Fake "reviews" site from: CustomEssayWritingServices.com

but it's so much fun. ^_^


F?*k you. I asked editor if he'd like to be taken off the list and it seems that he does (he said that he is unsure.. blah blah). Thus, allow me to make the correction.

Members who don't believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

EW_Writer
FW
Pheelyks
WRT
stu4
smirk
Lavinia
etc. etc. etc...

Members who believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act (or are unsure about the matter):

WritersBeware
editor75

There we go. LOL!!!! Anyone else? ^______________________^


Hahahahaha!!!!! Priceless!!!!


Oh, but I've done much more than that. I actually answered for them. If they think that the answer I gave for them was in any way preposterous, you can bet that fat, wrinkly a** of yours that they'd be posting for me to remove them from the list as soon as they read my post. Oh but if my answer was reasonable, then they risk damaging their reputation if they ask me to remove their names from the list since it would mean siding with your retarded position (or at least being ignorant enough not to have a say on an obvious matter. Sorry, editor75 :p). So, they won't. ^_^

I never said this. I said, "don't put me on any lists." I could care less about your petty bickering over legal semantics... I don't see a lot of support from those other people you arbitrarily divided into your own camp, either.

everything finds its level. the level here is very low.

If I made a list of people who I think believe that they shouldn't mix rat poop in their morning coffee, would you opt out of that list just because you're unsure if you want to be on any list in this forum? Frankly, your dramatics are tiring. My list is quite objective, referring in particular to the position that a court doesn't need to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act. If you don't have an opinion on it then you don't deserve to be on the list of people who I believe find the notion of needing to prove actual sales retarded.

Actually, this site attracts so many visitors largely because of the vast number of threads that I have posted and in-depth investigations that I have shared. Try doing a search in Google.


Ha! Way to alter your claims after I posted evidence. That's NOT what you claimed, ya rotten scab. You specifically stated that I had no proof that xact conducted sales. You have also claimed that the Judge in no way based her ruling on xact's sales. You further claimed that the Judge in no way ruled against xact on the Lanham Act complaint because it had engaged in sales. I posted SPECIFIC QUOTES FROM THE JUDG"S HAND that prove otherwise, Margaret.

LOL!!! So you want to be in the list as well? ^__________^ Well, I guess it's not too late for you to issue a retraction and an apology. ROFLMAO!!!


Lie.


Want to try again? :p You're just a sucker for punishment. I love it! ^_^

I lied? Really?


You're done.

Yes you did. Let's post the entire post, shall we?

I said: Then your comeback (LOL!) was: and what was your well-thought, highly significant (barf) reply to this?

Wanna try one more time? ^__________^

I'm not denying this. however, your attitude ensures that most of them don't stay. this board could be a real community, and you could be its guru. instead, it's something awful. virtually every thread winds up in a childish flame war.

EW_loser, no matter how many times you try to spin the FACTS, you will always fail to defeat my evidence. You have admittedly NOT read the legal documents, yet you purport to know how/why Judge Freda L. Wolfson ruled in the manner (and to the extent) that she did in relation to the Lanham Act. Any moderately intelligent person who reads those docs will recognize that I am 100% correct about how/why Judge Freda L. Wolfson interpreted and adjudicated the Lanham Act in relation to the particulars of the PRECEDENT-SETTING, GROUND-BREAKING case.


Really? I'd love to see your evidence, Captain Assumption. For every nutcase like you, I receive multiple "thank you" notes, both via public forum postings and private messages. As usual, you don't have a clue.


Yet, you never seem to leave . . . . It's only "awful" to losers like you who get outed as complete idiots, liars, and/or fraudsters. You despise the fact that members like me protect potential customers from members like you.

No, they won't.

Members who don't believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

EW_Writer
FW
Pheelyks
WRT
stu4
smirk
Lavinia
etc. etc. etc...

Members who believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act (or are unsure about the matter):

WritersBeware
editor75

And I continue to DARE the people I included in the list to side with WB's retarded opinion or to even claim that they're not sure. ^__^

this is deluded. you have no idea who I am.

EW-- what's with you and lists? I've already stated that I could care less about this issue. I wasn't even saying "not sure" about your legal argument.

people here don't seem to do anything but fight over nothing.

EW_fatty sure does love to speak for other people.

