Background:
The Indus Valley civilization, one of the oldest in the world and dating back at least 5,000 years, spread over much of what is presently Pakistan. During the second millennium B.C., remnants of this culture fused with the migrating Indo-Aryan peoples. The area underwent successive invasions in subsequent centuries from the Persians, Greeks, Scythians, Arabs (who brought Islam), Afghans, and Turks. The Mughal Empire flourished in the 16th and 17th centuries; the British came to dominate the region in the 18th century. The separation in 1947 of British India into the Muslim state of Pakistan (with West and East sections) and largely Hindu India was never satisfactorily resolved, and India and Pakistan fought two wars – in 1947-48 and 1965 – over the disputed Kashmir territory. A third war between these countries in 1971 – in which India capitalized on Islamabad’s marginalization of Bengalis in Pakistani politics – resulted in East Pakistan becoming the separate nation of Bangladesh. In response to Indian nuclear weapons testing, Pakistan conducted its own tests in 1998. The dispute over the state of Kashmir is ongoing, but discussions and confidence-building measures have led to decreased tensions since 2002. Mounting public dissatisfaction with President MUSHARRAF, coupled with the assassination of the prominent and popular political leader, Benazir BHUTTO, in late 2007, and MUSHARRAF’s resignation in August 2008, led to the September presidential election of Asif ZARDARI, BHUTTO’s widower. Pakistani government and military leaders are struggling to control Islamist militants, many of whom are located in the tribal areas adjacent to the border with Afghanistan. The November 2008 Mumbai attacks again inflamed Indo-Pakistan relations. The Pakistani Government is also faced with a deteriorating economy as foreign exchange reserves decline, the currency depreciates, and the current account deficit widens.

Geography ::Pakistan

Location:
Southern Asia, bordering the Arabian Sea, between India on the east and Iran and Afghanistan on the west and China in the north

Geographic coordinates:
30 00 N, 70 00 E

Map references:
Asia

Area:
total: 796,095 sq kmcountry comparison to the world: 43 land: 770,875 sq kmwater: 25,220 sq km

Area – comparative:
slightly less than twice the size of California

Land boundaries:
total: 6,774 kmborder countries: Afghanistan 2,430 km, China 523 km, India 2,912 km, Iran 909 km

Coastline:
1,046 km

Maritime claims:
territorial sea: 12 nmcontiguous zone: 24 nmexclusive economic zone: 200 nmcontinental shelf: 200 nm or to the edge of the continental margin

Climate:
mostly hot, dry desert; temperate in northwest; arctic in north

Terrain:
flat Indus plain in east; mountains in north and northwest; Balochistan plateau in west

Elevation extremes:
lowest point: Indian Ocean 0 mhighest point: K2 (Mt. Godwin-Austen) 8,611 m

Natural resources:
land, extensive natural gas reserves, limited petroleum, poor quality coal, iron ore, copper, salt, limestone

Land use:
arable land: 24.44%permanent crops: 0.84%other: 74.72% (2005)

Irrigated land:
182,300 sq km (2003)

Total renewable water resources:
233.8 cu km (2003)

Freshwater withdrawal (domestic/industrial/agricultural):
total: 169.39 cu km/yr (2%/2%/96%)per capita: 1,072 cu m/yr (2000)

Natural hazards:
frequent earthquakes, occasionally severe especially in north and west; flooding along the Indus after heavy rains (July and August)

Environment – current issues:
water pollution from raw sewage, industrial wastes, and agricultural runoff; limited natural fresh water resources; most of the population does not have access to potable water; deforestation; soil erosion; desertification

Environment – international agreements:
party to: Biodiversity, Climate Change, Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol, Desertification, Endangered Species, Environmental Modification, Hazardous Wastes, Law of the Sea, Marine Dumping, Ozone Layer Protection, Ship Pollution, Wetlandssigned, but not ratified: Marine Life Conservation

Geography – note:
controls Khyber Pass and Bolan Pass, traditional invasion routes between Central Asia and the Indian Subcontinent

People ::Pakistan

Population:
176,242,949 (July 2009 est.)
country comparison to the world: 7

Age structure:
0-14 years: 37.2% (male 33,739,547/female 31,868,065)
15-64 years: 58.6% (male 52,849,607/female 50,378,198)
65 years and over: 4.2% (male 3,475,927/female 3,931,605) (2009 est.)

