I had earlier clashed with WB on the question of the ***** ruling. I found two versions and two rulings. One was a Pakistani case and the other the American one. When I dug deeper into Westlaw's case study archives I found that it was the US ruling which dominated and was, eventually, implemented. Apparently, ***** had gone after Student Network Resources, accusing them of defamation. SNR countersued and provided evidence which established that *****'s complaints were groundless and, importantly, that it had been purchasing papers off the SNR database and then republishing them on its own for monetary gain, in direct violation of the terms and conditions of sale. The ***** lawyer then came across info which led him to withdraw from the case, stating that had he been aware of the nature of *****'s operations from the outset, or in possession of all facts relevant to the case, he would never have attached his name to the lawsuit. Not only did the court find in SNR's favour but awarded all of *****'s websites to SNR (as well as monetary compensation in excess of 600k). The ruling was enforced and the ownership of *****'s 555 sites was transferred to SNR and all major search engines (including Google) were notified - all complied.

As I said, yes, I am judging Qualified ESL writers sentimentally and cannot perceive of them as criminals.

Where any qualified writer who has been offered alternative, legitimate opportunities is concerned, I am totally unsympathetic. They enable the perpetuation of fraud. Fraud here is not a matter of opinion but of law. As per the law, they are, quite rightly, regarded as accomplices (supposing their possession of relevant knowledge).

As there is a definite relationship between a writer/researcher's marital status and the quality of his/her work, bravia must be very very good!

Cease their operations where? If US or British courts close down EW and declare the company's activities illegal, working for them will only be illegal for Brits and Americans. There are countless other countries and nationalities. Even if they are striked off the Internet, you think Yuri will not re-invent himself and his company?

To repeat and clarify: my personal, subjective opinion is one thing and the law is another. I personally sympathise with, and excuse, Qualified ESL writers who work with AR, EW, etc because they were not afforded equal employment opportunities. I cannot excuse native writers doing the same and would not hesitate to judge them as complicit. The law would label both complicit, however. I am not, therefore, commenting on the law but on my opinion.

I do not believe that this debate would even be valid were discriminatory employment practices to cease. Furthermore, were ABSOLUTELY qualified ESL writers offered employment opportunities with legits, I assume that they would gradually take their leave of the scammers. End result = AR, EW and co. would be left with the unqualified writers they deserve = increased customer dissatisfaction = (optimistically) their going up in flames. I believe that it is the fact that they have a handful of qualified writers which keeps them going.

That list up there ... someone PLEASE explain the rationale behind naming an academic research and writing site, mamboessays! Honestly, why????!!!!!

I have clarified my position several times:
1) Incompetent academic writers are fraudsters who engage in the selling of a professional skill which they do not possess;
2) Companies which lie about their nationality and location are fraudsters;
3) Companies which lie about their writers' qualifications are fraudsters;
4) Companies which deliberately feed potential customers false information to persuade them to purchase their services are fraudsters.
I am not using the word fraudsters lightly here. Companies and writers which engage in any of the above are in violation of the following UK laws:

1) Consumer Protection Act
2) Trade Descriptions Act
3) Sales of Goods and Supply of Services Act
____________________________
As pertains to competent and qualified writers, I will, yet again, clarify my position:
I personally sympathise with this group of ESL writers. As I learnt from posts throughout this forum, they are denied the opportunity to work with legits in spite of their qualifications. Hence, as I am assuming that they were left with no other choice, I sympathise with the qualified ESL writers who work with companies whose operations can only be described as `shady.' I would not call them criminals. This is my personal position, based on my subjective opinion and it is one which I stand by and will not waver from. The law, however, takes a different position on this same issue. As corporate fraud costs Britain an estimated £72 billion per annum, the law does not sympathise with any employee who 1) continues to work with the company after uncovering knowledge of fraud; 2) does not report the fraud to the relevant authorities. They are regarded as accomplices despite the fact that the law clearly recognises that, as employees or service contractors, they are not the directing mind of the company, nor is their identity inextricably linked to the firm in question. After knowledge of fraud, continuation with the company is construed as a type of informed consent to participation in fraud. Employees and service contractors are regarded as culpable under the following laws and acts:

1) Civil law of obligations
2) Companies Act:
a) general fraud offence
d) general deception offence
c) general dishonesty offence
There are other relevant laws but this should be sufficient.

