papers were, in fact, merely hosted on the same servers, and were owned by various other companies, including one called BCO(?).

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, essay organization now seems to be parked, up for sale, and currently owned by Win Ltd, whoever they are.

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 Exact Term Paper's enjoined conduct that are particularly relevant to the current, ongoing conduct of Essay Writers. 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.

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!!

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

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.

Student Research is one of the industry'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 targeting was (as far as they were concerned), besides the point. Exact Term Papers was one of these companies and, in total, it built what it considered an empire of 885 sites. The service they provided, however, was of the lowest quality possible. Naturally, students and writers complained and some did so through essay organization (functioned similar to this forum). Exact Term Paper retaliated against Student Research, arguing that it was behind these attacks. Student Research counter-sued Exact Term Papers. Please recall that Exact Term Paper initiated the lawsuit and did so in New Jersey. The end result was:

1) Exact Term Paper'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 favor of the defendants (pls note that Student Research was the defendant here, not Exact Term Paper) and, among many other things, awarded Student Research ownership of Exact Term Papers' domains.

3) Exact Term Papers could not take the heat, scurried out of NJ and, to save face, sued Student Research in the Pakistani courts.

The facts of the Pakistani case were never documented. Exact Term Paper 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.

WRT, that is probably the best and most accurate summary of the case that I have ever read.

So what about the court case in Pakistan? Did that even happen? And what was the original problem with essay organization, 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 defense had two heads or something :)


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.

Inquisitor, there is no ruling against Student Researcher in any court, in any country. Even if there were a judgment against SR in Pakistan, it would be absolutely meaningless and utterly unenforceable. Student Research 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!

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 SR, 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...

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' :)

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 Student Research 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 SR, it was by default.

The fact is that Exact Term Papers:
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) Libeled SR
7) Violated every fair trade agreement around
Then had the gall to take SR to court. They lost, pure and simple. They lost; they were wiped out and the industry is all the cleaner for that.


Yes, unless rumour-mongering is now the forum's goal.

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!

*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...


I've been very clear about why I'm interested.

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.


Yes. Thank you. I'd already seen those papers, but I still appreciate your help.


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.


Wrong.


Didn't SR, 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!

Yes I do. Anyway, I believe I owe you an apology and admit that I could have misread your intentions.


Why? Because Exact Papers withdrew when the tide turned against it. Exact Term Papers 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 site. The company violated a host of federal laws (and international trade laws).


You are going to get PM'ed to death now :)

As I understood it, their counsel dropped the case because Exact Term Paper had misled him, and he claimed that he'd never have taken their case if he'd known the truth. Exact Papers were then unable to find another legal representative, which speaks volumes about the legitimacy of their case!


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 :)

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 they couldn't. So they ran to Pakistan :)

ROFLMAO!

I vote that I should shut up.

Apparently, you out-voted yourself. Do you live in a belligerent democracy?

My goodness me. WritersBeware and WRT are so rude despite people being very polite to them. Sad sad pathetic little people.

Oh my God, someone's being RUDE on the internet!?!?! Where? :)

MarcOB, I love you.

Hey, Mod, why have you removed Exact Term Papers' name? Well, I think that I may know why. Did you receive a removal demand/threat from the Exact Term Papers "lawyer"? If so, rest assured, you have absolutely NOTHING to fear from Exact Term Papers' "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, Exact Term Papers. This isn't Karachi. Exact Papers' "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? Better yet, why not send one of your patented removal demands to the administrators of the US Federal Court's electronic filing system?

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 August 2009, at the High Court in Karachi, suit 772/2008 appeared before Mr. Justice. This was Exact Term Papers vs. Student Research. It was listed in the court files as 'Final Hearing / Disposal'.

On 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.

By the way, I'm not trying to stir anything up. Over and out.

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: Exact Term Papers filed suit in the US against Student Researcher. Their case was so ridiculous that their lawyers ended up dropping them; the company 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 Exact Term Papers 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 w*0re, Exact Term Paper turned around and filed a suit for six million dollars--SIX freaking' MILLION!!--in their home court in Pakistan, which of course is well respected by the international community for its remarkably unbiased justice system. When Student Researcher 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 Exact Term Papers the six million, it issued an order allowing SR'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 SR 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--Term Papers sites are gone, but SR's are still here....I wonder which case counted more?

Sorry, I thought there was some doubt about whether the Pakistan ruling happened at all. Someone said:


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 :)

1. If there has been some horses-i* 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.

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 Student Researcher's sites are still up and running wheres Exact Term Papers 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.

I really don't believe there was a ruling. Have never come across supporting documentation (official). A case number would suffice - is there one?

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 Student Researchers. 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.