There is a proposal to strike off (delisted) Universal Research Inc. Limited with Company Number: 06455332 as registered in the UK Companies House.

It was not just a blog, yuriy and the truth written there is not for sale. It is for those you duped.

"Watch Listing of Yuriy and others and the Revocation of the Registration of Uniwork, Inc. (in the Philippines) for Fraud and Falsification . . . " Read the Decision of the sec.gov.ph/decision/mar%202011/case%20no.%2006-10-119.pdf - Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission.

Such belated reckoning! Ignore my posts? MY POSTS were never ADDRESSED to you, were never DIRECTED to you.
Just this thread alone my posts were replies to WB, akuma and trymedave but you HAD to get in the way, taunting, insulting, instigating and pushing yourself in the middle of discourse with others by initially posting "exwriter Jan 18, 09, 07:11AM Quote #19."

[b]Another proof


Hence my comment:


Before this incident, in the thread /forum/ot/site-fraudulent-others-825/2/#msg11744 YOUR POST DATED 13 January 2009 at 11:44 am-- I gave you 'your last say' of personal insults of me--PROOF:


I DID NOT REPLY ANYMORE.
You simply did not KNOW HOW TO STOP and you FOLLOWED ME IN THIS THREAD and INITIATED, INSTIGATED, INTERVENED AND MEDDLED IN MY DISCOURSE WITH OTHERS

Great SPINNER that you are, you claim I will get bored if you did not respond to my posts. A pathological liar!
Let me refresh your failing memory:You were the one getting BORED. So you begged for trouble many timesPROOF:



I never asked for a WORD FROM YOU. Did you not understand my previous posts when I wrote that I am completely disgusted with you. BUT you keep on pushing your luck and meddling. If you were really worried about your children then you would not have POSTED AT ALL IN THE MANNER THAT YOU DID!

The world is not ALL about YOU. It does NOT revolve for YOU.

YOU started the fire, you enflamed it--and when you got burned you simply wanted "out"--portraying yourself as the innocent and faultless victim. "The only thing worse than a liar is a liar that's also a hypocrite!"Non est mea culpa ?TUA CULPA!

Last time I said that I will make you choke and eat your own words of personal insults and malice. You just did. Now, I am saying, this will be taken care of--and it SHALL.

12020 Sunrise Valley Drive
Suite 100
Reston, Virginia 20191
United States

I did mine as well. And it is the same old thing like Plaza America--now it is worth $65 for a little over a month.

No. 12 of the link regus.com/Virginia/virtualoffices/va.html

Not a combo but just a mailbox at Suite 100 under the account of Universal Research Inc. :)

No intention to pre-empt. I am sure you are at liberty to give more details and I have to attend to certain matters now.
Thanks and take a little precaution because they may not find this amusing anymore.

He/she/it was begging for it.


same sentiment but he/she/it keeps getting in my way. Please read the thread. I addressed 'trymedave' but he/she/it had to steal the show and push his/her/it arrogant self in the way.


That is the problem with forums. In person, this would have ceased a long time ago--and he/she/it would have been so quiet.
And as I said, it will be taken care of.

Your son must be ashamed of you. You are acting like a crazed sl*t in dire need of s*x. You must have finished cleaning the toilets, dung. Now, get lost you stink the forum with your ignorance and senility!

Over compensating again. No one like you will be interested in what I have to say. You do not even know how to spell and comprehend.

Idiot? You were the one who choked on your words so many many times.

Prove everything? No need--all your admissions are here. How could you remember when comments you made in a little over a month you have forgotten, Senile.You are just a thick-faced, shameless nincompoop to notice. I have a life and definitely not like the miserable one you have. You lost your money, screamed out your tonsils and you were treated like dung--poor you lol! You deserved it!

The alleged 'barrister' is acting like a crazed wild boar. Truly, you have shown everyone how you dragged and disgraced the legal profession.

It is agood thing that you edited your post. I read it before the modificationwhere you raised the issue of my (low) comprehension skills referring to "a dose of your own medicine

"answerbag/q_view/298096" as something merely directed to me.This was the very reason why the subsequent post of WB contained a comment on having the "last word." Thus, I reproduce verbatim WB's comment as,


You deleted that portion of your post because you knew how stupid you would appear-trying to find a small-hole-out for escape in an argument you have placed yourself in and which you have lost!

The small-hole-out was that you meant this-->"answerbag/q_view/298096" to simply to refer to me but as an afterthought, you remembered your previous post


on another thread /forum/ot/site-fraudulent-others-825/2/. Your use of possessive pronoun 'your' would only contradict that portion of your post-so you edited. WE have ALL seen.

Be that as it may, your lack of comment on the subject matter of your comment "your post moron not mine lol" is PROOF that you MUNCHED AND CHOKED ON YOUR VERY OWN WORDS ALREADY.


Do your assignment! There are cases!People who are not as ill-informed as you are, are laughing at your post. Your lack of information on the matter including the way you posted your first thread of essayscam.org/forum/wc/legal-recourse-writing-companies-fail-pay-writers-824/ of 'your-infamous-I-doubt-I-suspect-I-doubt" showcase are PROOF enough that you did not even LIFT A FINGER to find out BECAUSE YOU NEVER HAD ANY INTENTIONS OF VINDICATINGYOUR RIGHTS WHICH YOU ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED by the essay writing website and you NEVER HAD ANY INTENTIONS OF HELPING OTHERS!