I have not asked any of those members to read the docs because I know for a fact that they don't care about your personal vendetta against me. I'm sure that if I were to PM them and ask them to do so, they would. However, I will not put them in that predicament because I know that they have better things to do with their time than to humor you. I have nothing to prove, as I have already posted direct quotes from the Judge that support my position, and you have failed miserably to counter will contradictory quotes from the Judge. The members that you reference already know what you're all about-nonsense, propaganda, irrelevance, and time-wasting. They also know what I've been all about since April of 2007-facts and evidence, which my thread-poting history proves. That you actually believe they will support you in any fashion is quit humorous.


Irrelevant, as usual. Nice try, though. As I have repeatedly stated, Judge Freda L. Wolfson very specifically interpreted and adjudicated the Lanham Act complaint in favor of SNR due to xact's SALES in connection with its fake reviews site in her landmark decision. If not for xact's SALES, nearly $700,000 and 555 domains would not have been awarded to SNR.

Yeah, right. ^______^


No, she didn't. She found xact guilty of false advertisement under the Lanham Act. NO PROOF of xact making an actual sale because of the false advertisement was necessary. This is crystal clear from the text below which you so generously provided:

xact's misrepresentations and misleading warranties regarding the quality and originality of its products and services will unquestionably victimize the average consumer, and constitute an unconscionable commercial practice of deception, fraud, and unlawful conduct in connection with the sale of goods and the performance of services sought by consumers.

You can sing your song all you want and continue to (how did you say it?), "no longer entertain me." Hahaha!!!! Oddly enough, I find you continously entertaining. :p

Oh, and we both know that if I wrote a list of people who are poor writers and included pheelyks and FW in it, they'd respond within a heartbeat of seeing the post. I won't, and they're not. They won't respond to my list here because they both know that they're in the right list. That is, the list of people who are NOT RETARDED enough to believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act (or are unsure about the matter).

No, you're irrelevant. The computation of damages is different from the determination of guilt. Nice try, though. ^____^ It might even be the case the xact's sales records were subpoenaed to ascertain the damage of $700,000. However, the sales records still have NOTHING to do with the judge's guilty verdict.

MORON ALERT!

The moron clearly has a reading problem:

Go f yourself.

Don't be so frustrated by the FACTS of the ruling/opinion. It's pathetic.

Wow... ANOTHER brilliant comeback. ^__^ Does it in any way substantively rebut any of the points presented against WritersBeware's retarded idea that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act?

...

ROFLMAO!

Members who don't believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

EW_Writer
FW
Pheelyks
WRT
stu4
smirk
Lavinia
etc. etc. etc... (except WritersBeware and editor75)

^____^

I know you're praying for the mod to see your repetitive posts (and my repetitive responses) and delete the posts so that you'd have a chance at getting your dignity back, but I doubt that they'd delete the entire thread. Good luck, though. :p

I am unsure about the matter, but that's not the reason I object. I make it a point not to speak for others, and I also don't try to drag others into my bickering. Please remove my name.


If you qualified your list with "people that I think believe....," I would have no objection. The fact is, you don't know what I believe anymore than you know what I like in my coffee. You present your lists as though you have had confirmation from these people that you are right and WB is wrong, when I am guessing that absolutely no one has contacted you in this regard. This is the first time I even noticed your list, and it's been up for over twenty-four hours. Did you ever think of PMing me to at least verify your belief-stated-as-fact?

I haven't read the act in question and I'm too tired to try right now, so I don't know whose interpretation I agree with. I don't want to be on a list of people who agree with you or people who agree with WB, because I have stated no such agreement with either of you. The fact that you have felt it necessary to state that I do agree with you when I have said no such thing really weakens your argument.

I think that based on how I explained my list, how I never claimed that I contacted any of you (and instead asked those who I included in the list to speak out if they had any objections), AND based on the obvious that I'm no psychic, I think it's pretty clear that I meant my statement exactly as you qualified it. I never stated it in such a way as to make it seem that I asked your opinion. However, I apologize if it seemed that way to you. That said:

Members who I think don't believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

EW_Writer
FW
WRT
stu4
smirk
Lavinia
etc. etc. etc...

Members who have expressed being unsure.

Pheelyks
editor75

Members who actually believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

WritersBeware

^___________^


I didn't. I was just expressing how obvious the argument is. But hey, since you brought this up...




So.. at least I have the decency to challenge you to respond to my post about what I think you believe.

i shouldn't be on that list. my field is software development, i'm totally incompetent to comment on the legal cases

Thank you.