To clarify yet again - according to my personal, subjective opinion, competent/qualified ESL writers are not criminals or, in general terms, unethical because they could not find alternative employment in the industry. The law takes a different position and regards them as culpable if they remained with the company and continued as was after knowledge.

________________________


That is a different issue altogether. If an employee/service contractor participates in the company's promotion of false information about him/her, that is indefensible. Let's say I work with Company X and have nothing but an O-Level certificate. If Company X promotes me as a PhD writer or retired Oxford University professor and I `play along,' and confirm these falsehoods when asked by customers, I am personally engaging in fraudulent activities and am, as an individual, violating the law.


Considering that you and other qualified ESL writers were denied equal employment opportunities with legits, I do not consider you a criminal - that is my personal and subjective opinion ... it is unwavering.

I cannot judge the activities of others and, therefore, will only respond in relation to my own experiences and activities.

Even though I worked with a number of the legits who only hire Brits and Americans, I stupidly hung around with one of the more infamous of the companies in this industry for two years. I, undoubtedly, contributed to the continuation and proliferation of their fraudulent activities. How?

1) By agreeing to snail mail a couple of docs from the UK to customers. The purpose, as I later discovered, was for them to affirm that they did, indeed, have a physical presence in the UK (I probably knew it at the time but chose to ignore it)

2) By completing over 700 orders for them. These orders, written to the highest possible standards, helped promote the myth that the company was `legitimate' and only hired experienced, native writers. My satisfied customers brought more and more customers to that website.

3) By repeatedly stepping in at the last minute to pick up the slack from writers who plagiarised entire projects or were incapable of stringing words together in a coherent sentence.

The list goes on and on and points to a single undeniable fact. I was complicit. Furthermore, by continuing with the company several months after I discovered who they really were and just how absolutely unqualified the majority of their writers were, I became an accomplice. I had a choice (of not working with them, especially since I was a writer with 2 of the legits) and I was aware of their fraudulent activities - that makes me an accomplice who contribted to the continuation and proliferation of the company's fraudulent activities.

As for the qualified ESL writers who are denied employment with the legits, I cannot judge them. Yes, I realise that the law is the law and that (assuming that they know that the company they work with unapologetically engages in obfuscation and continually lies to customers to ensure that they take out its services) knowledge makes them accomplices to business fraud. Personally speaking, I would not want to blame or condemn them as I rather believe that they were pushed into a corner and given little choice.

PRECISELY!!!!!!!!!!!!

The widespread presence of UNQUALIFIED ESL writers in this industry have harmed none more than the QUALIFIED ESL writers. Why?
1) rather than try to separate the wheat from the chaff, many legits have simply implemented a `close-door' policy - they do not hire ESL writers, full stop.

2) Customers, following a single negative experience with an ESL writer, subsequently refuse to deal with any but a native writer.
The non-qualified writers are not harming native writers (contrary to popular assumption, we remain in demand) but are harming qualified ESL writers and the reputation of the industry as a whole. Hence, I believe that (IRRESPECTIVE OF NATIONALITY) all qualified writers have a vested interest in opposing the presence of the unqualified ones ... their presence does not constitute a reality which we have to accept.

Yes ... and the union he created only endorses his websites :) But, the creation of a REAL union would be nice

Competent ones are not just here to stay but this industry is where they should be. As I said, qualifications, irrespective of nationality ... The REALITY of incompetents in the industry is one which I won't accept.


See ... you automatically identified the QUALIFIED ones. How many (from this forum) did you leave off this list? Do you believe ESL vs Native would even be an issue were all as competent as the ones you listed?


Brits and Americans? Do you have any idea just how far the education system has fallen? And do not get me started on Aussies and their absolute disrespect for the most basic language rules. Finding good ones is difficult but easier than finding Qualified ESL writers. EW, as I said:



EW - you know that this was not what I said at all. I clearly stated my position in favour of ESL writers numerous times (including the post you are referring to). Furthermore, I never lumped all ESL writers together as you imply I did. I clearly differentiated between the qualified and non-qualified ones.

To clarify (just in case I was not clear enough) this has nothing to do with nationality. My refusal to accept the presence of unqualified ESL writers in this industry will not change; my support of qualified ESL writers will not change; I openly admit that we hire ESL writers - QUALIFIED ONES. Furthermore, I am completely and unwaveringly opposed to the presence of any unqualified writers in this industry, irrespective of nationality.