ALL ISSUESincluding your identification of yourself as a 'barrister' (and a QC)and how you allegedly used it in personal disputes here at this website/forum to gain advantage and put pressure on people have been brought and raised before the UK authorities. Evidence of posts have been submitted.

I have NO intentions of wasting my time on you anymore. You only have yourself to blame for destroying yourself and choking on your very own words

You must be suffering from senility? Read your previous posts. After your insults and name calling, you have the audacity to even engage me in a conversation here. You must have a very thick face!


The only respect you know is for yourself. I do not even call it that but EGO. You are FULL of it.


Sure, you are having a hard time spelling, comprehending and reading! So let me give this back to you--Buffoon!


Next time, I hope you are censured already for dragging and bringing disrepute to the legal profession.


Senile, it was your comment. I merely gave it back to you. And since, it seemed not to have registered in your failing mind, you might as well shove it down your filthy throat!

You claim to be a barrister--for what? when after you have been allegedly duped of your earnings as a writer, you cannot even seek vindication of your own rights? So instead, you come to this forum and make your personal attacks, brandishing your qualifications, your being a barrister, the amount you spent on your career, the amount you are making, and how successful and respected you are (sic); questioning people you handpick of their qualifications and using your being a barrister to gain advantage and put pressure on them on matters you are in personal dispute.

And have you declared the income you earned as a writer? Do not respond anymore as I am sure it would be self-serving.
You shameless, stinking piece of dirt.

Now, read again my post today at link: essayscam/forum/ot/site-is-as-fraudulent-as-others-825/2/ (This site is as fraudulent as the others!)

You even dared to USE your being a 'barrister' to put pressure and gain advantage over those people you are in personal dispute when you are so deficient in BASIC HUMAN SKILLS. Did you declare the income you earned as a writer?! This was the SOLE REASON why you railroaded any move to mobilise other victimised writers to vindicate their own rights! You have something PERSONAL AT STAKE to protect.

You are a complete waste of anyone's time! You shameless NINCOMPOOP go back to your hellhole!

Does not make any difference--now or before.


Students, you are in big trouble!


Yeah, right. Self-serving--not credible at all. Yeah, successful--if you say so. People, be careful--you might step on the tonsils!


It will take decades for someone to do that to you.


Hypersensitive? You are the one who lacks refinement, breeding, manners, ethics and very crude.

Over compensating again--shallow gratification level. You are such a pathetic old fool who needs to grandstand all the time to make up for your low self-esteem. I am not surprised why the companies you have written for treated you like dung.

poor you! for just a few hundreds of £ not paid, you scream your tonsils out. you must do poorly on your work that you have to write for students.


I am not surprised, the species you belong to are known for a very shallow gratification level--no comprehension and no reading and spelling skills.


Volunteering self serving information--no one asked you. But go ahead with your grandstanding. The companies you worked for did not even value your writing services and they all treated you like dung. So the forum is your bastion to make up for what is lacking in your low self-esteem. Pathetic bully.

With your ethics, the good guys are in trouble. you only bring disrepute and disgrace to the legal profession.

I am SURE you got paid! I hope the amount is a little higher than 'peanuts' which you were so used to receiving from those you worked for before the imposition of fines. I was merely making you earn HERE.


Stop your delusions of grandeur--you? why you can't even spell correctly but have loads of nerves to even correct me. An alleged 'barrister' who does not even know the basic difference between jurisprudence and jurisdiction.

Now that you have earned a bit more because of your WORK HERE--try educating yourself.
You have long destroyed yourself already.

'Stealing the show and limelight' as usual. I really feel sorry that you feel threatened again!


I do not have to do that because the public knows how to read. My attack on you? Again, the posts are self explanatory unless of course, you attach a different meaning to words which are found in your own version of dictionary.


That is self serving for you. I have explained thoroughly the reasons. Now, with all of that you still cannot comprehend the self explanatory posts notwithstanding the fact that the entire world understood. Then it is your PROBLEM--perhaps, you should spend more of your £ on educating yourself.

NOW STOP addressing me. YOU are a dreadful, disgusting piece of existence who makes use of this FORUM to make yourself feel SOMEBODY. You strive woefully to 'compete' and make yourself the 'star' to uplift your low self-esteem at the expense of others. Find yourself a lackey to use for your GRANDSTANDING.

Obviously today, you are in dire frantic need to display your legal expertise (sic), your ethics (sic), the amount of money you spent on your career (sic), the pathetic need to bully and put pressure on people you are in personal dispute by using your claim to be a 'barrister.' Go ahead and make this forum YOUR SHOWCASE.


My statement is clear. I quote myself:


Logic proceeds from a different faculty, that is different from where 'sense' proceeds from.


Perhaps, you should take it up with the Moderator.

Well, I think you know that we cannot change specific behavior or traits which we dislike in a person. So it is futile trying to do that. You would only drag yourself down. I can sense that you are an educated person.

