Altilab2005 - Distance Education Blog

Social activists lawfully raised uproar when academic industry became a lucrative venue for entrepreneurs to make money on, and ever since, every new idea is met with fierce disapproval and attacked by opportunists. Online academic institutions also went through the same hard work to earn gratitude and recognition in scholastic and expert circles.

Diplomas based on prior learning were the scapegoat following Online Diplomas. If GED wasn’t started and fully supported by the US government, there is not a hint of uncertainty about the truth that “certain” people and organizations would have, individually and cooperatively, channelized all their resources to power life experience diplomas offering bodies out of academic horizon. However, in spite of government endorsement and huge acceptance, many life experience degree providers encounter harassment, attempts at defamation and lawsuits on usual basis.

Let me share a fascinating case I lately came across that makes me heave a sigh with repulsion. Belford High school, which happens to be a reputed Experience Degree Offering body, has been offering various diplomas to people who qualify on the basis of life time experience and other strict assessment standards. The Googasian Firm, P.C, a currently established legal body or unit, lodged a class action lawsuit versus Belford High school, proclaiming that the high school has been involved in scam, awarding unaccredited diplomas, and other such mediocre accusations. With similar strategy, Googasian lately won notable settlement amount and thus, the “righteousness” was further enforced. What is interesting, however, is that this time there are some significant glitches in the master plan which I, personally, find hard to explain.

A body or unit that doesn’t fall under the US jurisdiction cannot be liable to cases against a foreign body or unit. I am certain the legal firm is fully conscious of this fundamental truth, so what could inspire them to stride ahead at any rate? This can very effortlessly backfire and the legal firm could be forced to clarify this deliberate deception. However, the lawsuit has been lodged. Could it be rivals endeavoring underhand methods and doing negative publicity against Belford?

If you browse through the Terms & Conditions clearly stated on Belford’s official website, it is crystal clear that they are well protected against the complaint the plaintiff has lodged. Still, the lawsuit exists. Proceedings and judgment are not openly discussed however though assumption and gossip continues. I suppose the culprit should certainly face the storm and be taught a lesson.

Disclaimer:

“All trademarks mentioned herein belong to their respective owners”