Members who I think don't believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

EW_Writer
FW
WRT
stu4
Lavinia
etc. etc. etc...

Members who have expressed being unsure.

Pheelyks
editor75
smirk

Members who actually believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

WritersBeware

^___________^

I told you to stop it.

"I'm not sure I want to be on any lists."

is quite different from

"I'm not sure about EW's interpretation of some obscure legislation I'm not familiar with."

wash out your eyes!

Members who I think don't believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

EW_Writer
FW
WRT
stu4
Lavinia
etc. etc. etc...

Members who have expressed being unsure.

Pheelyks
smirk

Members who actually believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

WritersBeware

^___________^

Members who are not sure they want to be on any lists. O.O

editor75

Happy now?

The fat lady does't want to get any more on pheelyks' bad side . . . . She might cut her feet on those eggshells.

My track record of posting truthful, verifiable evidence speaks for itself. I did not want to bother any of the members in EW_fraudster's childish "list" by ASKING them to take the time to review the lengthy court documents. Pheelyks has confirmed that I made the right choice. Besides, I'm not the one with anything to prove. EW_writer (Margaret) asserts that I am wrong, yet the moron admittedly has NOT read either the Ruling or the Opinion. Only a desperate, irresponsible moron who is AFRAID of the evidence does that.

Why is EW_loser here again?

The first two aren't the same thing at all. The first is a statement of objective fact (I don't know the context, so I can't speak to the truth of the observation, but it is presumably an observation of a forum conversation and thus can e objectively ascertained by anyone that's interested). The second makes an assumption, true, but also makes it clear that this assumption has not been confirmed (and no, this was not at all clear in the way you presented your original list--you made a statement of objective fact that could not be ascertained by others through simple observation, precisely because there had been no instance of expression).

As for the third statement, I agree--I would appreciate it if no one puts any words in my mouth (or thoughts in my head). You're the one who's using your list as some sort of evidence in your argument, though, so that's the instance that really irked me.

Well, I'm sorry if it did. Yet once again, I made the list not to make it seem like everybody agreed with me. I made it to express how obvious I thought the matter was. It is obvious. Anyone who reads the details of the Lanham Act would conclude that it is preposterous for a court to need to prove the occurrence of sales before it can establish guilt for for advertising. Damages maybe but conviction, no.

Oh, and I also disagree with what you said regarding WB's statements. If the first was a statement of fact, then she should have provided a link. Without one, it hangs only by her say so. If she didn't put your name there, it would not carry any weight at all. As for the second statement, it was clearly a statement of she can make you do what she wants if she wanted to. If you want to ignore both of these and focus on my statement of challenge for people to respond to what I think is an obvious matter though, go ahead. Makes no difference to me.

Following are the only things that are "obvious":

1. you like to speak for people;
2. you desperately try to gain allies whenever you can;
3. you talk out of your arse, without having ANY knowledge of the case;
4. you spout bulls-i* claims without having read any of the pertinent court documents;
5. you conveniently ignore and/or spin direct quotes from the JUDGE;
6. you openly support and defend fraudulent activities;
7. you are a years-long impostor;
8. you have a sad, pathetic, personal vendetta against me, which (as you have openly admitted in the past) is the only reason why you post in this forum.


BS. It happened very recently, and I think that both you and pheelyks know to what argument I am referring.


BS. I like how you are trying to create conflict between pheelyks and me. It won't work.

Blah blah blah... more character assassination crap from this forum's most pathetic member.

Eat this, b**-h:

Members who I think don't believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

EW_Writer
FW
WRT
stu4
Lavinia
etc. etc. etc...

Members who have expressed being unsure.

Pheelyks
smirk

Members who actually believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

WritersBeware

^___________^

Members who are not sure they want to be on any lists. O.O

editor75

And as I have mentioned mentioned several times before, I challenge anyone who I included in the list of people who understand what the Lanham Act is to speak out if they are unsure or if they actually agree with WB's retarded idea. ^_^


Awwww... Pheelyks and WB sitting on a tree...




What was that about putting words in people's mouths? ^_____________^

You have no character to assassinate.

Sheesh.. where do you get these empty comebacks?

Here are the facts of this thread:

1.) You're saying that CustomEssayWritingServices.com is violating the Lanham Act because of their false advertisement in the form of fake reviews.