Median age:
total: 20.8 years
male: 20.6 years
female: 21 years (2009 est.)

Population growth rate:
1.947% (2009 est.)
country comparison to the world: 63

Birth rate:
27.62 births/1,000 population (2009 est.)
country comparison to the world: 57

Death rate:
7.68 deaths/1,000 population (July 2009 est.)
country comparison to the world: 119

Net migration rate:
-0.48 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2009 est.)
country comparison to the world: 111

Urbanization:
urban population: 36% of total population (2008)
rate of urbanization: 3% annual rate of change (2005-10 est.)

Sex ratio:
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.06 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.05 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.88 male(s)/female
total population: 1.04 male(s)/female (2009 est.)

Infant mortality rate:
total: 65.14 deaths/1,000 live births
country comparison to the world: 32
male: 65.24 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 65.05 deaths/1,000 live births (2009 est.)

Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 64.49 years
country comparison to the world: 167
male: 63.4 years
female: 65.64 years (2009 est.)

Total fertility rate:
3.6 children born/woman (2009 est.)
country comparison to the world: 55

HIV/AIDS – adult prevalence rate:
0.1% (2007 est.)
country comparison to the world: 128

HIV/AIDS – people living with HIV/AIDS:
96,000 (2007 est.)
country comparison to the world: 47

HIV/AIDS – deaths:
5,100 (2007 est.)
country comparison to the world: 43

Major infectious diseases:
degree of risk: high
food or waterborne diseases: bacterial diarrhea, hepatitis A and E, and typhoid fever
vectorborne diseases: dengue fever and malaria
animal contact disease: rabies
note: highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza has been identified in this country; it poses a negligible risk with extremely rare cases possible among US citizens who have close contact with birds (2009)

Nationality:
noun: Pakistani(s)
adjective: Pakistani

Ethnic groups:
Punjabi 44.68%, Pashtun (Pathan) 15.42%, Sindhi 14.1%, Sariaki 8.38%, Muhagirs 7.57%, Balochi 3.57%, other 6.28%

Religions:
Muslim 95% (Sunni 75%, Shia 20%), other (includes Christian and Hindu) 5%

Languages:
Punjabi 48%, Sindhi 12%, Siraiki (a Punjabi variant) 10%, Pashtu 8%, Urdu (official) 8%, Balochi 3%, Hindko 2%, Brahui 1%, English (official; lingua franca of Pakistani elite and most government ministries), Burushaski, and other 8%

Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 49.9%
male: 63%
female: 36% (2005 est.)

School life expectancy (primary to tertiary education):
total: 7 years
male: 7 years
female: 6 years (2006)

Education expenditures:
2.6% of GDP (2006)
country comparison to the world: 155

I missed a beat reading that Mr. Justice ® Rana Baghwan Das has been posted as the Chairman Public Service Commission. Justice ® Banghwan Das is a most honourable man. None of my family has ever been connected with judiciary nevertheless as a Karachitie I had learnt about three four persons namely Justice Rana Baghwan Das, Justice Mamoon Kazi, Justice Zahid Nasir Aslam etc working till late hours with public issues related cases and their approach on such files was always public spirited. Unfortunately since quite some time it appears it is now our determined national policy never to put the right man to the right place. After Justice Sardar Iqbal whom the most serious national daily a few years back termed as “so far unmatched for ombudsman”, Mr. Justice Riaz Hussain, Justice Shafiur Rehman and Mr. S.M. Muneer we could not find on the chair the right person as the Ombudsman. Though later much able persons came on these seats but lacking the real God gifted public spirit. This is the reason even the Government January this year had to face a voice in the National Assembly as to why the ombudsman system had become ineffective. When we will appoint holy cows then how can results be expected. Early this year the nation saw a battle on appointment of the Punjab Ombudsman. Shahbaz Sharif Government appointed a person whom the Federal representative the Punjab Governor refused to administer oath as he or the federal ruling party wanted to post their “own man”. How can a judge or a qazi can be “one’s own man”? He is only a judge or a Kazi. Such a battle then means that through posting of “own man” expecting “decisions” not “justice” according to own wishes of those whose man sits. In other word on the seat in such a case is not a “God fearing” judge/qazi/ombudsman but a “man” sitting obliged to his appointer. Justice ® Aslam Nasir Zahid was the most suitable person to be appointed as Ombudsman but he was never consider reason only being he was truly public spirited and not “anyone’s man”. Though Public Service Commission also deals with public and presence of Mr. Justice Rana Baghwan Das would definitely deliver nevertheless his presence as Ombudsman would had benefited truly to a huge segment of the aggrieved suffering population as the ombudsman offices deal with thousands time higher number of masses than the PSC. Today it is beyond any doubt in appointment “top transparency” and “true merits” are kept in consideration. I quote only one example. Against a complaint the Sindh Ombudsman signed and issued his “Decision” in June 2008. Under the good governance under the command of “good postings” the copies of the same have been distributed for the parties completely after one year in June 2009. This is what my I missed heart beat.