The reality which I refuse to accept, by the way, is also an illegal and unethical "reality." Any who hire unqualified writers while OPENLY DECLARING THAT THEIR WRITERS ARE QUALIFIED (masters and PhDs) are in violation of UK law; any who claim only to hire Brits and Americans, but hire writers from all over the place, are in violation of UK law (even if the writers are qualified) ... reason? Small thing called Consumer Protection Act.

A quick post as running around in circles :(

ESL Writers - I am all for hiring them as long as they are academically and linguistically qualified. Talking about qualifications, do any know how many fit the bill? Most all are under the mistaken assumption that they are perfectly qualified but very few actually are. A few days ago I conducted four telephone interviews with some who sent in wonderfully impressive resumes:

1) One had evidently taken a "verb and preposition massacre" vow;
2) Another injected "hey man" and "cheers mate" into every other sentence (even when it made no sense)
3) A third claimed that he had graduated 4 months ago but when I asked him to send in a scanned copy of his certificate, I was told that the university only distributed them 8 months after graduation ... so, I had to hire him now and wait another 4 months to see proof of his academic qualifications (as if ...)

4) A fourth spoke very very proper English and there were no glaring language mistakes but he was obviously ESL.

I am open to ESL writers and have a handful of EXCELLENT AND ABSOLUTELY PERFECT ones with us but they are the exception, not the rule. Finding good ESL writers is not easy at all.

So, being for ESL writers does not imply a willingness to accept any. The problem is that the majority hire just about any and do not seem at all bothered by their obvious lack of qualifications. That does not mean that all should follow suit or that we need to accept `the reality of the infiltration of ESL writers' into the industry. I do not accept it and will never accept the presence of any researcher/writer who lacks the relevant academic and linguistic qualifications in this industry. This has nothing to do with nationality at all - it has to do with a person's having, or not having, the requisite skills.

A highly qualified writer is ASSIGNED an order which falls right into his area of expertise :) Am going to post a few re plagiarism and `quality,' within a couple of days (have to reduce file sizes, etc)

• 
  qualified.jpg
  

An `educated' exchange between a NATIVE English-speaking writer and an Admin operator:

• 
  native_exchange_Page.jpg
  
• 
  native_exchange_Page.jpg
  

A wonderfully creative reason to fine writers:

• 
  fine.jpg
  

You should not regret it. It was a good decision. You are a capable writer and you know that they are not forthright.


By no means are they remotely `right.' :)

You are a wonderfully civilised person and I, for one, truly appreciate your posts :) I do, however, disagree with you on a fundamental issue:


We provide models. Some of us very very clearly (in large print) advise students NOT TO SUBMIT the work as their own. In so doing, they would not only be misusing our services and violating their institution's academic integrity policy but, they would be CHEATING THEMSELVES. Research work provided is supposed to be used as a model. Students can use the same sources we have, the same argument and structure. They, however, have to rewrite it in theor own words and, importantly, add their voice to it ... include class lecture material, etc. We do not sell homework - we provide academic research assistancy services.

I am not naive - I know, and have no doubt, that many customers ignore our policy ... They are the ones violating the law, not us. We sell a legitimate service, to be used for a legitimate purpose. Our services are legal. How students ultimately use the material we provide is something we cannot control :)

As I said earlier, the law is clear - you are right. This was just my opinion. The law, however, imposes a certain obligation upon employees/service contractors/freelancer - if the company is fraudulent and you have knowledge of that but continue to work with them anyways, you become an accomplice.

still getting an error - reduced it to around 300 kb but still get file type not allowed.

trying - what file types are allowed? tried jpeg and bmp ... got an error

Unqualified academic writers (in general - regardless of the company), are dishonest. They do not have the requisite academic qualifications, yet lead customers to assume that they do; they cannot write a proper sentence in English (even if their lives depended on it) but sell their `skills' as English-language writers. What is honest about that? Would any go to a `doctor' who knows nothing about medicine? Same thing - selling skills they do not possess while leading customers to believe that they do.

Qualified ESL writers - not criminals. They are trying to make the best of a bad situation - not offered any real opportunities with the legits and, therefore, go through any open doors.