I am certain that each and everyone has drawn their respective conclusions about all or most of the members here. Truth will always come out--albeit it may take some time in certain instances but it will always prevail.

So, have a better day than yesterday :)

trymedave, please just let WB be. If you want to promote your services then do as you please. But should the Mod. decide to ban you, I am sure you would have to face such consequence. It is only a suggestion.

I am sure that more people would appreciate your efforts if you use more of it in giving information so that others can avoid being victimised. Besides, do you not think that people who may need your services would be hesitant after reading a few of your posts?

There is no contest or competition in exposing scams or in relating how one was duped. Any information, no matter how insignificant it may appear is as VITAL as those that appear to be a result of an exhaustive investigation. They all link together.

One posts information for the public--not to prove or out prove anyone here. Allow the public (members or readers) to decide how they would take stock of the information.

I respect your opinion. I think we both are broad-minded people to recognise that difference of opinions exists in a civilised society. And as I have explained--it was merely a description of fact, thus different in nature and purpose.


Like I said, I was NOT rehashing. It was merely a description of fact. When one describes the contents and recounts the incidents from the point of personal knowledge of its existence, it is NOT TANTAMOUNT to validating the contents. The existence of incidents/events and the existence of the contents are not equivalent to proving the contents as TRUE. Validating is giving legitimacy to a statement and this can only be POSSIBLE with credible corroborating evidence. This was the reason why I asked 'trymedave' poster to prove his statement.


I do not want to speculate. Proof can be presented here at the forum like what you and others have been doing here or it may be presented in court or by employing other means in other venues. Thus, since trymedave made his statement here, it would be wise for him to post his personal proof. But that is of course left to his sound discretion. I just want to maintain my independence of thought and what I should believe in guided by the precepts I have learned in life.

The way I see it, he was promoting his own services and you were preventing that. In good faith, you wanted the poster to abide by the rules. Compliance to the forum rules is largely (not solely) within the interest of the Mod and the forum-"6. The Essay Scam Forum is not a place for advertisements or publicity in any way. EssayScam and its moderators have the sole discretion to determine what constitutes an advertisement."

Besides WB, the forum itself prescribes as one of its policies stated in its 'Disclaimer and Privacy Policy,' " We believe all information at EssaySca has been gathered to the best of the ability and knowledge of the authors. However, EssayScam cannot and will not guarantee the correctness, completeness, truthfulness, or helpfulness of any message or complaint posted at this website. We encourage you to use your own judgment and do your own research to decide whether or not the provided information is true and unbiased."

Information is very broad as to include any statement of fact made by a poster which is not necessarily limited to evidence alone. Now, how credible the evidence is, is something that will be passed upon by the courts and administrative agencies and not by public opinion.

Have more confidence in TRUTH. After all, what makes a person is NOT what a few others declare him to be. Have faith in your track record.

I welcome your contention. Does the Moderator share the same opinion? Please note that my post was not ENTIRELY referring to trymedave's post. Part of it was a reply to your post.

I would disagree with you on your claim that I "replaced the same nonsense," I merely made a description of fact. By 'replacing the same nonsense' would mean accusing you the same way as 'trymedave' did which I HAD NO intention of doing. Thus, from the points of view of nature and purpose, my post was different from what you claim as nonsensical post of trymedave.

agree :)

Hey everyone, please hurry be a witness before this disappears:

lower/bottom extreme right.

209.85.175.132/search?q=cache:YkADyg688cgJ:superiorpapers/+as +seen+on+by+superiorpapers&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

209.85.175.132/search?q=cache:sO7iU1r91WAJ:superiorpapers/customersupport.php+as+seen+on+by+superiorpapers&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2

It used to be6 companiesbut one made a demand to 'take down' so SuperiorPapers took it down. Then the rest followed suit, so now it did not have a choice except to take it all down.

Mod, why was my earlier post immediately after the post of 'trymedave' deleted.

My post in substance:

1. I replied to WB and thanked her for saving the archives.
2. Reply to 'trymedave's' post of accusing WB to be working for a fraudulent company: if true, he should secure evidence to show the alleged fraud and gather all the persons allegedly defrauded and ask them to complain.

I am aware of one of the policies:
"9. Any post may be removed or edited without warning by forum moderators or administrators."
May I know why my post was deleted together with 'trymedave'?

Bravo WB! Good Luck.

Changing their address does not exculpate them from their previous violations/liabilities. I think the 'shake down' has started :)

They provide virtual offices :) virtualoffices.regus.com/products/mailbox-plus.htm - mailbox plus
2 businesses listed for 1222.yippie.biz/va/reston/ - Suite 100

Pardon my intrusion WB and eastside.

I think the site you were referring to was formerly *********.org Some or majority of the contents appearing on the former site are rehashed in this new site of scamessays.

Domain dossier verification shows that the first site's IP address is :74.220.194.233
with a net range: NetRange: 74.220.192.0 - 74.220.223.255 while the second site has an IP address of 74.220.219.56 with the same Net Range as the first which is: 74.220.192.0 - 74.220.223.255

Oh please, do not take it as something personal or as a challenge to youor to the others who seek to expose the fraud and the scam here at the forum. It was not meant that way therefore there is no need to defend your turf as I have no intentionof being a part of it.