And that’s not all – Marc Dreier, who is the founder and managing partner of that law firm Dreier, has been arrested in Canada with criminal charges that allege that he was scamming approximately $100 million from hedge funds by falsely claiming that he represented a real estate developer “offering to sell notes…at a substantial discount.” The S.E.C. itself charges that “[s]ince at least October 2008, Dreier has been offering the bogus securities of unwitting legitimate issuers to hedge funds.” No wonder they withdrew from their cases the founder was too busy setting up $100mn dollar scam. Read more about and about Marc Drier’s arrest here http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crim/usdreier120408cmp.html

It was unfortunate for Axact to have hired a law firm that was corrupt and was on the verge of bankruptcy and filed chapter 11 within just a few months off backing off from the case. This kind of a firm can go to any length to make quick bucks.

As per New Jersey Code of Judicial Conduct this is grounds for disqualification of the judge, which the judge should have done herself. So I find it surprising that the plaintiff’s attorney did not raise the issue. I’ve highlighted the relevant sections of the Code below.

C. Disqualification. (see R. 1:12-1) (1) A judge should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer or has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; Writing to the judge to try and sort this out won’t work.

D. Remittal of Disqualification. A judge disqualified by the terms of this Canon may not avoid disqualification by disclosing on the record the disqualifying interest and securing the consent of the parties. [the remittal varies from state to state for example according to the Florida Supreme Court code there can be remittals of disqualification by the terms of Section 3E, where the judge may disclose on the record the basis of the disqualification and may ask the parties and their lawyers to consider, out of the presence of the judge, whether to waive disqualification. If following disclosure of any basis for disqualification other than personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, the parties and lawyers, without participation by the judge, all agree the judge should not be disqualified, and the judge is then willing to participate, the judge may participate in the proceeding. The agreement shall be incorporated in the record of the proceeding.]
So the NJ code of conduct is amongst the strictest, as it doesn’t even allow for a waiver of this disqualification.

However, the Judge Freda Wolfson has taken this case in utter disregard of the above-mentioned provisions. In such a scenario one can file a complaint against the judge in this regard through the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, it’s a simple procedure

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/acjc/how_to_file_complaint.htm and the form is at http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/acjc/11166_acjc_complaint_form.pdf

There are other avenues and remedies for this sort of ‘practice’ and I am a very competent Lawyer in this field. If you would like further information on the options open to you to rectify this, I can further guide you personally or on email but not on this forum

There are 3 instances of copyright violations reported by SNR. They ordered 3 papers on Feb 1st, 7th & 9th 2008 on websites they claimed to be owned by Axact. Now the copyright registration application was filed for all 3 papers only on Feb 5th 2008 just as the papers were being ordered. (See para 36, 38, 44 and 48 of counterclaim).

Why would a company only file a copyright for 5 papers? The 3 papers being contested were present on their website http://www.papernut.com. In all instances of copyright violations a representative of SNR ordered a term paper from some website and that website returned the term paper copied from the SNR website. It means that just before placing the order they registered the copyright solely for these papers, showing how confident the defendants were the copyright violation would occur.