Native, qualified writers who work with A-R, etc. Plain stupid and ACCOMPLICES. I was one of them and am speaking about myself. Even though I was an active freelancer with a couple of legits, I still worked with A-R for 2 years (completing over 700 orders). Do I have an excuse? No, I don't. Was I an accomplice? Certainly was. Did I help promote their fraud? Yes I did.

Where does one even begin?? A dozen years, qualified writers, native writers ... MY FOOT. By the way - it really is not fair! These people operate in some no man's land and are able to lie through the teeth and get away with it. Some of us actually do not have that option! We would be reported to the Office of Fair Trading (if they don't catch us themselves) and forced to pay the piper. The way I see it: 1) the UK should not allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to register a UK company online if the company cannot be held accountable under UK law (most are not because they have ZERO connection to the country) or, 2) they should allow the rest of us to go about publishing false claims and not hold us accountable.

If only customers could see the order message boards ... the exchanges between writers and admin!

So ... the office is in the box. They hold fire drills in the box. Their writers are in that box. WB, all you did was prove that there is 11654 Plaza America Dr. #365. Can you prove that Best Essays is not located in that box???? I thought so ... you can't! There goes your so-called `verifiable evidence.'

Pleeeaaaase ... someone respond to the URL post up there. Cannot explain basics ... refuse to explain basics!

He is a researcher - he writes English language academic researches!

Okay ... okay ... I am sorry I ever engaged in this debate ... truly, truly sorry. I had no idea that we would argue internationally recognised state borders and, while at it, redraw the world map. I'

They are different companies. They really are different!
EW = Yuri
A-R = Alexei

They started out as partners years back ... had a falling out and went their VERY separate ways. They are different companies.

Serious? Are you really serious?


Oh My God!!! x several trillion!

Yes ... and he admitted it here, publicly. He did not need to. So, what does that tell you about the guy?

How about this:

Geography lesson ... the United States is pretty big. There is a 6 hr difference from one end to the other; 3 pm in Hawaii would be 9 pm in New York. So, let's just suppose WB does not live in Virginia but knows someone there. What would make more sense? 1) to travel across different time zones to film the video or 2) have an "associate" living there do it for her? Again ... how about CNN - was their video fake as well?

They are required to display their registered address, at the very least. They have removed it :) What does that tell any sensible person?

Question ... where did CNN get the Virginia address from? Who was the guy they interviewed (the resident)? Okaaaay!!!!! I get it! They obtained the address from WB and the guy they interviewed at that address was actually WB! Is this where we are heading next?

Make up your mind. Russian or American? Earlier you said she was American and, thus, a fraudster. Now she is Russian and, therefore, a fraudster? Please, please, go through your posts. Explain your logic, please. You have completely lost me :(

So ... earlier, you were defending yourself? Right? How long have the mods suspended you for this time?

Why is this such a personal issue with you? Look at the CNN report PLEASE. Or are they in league with WB????????


The US owns her? She is the propety of the US government? The woman is obviously AMERICAN. Others have claimed that she is RUSSIAN - she has repeatedly disputed that. So ... what are you actually trying to get at here?


Hello Chacha :)

By the way - A-R's "British" sites ... American English and poor quality at that :)

The video shows the address and it corresponds with that on the website at the time; it shows the name plaques, everything.

Now, take a look at this (masterpapers): youtube.com/watch?v=8JTH7cgTMGE

How about the Sheffield address Masterpapers uses for customessays.co.uk and fastessays.co.uk: 124 BLAIR ATHOL ROAD SHEFFIELD. Do you really want to claim that this address is valid?

Forget the videos for a sec. You want us to believe that CNN is lying, WB is lying, etc etc (all part of a grand global conspiracy against masterpapers and bestessays - different companies, I know) and that Masterpapers is located at 41 State Street, Suite 106, Albany, NY 12207, USA and bestessays at the Virginia address?

he could have meant `running behind' on his schedule - not the client's. Most of us have a schedule, you see, and we generally finish long before the client's deadline :) So, your assumption is probably erroneous.

Researcher - which company do you write for/own? I am just curious - not a loaded question ...


Pheelyks was stating his opinion ... OPINION. So, technically, neither is `wrong.' Had he said I KNOW FOR A FACT XXX, that would be a different story. Why are you picking on little things like this? I want to understand ...

HEEE-HEEE
Seriously - what does this say about EW??

Was you a writer like the rest of we?