IT was meant to allude to the factual and evidentiary considerations that may define the entire extent of the criminalitywhich may be in the possession of international OR national law enforcement agencies like the INTERPOL.


Whatever malicious allusions and imputations that--the member I referred to earlier may have brought to sway, mold and shape your thinking and perhaps of a few others here about me, is evidently the very essence of what I abhor and loathe about what he (that member) sought to accomplish. This will be dealt with in due time.

Now, let me leave you in your turf. No one is challenging your unparalleled contributions and efforts but please be mindful of the fact that there are others, officially or otherwise who also in their own small way, contribute resources and information. No single person or organisation has the monopoly of knowledge or resources.


Now, you know how it feels
to be accused of that BECAUSE you accused FIRST.


I was merely describing a NATURAL REACTION that anyone who FINDS himself in my position would feel.

]


/forum/ot/site-fraudulent-others-825/ - selective memory
Inconsistent.

We were discussing and you threw your worthless weight around, over proving, over compensating, insulting, arrogantly GRANDSTANDING and attacking me!
I EXCUSED MYSELF SEVERAL TIMES but you persisted in your INSULTS AND ATTACKS.
I only returned the FAVOR!Trying to be 'meek and humble' now WILL NOT DETRACT FROM YOUR ARROGANCE AND YOUR PERSONAL INSULTS EARLIER.


Denial is the weakest defence.



Yes, you are a writer.


PREMATURELY PROTECTING--when there is no evidence yet, no complainants yet, no recital of facts yet--BY GRANDSTANDING, ATTACKING AND INSULTING ME! Prejudging doomsday when [b]no one has even started at all![/b]You DID NOT EVEN BOTHER TO READ AND APPRISE YOURSELF of the background but easily and conveniently--you CONCLUDED EVERYTHING WITH your 'you-will-never make-it-attitude.'

You failed to INFORM YOURSELF OF THE BACKGROUND, THE PRELIMINARY FACTS AND THE STAGE OF DISCUSSION!and, PREMATURELY YOU PREEMPTED EVERYTHING!



Stop benchmarking.


Do you still NOT GET "THE DRIFT" shall I spell it out for you?I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU--I FIND YOU DISGUSTING, ARROGANT, HAUGHTY, INSECURE PIECE OF EXISTENCE!


MY POST:


NOT PAYING ~ NEED TO PAY

a matter of comprehension. . .


You do not scare me at all.


From arrogance and haughtiness, now threats and bullying tactics. You can ask anyone you please--the hell I care.


Coming from someone with comprehension problems of basic terms. You see, your overuseof that manifests your insecurity.


THEREyou go . . .that is what you have wanted all along. You should not have wasted my time.


My time is well spent doing that among other things, WB. All of you have limited knowledge of what really is 'out' there.

I am sure that--that PIECE OF EXISTENCE WHO I FIND DISGUSTINGLY DREADFULwill twist this post and infuse malice like the way he did in this post:

"I kind of got the impression from the posts of Voir that he/she is hoping to cash on the hard work you have put into exposing the fraudulent sites, and then tries to establish him/herself as a kind of redeeming angel"

This is BUT A SHALLOW, SUPERFICIAL and MALICIOUS PERVERSION OF TRUTH. I do not hope or intend to cash on the hard work of anyone because (and I am saying this with all humility) the hard work, the expense, and the risks that I have taken may be more than what anyone here (forum) has taken considering that my objectives are far broader than those stated in this site.

I will personally deal with himafter I finish what I need to do. I will make him EAT, MINCE, CHEW and CHOKE ON EVERY INSULTING AND MALICIOUS WORD HE SAID.

magnanimity

Check the dictionary--it's the CORRECT SPELLING. Perhaps, YOU ARE NOT USED TO SEEING AND READING THE WORD.


A total LIE or HYPOCRISY? Everyone can see how you are.


What is it to you?! Be content with what you are paid for discouraging the writers to vindicate their rights!


You are pathetic!It was used to signify painful death which is better than to experience the AGONY of your mistakes and haughtiness!
Now, is there still a need to spell it out for you?


Sure you are warning POTENTIAL LITIGANTS because there is a need to protect not the potential litigant.

WHO are you protecting?


You really are DISPLAYING YOUR IGNORANCE. Defensiveness? When I clearly said I will NOT DIVULGE MY PERSONAL DETAILS. That is not defensiveness!
I am not defending anything--I AM MERELY EXERCISING MY PREROGATIVE!
You really are one INSECURE THREATENED BRAT.

If they disagree with the criticism, they try to argue because they're not happy with who they are.
They fill every void with meaningless chatter, almost to avoid having to reflect on themselves.


Come up with something ORIGINAL!


Assess what!? when there is no case, no evidence yet, no complainant yet, no recital of facts yet--PREMATURE PREEMPTION! WHO are you protecting?!

And give an opinion on the likelihood of the success of that case?

and you are a barrister?


I am sure you will be paid by those you protect.