This website, http://www.papernut.com, itself only carries a total of 5 papers and is a non-functional website with all linked pages and navigation icons leading to the same page. Whether you click “order” or “contact” or “FAQ” or any other link you will land on a page which contains links to the 5 sample papers, and was uploaded on an old domain name. Has anything ever been sold by this website? It seems that these registrations and perhaps even this website were just formed for the purpose of filing the counterclaim and were only done in February after the realization that they could not defend against the complaint filed by the Plaintiff.

Basically, they established a website having no other purpose than to just have those papers as samples. Then they placed orders on 2 websites which they were sure will plagiarize all their orders from their website http://www.papernut.com . It all happened the way they expected it to happen.

Doesn’t it show their own link with those 2 websites rather than Axact’s? Why and how they added around 550 websites when the total violation according to them occurred from 2 websites. And how can an order club together around 550 sites solely on the basis of IP? Has Student Network Resource registered any copyright for any paper ever before February 2008? Their copyrights were violated only after 2 months of Axact’s filing a defamation lawsuit against them. In fact this violation was not there even till their filing of the counterclaim. This occurred just before they filed the amended counterclaim and included all copyright violations in the amended counterclaim. Isn’t this all fishy????

Then if you want to generally get greater exposure of you’re Blog, you can optimize it by putting all points about your cases into the blog’s ‘title and meta-data’ so whenever some one searches on a search engine for those keywords you blog page will appear in the search results. How do you do this? Read up here http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-beginners-checklist-for-learning-seo , Step by step seo tips . Also How about submitting your blog to a directory website, all you need to do is paste your blogs’s url into their forms and write a brief description. A few useful forms are on this directory list http://www.web-directories.ws/Niche/Legal/ , http://www.onewaytextlink.com/links.php?type=free

Thankyou
Pakistan Legal Guy
pklawyers@gmail.com

If a precedent has been set important broader issues need to be looked into
(i) If legal procedure as per ICAAN and other globally recognized bodies for due process is to obtain its owner’s information and to properly inform them through a subpoena then is this transfer or such a judgement valid?
(ii) Can multiple separate companies or ‘non-party’ companies websites be clubbed together in such an order?
(iii) Can a revised order be passed without a motion?

Let’s remove ourselves from solely discussing Axact & SNR here and discuss the over-reaching topics and the broader issues in greater detail. For this I’m creating a new post on the topic http://pklawyers.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/intellectual-property-law-internet/

I’m a Lawyer from Pakistan, and my client, a complete ‘non-party’ in the above mentioned case owns quite a few of the sites listed in the orders. We heard about this revised order when our domain registrar received the order. I am researching about this case and came across this Blog and have decided to comment about it.

Apparently even BASCO has a few of these listed sites, my client’s company has some, in fact everyone in this industry knows who the major companies are and what their sites are. So weren’t any of us contacted.

The complete detail of my client and of the ownership of these domains by my client are with the domain registrars. If an action is to be taken against any website it is a legal procedure as per ICAAN and other globally recognized bodies for due process to obtain its owner’s information through a subpoena to the domain registrars and if the domain owner information is fake then the domains are automatically cancelled as per the ICANN rules. In my client’s case the information is 100% accurate.

However the defendant’s attorney Peter L. Skolnik has misguided the court by stating that the domains are owned by Axact as the IP’s on which they are hosted are owned by Axact. This logic to prove ownership has no standing in any international law as IP addresses are almost always owned by service providers and not the owners of the website.

The fact that no complaint or attempt has been made by the defendants or the defendant’s attorney Peter L. Skolnik to reach the owner of the websites clearly shows that in an attempt to file the counterclaim against Axact they wanted their competitors sites (not owned by Axact) to be closed down. No copyright violation has ever been done by my client through any of his websites.

So one day a site will be transferred to SNR, the next day Axact will make a move and some will be transferred to Axact. What is this? What kind of order has the judge allowed, without any due process. After extensive research I’ve come to find even if there is a Copyright issue on 2 websites they never result in a transfer of all that companies’ websites, let alone other companies websites. This case sets a dangerous precedent.

Between the Defendant and Judge, I have reservations about what’s happening here. I’ve written a letter to the honorable judge Freda L. Wolfson to clarify the matter in full detail.

Ultimately an order like this revised order will lead to people not buying domains in America. For example China has default judgments, many other countries have default judgments, if every country’s interest can’t be safeguarded then countries will start creating it own personal internets to safe-guard their businesses.