2.) But not so long ago, you claimed that one cannot violate the Lanham Act if one is not actually able to sell anything despite trying to do so. (silly.. silly... silly...)

3.) So if we follow that earlier, retarded thinking of yours which you so fervently defended, simply ranking themselves at the top of their own list does not make the sites violators of the Lanham Act.

Of course, CustomEssayWritingServices.com is in violation of the Lanham Act. They have violated the Lanham Act because the Lanham Act is violated by the act of false advertisement with the clear possibility of endangering the sales of a competitor, regardless of whether or not the advertisement is actually able to entice anyone to buy anything. Actual sale of a product is therefore IRRELEVANT in proving guilt although it may be used along with other variables to determine the extent of damage.

Wrong. Stop intentionally spinning my position in order to make it appear that you haven't lost. I have specifically stated that what CustomEssayWritingServices.com is doing is the EXACT SAME thing that Aact did through papershelp.com, which US District Court Judge Freda L. Wolfson ruled is a direct extension of Aact's commercial sites:


Try educating yourself instead of spinning.

Oh but do you have proof that CustomEssayWritingServices.com gained financially from their activities? No, you don't.


Engaging in commercial practice means selling. If a company engages in trying to sell something but is not actually able to do so, it is still engaging in commerce. The statement "in connection with the sale of goods" also does not mean that actual sale needs to be proven. Just that the act is connected with the business concerned. That is, it is providing a potentially unjust advantage for one party.

As I have explained several times before. If a company false advertises its products or falsely advertises against the products of another, it is violating the Lanham Act. Whether or not the company actually gains financially from their activities is irrelevant to proving guilt.

Listen, you can continue your little semantic games all you want. The judge's quote is in black and white for all to see.

and its meaning is crystal clear for everyone who bothers to read.

This meaning is:

Engaging in commercial practice means selling. If a company engages in trying to sell something but is not actually able to do so, it is still engaging in commerce. The statement "in connection with the sale of goods" also does not mean that actual sale needs to be proven. Just that the act is connected with the business concerned. That is, it is providing a potentially unjust advantage for one party.

As I have explained several times before. If a company false advertises its products or falsely advertises against the products of another, it is violating the Lanham Act. Whether or not the company actually gains financially from their activities is irrelevant to proving guilt.

Oh.. say, you never answered this question or contested the answer I gave for you (and I doubt you ever will) ^____^


Haha!

You are an absolute moron. There's no other way to accurately describe you. I have already posted EVIDENCE that Aact conducted sales, in the form of a COUNTERCLAIM in the lawsuit! Hell, there are also dozens of complaints about Aact's former sites ripping off customers in this forum alone! I have also shown clear proof that CustomEssayWritingServices.com is exactly the same as Aact's papershelp.com, which the judge ruled is an extension of Aact's commercial sites that CONDUCT SALES. Now, if your pathetic defense is that neither thesiswritingservice.com nor resumewritingservice.biz has ever conducted a sale, good luck with that. The evidence of sales is available from swreg (the company that is holding your funds boo hoo).

You do realize that you are a laughing stock, right? You get slapped in the face and keep coming back for more. You should have just minded your own, dirty business. Stay spinny, my friends.

The simple facts:

While proof of actual confusion is not needed to obtain an injunction, some courts have said that proof of some actual confusion is required for an accounting of profits. The thinking is that while a "likelihood of confusion" can support injunctive relief, there can be neither actual damage to plaintiff nor unjust enrichment to defendant unless some purchasers have been confused in fact. The rationale appears to be that at least in cases of competing goods, proof of some instances of actual confusion strengthens the inference that sales made by the infringer would have been made by the plaintiff.

proof of actual confusion is not needed to obtain an injunction,

a "likelihood of confusion" can support injunctive relief,

ficpi.org/library/montecarlo99/damages.html

Can it be any clearer that this? Oh I forgot,clarity is in very short supply in that slimy glob of putridity that you dare call your brain. ^_________^

Don't you get the hint, fatass? At least three other members have told you to knock it off. The mod deletes your continuous, personal propaganda-based posts because they're bad for the forum, and you just keep going. Am I the slightest bit surprised at your disgusting selfishness? Nope.

Haha.. it's more like you begged the mods to delete the posts. You were probably already fuming and begging since page 3 and they just had to give in to your whining by page 5. Unfortunately for you, my post above is not a repeated post. Feel free to answer it with one though, that's really all you're good for.