Calm down because your arguments are all scattered.
An assertion is a mere declaration. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. So, if we have less of a mere scintilla of evidence it will not prevail over a MERE ASSERTION which the courts usually consider self-serving.

COME ON! Clearly another case of your-----

"


You are just destroying yourself here. Better go back to work, you need to pay your bills.
I am no longer going to reply to your posts because I feel sorry for you right now. I would only be destroying you further.


Because of people like you, PREMATURELY PREEMPTING WITH A YOU-WILL-NEVER-MAKE-IT ATTITUDE . . . . . . . . WHY? everyone has an idea now.

You are just destroying yourself here. Better go back to work, you need to pay your bills.
I am no longer going to reply to your posts because I feel sorry for you right now. I would only be destroying you further.

Funny. I hope you can keep that sense of humor for a long time. Some people find it endearing :)

Of course you DID help! A lot if I may say. . .

exwriter:
the bet form of action would be to discontinue working for the company once there has been a problem receiving payment and put your losses down to experience, or don't start working for these companies in the first place. Learn from the experience of others and try to find companies that will pay for your time and efforts.


I am sure you do know how to read theDisclaimer:
3. All posts are anonymous unless the poster decides to reveal his or her personal details.

It is my prerogative whether to divulge my personal details. Of course, I am quite sure that you will again THROW YOUR WEIGHT AROUND like an insecure threatened brat.


I do not have the penchant to ASS-UME like you do--because it is all plastered here at the site.


And you discourage the victims because there were two people who wanted to help them for free. Such MAGNANIMITY!


Thanks for your candidness.
I do not live my life miserably--that is REAL.


Misplaced conclusion. Read the premise, I am sure you have diligently studied logic.And who said we were collecting money.

My POST: 03 Jan. 2009, 8:24 pm.

"b) MAK and I, and the others are NOT COLLECTING ANY FEES FOR ANY HELP THAT WE EXTEND TO EVERYONE"

How many times do I have to post 'history'? The problem with you is you keep on grandstanding without even trying to apprise yourself of the ACTUAL FACTS. And when it is pointed out to you--you throw your tantrums. Do you 'fight' in court even without knowing the background of the case?


Talking about yourself. People will just have to read the posts. If you were (that is an IF) my lawyer, I would want to go straight to the guillotine to spare myself of all the agony of your mistakes and haughtiness.


Sure, your actual experience in court and WITHOUT ACTUAL RECITAL OF FACTS AND ACTUAL EVIDENCE.
I agree, I have little knowledge perhaps even a lack of knowledge IN APPEARING BEFORE THE COURT WITHOUT EVIDENCE AND ACTUAL RECITAL OF FACTS OF A CLIENT AND PROSECUTING/DEFENDING BASED ON "I suspect that, I doubt, I suspect, potential legal action!"

I give that to you--You are an EXPERT on that.


It is none of your business. What is it to you anyway. Your concern? Mind your own business.


Lecture time Folks! I am sure you wanted to be a teacher when you were little. Folks, see how bossy and how haughty brilliance can ever be!


And what? Give you another ocassion for grandstanding again. Content yourself with one stage.


If you were the judge, you would have to inhibit yourself for pre-judging the case. See how biased you are? There is no evidence yet, no recital of facts by each complainant/claimant--the procedure is a proposal--and here you are throwing your useless weight around--prejudging doomsday when no one has even started at all!

You are just ENVIOUSbecause people can have the luxury of extending free services to help others!
Who are you protecting?


Let me refresh your memory:


This is basic in law school! I think you are the one confused.


I am not competing. See how threatened you are? Life for you is always a competition--always wanting to outprove everyone.Perhaps, it is time to grow up!


We were discussing until you appeared and decided to grandstand. We were still planning, thinking aloud--no evidence, no facts yet, no complainants yet!READ! "I would suggest that those who would prefer taking this legal recourse to apprise themselves of the guidelines of the website and the procedure. . .Should there be further inquiries and issues, MAK and I are here to help out."

Then you came . . with your 'you will never make it' attitude[/b[b]]! Such audacity, when you cannot even get the preliminary facts appearing in the previous posts STRAIGHT.

You posted the TOW of Academic Knowledge when the TOW of Project1stClasshad been posted previously; the application of the procedure to the customers when the proposed procedure was intended for the writersand was stated very clearly; your confusion between self-employed and freelancerswhen I have pasted the information from a Government source, etc.

You DID NOT EVEN BOTHER TO READ AND APPRISE YOURSELF of the background but easily and conveniently--you CONCLUDED EVERYTHING WITH your 'you-will-never make-it-attitude.'

Misinforming?
READ! "I would suggest that those who would prefer taking this legal recourse to apprise themselves of the guidelines of the website and the procedure. . .Should there be further inquiries and issues, MAK and I are here to help out."

What the hell do you think these writers are?! Stupid people who do not know how to understand, read and comprehend?!

If there is anyone who is MISINFORMED IT IS YOU! You failed to INFORM YOURSELF OF THE BACKGROUND, THE PRELIMINARY FACTS AND THE STAGE OF DISCUSSION!and, PREMATURELY YOU PREEMPTED EVERYTHING!


and you are a barrister? Further, I shall sayeth naught!

Signs of Insecurity
Defensiveness
An insecure person cannot handle criticism. They're not open to hearing about ways they might improve. If they disagree with the criticism, they try to argue because they're not happy with who they are.

Read all the posts platered here.

Can't Enjoy Silence
They fill every void with meaningless chatter, almost to avoid having to reflect on themselves. The unfortunate consequence is the annoyance of everyone around them, who secretly look for an escape.

do not bother me with your posts. I do not intend to dignify them with replies--a task that I find very frustrating.

Self-Promoting
Insecure people tend to talk about themselves constantly, as if they feel like they have to prove themselves. Self-promotion is paramount to over-compensation for doubt.


Bullying
Insecure people feel threatened by others, and one way to cope with this is to try and squash them. The most threatening person of all to an insecure person is a secure person, because they can sense their power.


Overly Authoritative
Insecure people tend to compensate for their lack of confidence by taking out their frustrations on others.


Overly Competitive


Materialistic
An insecure person does need to show off.


EX-cessive use of !!!! --calm down and balance your emotions. Your emotional immaturity can be easily detected.

NOW, Go to HELL and ROT!

Oh! Now, I am disappointed.

You just posted in another thread: essayscam.org/forum/wc/legal-recourse-writing-companies-fail-pay-writers-824/#msg11152 "My eyes are wide open."

Do you not want to find out at whose instance the prosecution was brought? It is a simple equation: who brings prosecution (remember I used the word 'charge') in Ca or the U.S. for that matter?

There was NO BILL to speak of.

Goodluck to you, WB!

For those who were truly vicitimised, assert your rights. There are a thousand and one ways to do it legally. Some people are not creative enough to think of ways to truly help others (I am not referring to you WB). As to the 'whys' I would prefer not to venture on that because it concerns motivation, affiliation, interest, preference, etc.

Years passed and it is the same old song that we sing. Perhaps, it was made to be that way.

Now, more work to do. Is it time to put people behind bars? (rhetorical).

I can see that very well. Good luck!

Now, back to a part of my real work and watch "how the wheels of justice grind."
I surely enjoyed all of this.

I missed something!


YES of course! And this "legal action" that you want to be rammed down in people's throats is-----


otherwise stated, People-- writers get kicked around, feel the pain, bear the loss and whimper like a dog in one corner! That is very helpful!


Were you not taught in law school never to apply generalisations unless you have the actual evidence and recital of facts?

It is very clear that you sought to discourage victims to take action--you sought to preempt and block a proposed procedure that sought to secure justice for the victimised writers by making your general assumptions and applying them on YOUR OWN speculations and conjectures.





Give it up.


Sorry but the only thing "big" that I see is your HEAD.


Very frustrating! Why do I keep looking for legs from snakes!

@exwriter do not bother me with your posts. I do not intend to dignify them with replies--a task that I find very frustrating.

@exwriter

Suit yourself. The "spotlight" is on you. I do not really care much.


The amount of claim contained in the complaint determines if it should be filed before the HMCS. Jurisdiction defines the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised.

Thus,
When HCMS specified: "claim may be started using Money Claim Online if it meets all the following conditions: a) less than £100,000 (excluding any interest or costs claimed); x x x" It refers to the limits of its authority. A complaint containing a money claim let us say for, £1M would not fall within its authority. It is a matter of jurisdiction. Jurisprudence is another thing.

BUT, then again--go ahead, suit yourself. You are entitled to what you believe in.


Are you not bent on helping others? when you youself had been victimised as you have claimed?
Can you not even lift a finger to advance some constructive way/plan of addressing the alleged unjust practices?
Will you just repeat to every victimised writer here who complains, "charge it to experience and bear the loss, find a better company"? Has it not even crossed your mind that these writers with sufficient intelligence may have already have thought of what you have been repeatedly saying and yet would still like to pursue and take action?

So let us just allow the alleged unjust business practices to flourish and for the victimised writers to bear their loss. After all their experiences can highlight the 'legitimate' companies.

Of your 110 posts, you never even ventured on trying to think of a legal way to assist these people being a brilliant, well-respected and much revered barrister that you are?

I only have to stay a few days consistently to get the entire picture of everything here. I surely enjoy watching. People come and go with complaints and stories of fraud and injustice but not a SINGLE SOUL was ever assisted or given any sufficient direction towards collecting a SINGLE DIME (not referring to the site).


And (among other means) making use of the aggrieved writers' actual experiences to accomplish such an end. Thanks for the clarification.

@exwriter do not bother me with your posts. I do not intend to dignify them with replies.

This is just for the information of everyone. I am not taking any sides in this "fight."


Dimitry Ivanovich Golubov was apprehended by the Ukrainian police (in Ukraine). He was charged before the the Central District of California in 2006 for a number of cyber crimes including credit card fraud.

Thus, legal action is feasible. If we do not uphold our laws, how would we expect others? If we use means outside that provided by the law, we may open ourselves to possible lawsuits as well--then we become no better than the alleged criminals we abhor, who violated our laws with impunity.

aged 69 to 73 years old


age: early 30s

Shall I say more? I guess not--not here.

Illegality is determined by a final judgment issued by the court after hearing.I am sure the aggrieved writers only have their ownexperiences to relate and not the sites' illegal activities. Perhaps, you are more in a position to relate to the backlink providers about these illegal activities.

Encouraging the aggrieved writers to relate the sites' illegal activities not within their own personal knowledge would imperil them. However, I am confident that since you were the one who initiated this, you would be magnanimous and charitable enough to extend support in their legal strife.

Your post: "Without backlinks, their sites will fall lower in Google and other search engines, which means less business and fewer orders."

Reputation? Is this what this whole thing is about? Preservation of reputation and destruction of reputation? I must be in the wrong place. I thought people are here to relate their experiences, to inform, to warn and to discuss constructively the recommended courses of action that the aggrieved parties can obtain and opt for so that they can get JUSTICE--so that a repetition of unjust acts can be eradicated or discouraged.

I do not subscribe to TOPPLING DOWN businesses whether legitimately or illegitmately created; whether operating and managing under legitimate or unlawful business practices using UNORTHODOX ways (my opinion). I do not have any proprietary interests in any of them.


Nothing wrong--but must be couched on proper terms and done in good faith. Otherwise, there may be negative results. I recall a case where there was a stoppage of a site that sought to inform. Well, both parties were not able to enforce their default judgments considering that there was no treaty between the countries of which they are nationals.

But again, your recommended action on backlinks relate to essaywriters.net and its affiliates and NOT about the issue being discussed here involving a UK site.


Please, save it. But thanks anyway. I do not prefer being a recipient of other people's 'charities.'


A little prudence, won't hurt. I am sure you know that cases can be thrown out based on small jurisdictional issues.


Thank you for your suggestion but you see, it is my prerogative not to do so since the discussion was not limited to the request for information on exemptions.


You lengthily discussed and critiqued the proposed procedure which is intended for this specific UK site and NOT intended for MOST companies. I am sure you know that a case is analysed and studied based on its details, its evidence and its specific facts so that a procedure and a legal strategy can be adopted to "tailor-fit" for the case. The earlier posts included a link on the TOW (evidence) of this specific UK site. Therefore, the proposed procedure was adopted BASED ON and drafted in the LIGHT OF the facts and evidence preliminarily obtaining in the case. (PRELIMINARILY--because statements of the aggrieved writers and their respective evidence ARE YET TO BE SUBMITTED,that is why the procedure is referred to as PROPOSED). However, your discussion and critique was couched on general terms using MOST companies EXCEPT THE SPECIFIC UK site which is the object of the proposed procedure. I did not refer to Academic Knowledge--the first time I heard of it--my interest is centered on the issue being discussed. Moreover, your assertion that most of these writers are employed on a freelance basis negates your earlier assertion


that these writers are self employed because the industry is based on self employment. Self employment is different from employed on a freelance basis.

Please refer to the legal definitions of the terms.
"Worker
This is a broader category than 'employees' but normally excludes those who are self-employed. A worker is any individual who works for an employer, whether under a contract of employment, or any other contract where an individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services. Workers are entitled to core employment rights and protections. The following groups of people are likely to be workers but not employees: most agency workers

short term casual workers
some freelancers
Self-employed
If you're self-employed, you do not have a contract of employment with an employer. You're more likely to be contracted to provide services over a certain period of time for a fee and be in business in your own right."


I did already yesterday.


I am sure you feel that way. I respect your feelings. I and perhaps MAK, would agree that I or MAK and I am/are not here to engage in "grandstanding" (I am not saying that you are) nor engage in a contest that seeks to measure knowledge. I am also not here to correct other members' grammar because I know that I am not perfect myself. I do not engage in critiquing other's proposition unless I can advance and suggest another (not necessarily a better) recommendation but definitely not just whimpering in one corner. It is part of good taste (my opinion).

"Humility is the sure evidence of Christian virtues. Without it, we retain all our faults still, and they are only covered over with pride, which hides them from other men's observation, and sometimes from our own too-- François, Duc De La Rochefoucauld."


Please let me repeat myself: The proposed procedure is directed/intended for aggrieved writers of the specific UK site. It was never intendedfor those who avail the services of the essay writing website/customers.

I am very much aware of the reluctance of students and those who avail the services of these websites. In fact, my earlier posts addressed this matter specifically: My Post of 04 January 2009, 1:33 am:

"a) The consumer--very few if none at all, would want to bring a complaint even if they have been short changed because of the "weakness" of their position/situation. They cannot allege that they got an "F" because they presented in the university a written work of another and passed the same as theirs. They would immediately be expelled.The most that they can do is not avail of the pertinent website and post his/their experience on the web in forums, etc. which completely assures him/their anonymity of identity."

This I believe in: I do not want to engage in comments and discussions regarding anyone's proposition on how to deal with the aggrieved writers plight especially if it comes from one who is only motivated in good faith, to help and assist others UNLESS, I also can come up with an equally constructive and plausible suggestion. I respect people's efforts in advancing their proposals.

I am a "builder' not a "destroyer." And I do "walk my talk."
So, if you would excuse me now--I need to continue "the walk" and less of "the talk" and then I will watch.

Goodluck and more power to this site for unparalleled assistance to others! I think it is the only remaining site dealing with essay writing practices.

WB, your hyper link which refers to this link https://essayscam.org/forum/wc/revenge-essaywriters-818/ is actually about "How to get revenge on essaywriters.net[DND*]" it does not refer to the issue and proposed procedure on the alleged acts of P.R. found in this thread https://essayscam.org/forum/es/projectstclass-peter-richardson-808/2/ and entitled "Project1stclass, Peter Richardson."

Anyway, perhaps I did not understand the connection, then my apology.

Let me just reiterate that immediately writing to websites (and may I quote you) "Tell your story--including an account of your personal experience and EVIDENCE from this forum--and the site owners will REMOVE the backlinks!" can be construed as tortious interference with a contractual relationship in cases where these backlinks are paid or rented because they are considered proprietary interests. An act of another which unlawfully interferes with the enjoyment of personal property is a tort for which an action shall lie.


The proposed procedure appearing in the thread https://essayscam.org/forum/es/projectstclass-peter-richardson-808/ refers to fees which lawfully were earned but with finality--allegedly withheld from the writers by the LLC concerned.

It does not refer to the delivery of substandard product nor the failure to make any delivery at all. Please further note that the idea of HMCS came from a member, Dylan with his post to that effect found at https://essayscam.org/forum/es/stclassprojects-qualityresultsltd-28/.


The name of the entity was mentioned by member, MAK in his post dated 30 December 2008, 10:12 am, as Anagram Ltd or Quality Results Ltd. I personally verified from the Companies House the registration of these entities in UK.

Thus, the jurisdictional issue which you raised has been amply satisfied.


Please do not preempt what the aggrieved writers may have in their possession as evidence. No one is privy to their evidence yet.


I would have to disagree with you. The USER GUIDE for HMCSspecifies the following conditions in bringing forth a complaint for the money claims:
(quoted verbatim in part)
" claim may be started using Money Claim Online if it meets all the following conditions -
(1) the only remedy claimed is a specified amount of money -
(a) less than £100,000 (excluding any interest or costs claimed); and
(b) in sterling;"

Therefore the amount involved in the money claim is less than £100,000or £99,999.99 and NOT as you claimed "for amounts under £1000."

Anent costs for bringing forth a complaint--the USER MANUAL specifies the following:
(quoted verbatim in part)
"Where this practice direction provides for a fee to be paid electronically, it may be paid by -
(1) credit card;
(2) debit card; or
(3) any other method which the Court Service may permit.
3.2A step may only be taken using Money Claim Online on payment of the prescribed fee. The County Court Fees Order 1999 provides that parties may, in certain circumstances, be exempt from payment of fees, or may be entitled to apply for fees to be remitted or reduced.The Court Service website contains guidance as to when this entitlement arises. A claimant who wishes to claim exemption from payment of fees, or to apply for remission or reduction of fees, may not use Money Claim Online and should issue his claim at a court office."

I have requested the HMCS to forward to me the instances where complainants are exempted from the payment of filing fees.


Again I have to disagree. It is not based on self employment. Have you read the LLC's TOW? I believe not.

I will quote the information from the UK Government website relative to definitions of the terms "employee," "worker," and "self-employed" as:

"Employee
The majority of people in work are employees. You're classed as an employee if you're working under a contract of employment. A contract need not be in writing - it exists when you and your employer agree terms and conditions of employment. It can also be implied from your actions and those of the person you are working for. Your contract will normally set out what you're expected to do. You'll usually be expected to do the work yourself - ie you can't send someone else to do your work for you.

Worker
This is a broader category than 'employees' but normally excludes those who are self-employed. A worker is any individual who works for an employer, whether under a contract of employment, or any other contract where an individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services. Workers are entitled to core employment rights and protections. The following groups of people are likely to be workers but not employees: most agency workers

short term casual workers
some freelancers
Self-employed
If you're self-employed, you do not have a contract of employment with an employer. You're more likely to be contracted to provide services over a certain period of time for a fee and be in business in your own right. You'll also pay your own tax and National Insurance Contributions (NIC).

You do not have employment rights as such if you're self-employed since you are your own boss and can therefore decide, for example, how much to charge for your work and how much holiday to give yourself. You do have some legal protection."

worksmart.org.uk/rights/i_work_through_an_agency_am_i - Another source of information:

"You are likely to be a worker if:

your employer only offers work as it is available, and you are hired to complete a task rather than attend between set hours
you can decide when you will work, and turn down work when offered
you can send someone else to do the work in your place if you want
you provide your own tools and equipment.
you do not have tax and National Insurance deducted from what is probably called a payment or fee rather than wages(though some workers do have deductions)."

(underscoring supplied)


Do you know that there is a CUT-OFF for those who need not declare their fees/income? Do you know the amount of the CUT-OFF? I guess not.


Perhaps because the writers are exempt from doing so.


Have you read the contents of a student visa? The basic conditions for a Tier 4?
I believe not.

BUT I DID--AND NOT ONLY that I personally spoke with officers of the UK Home Office, both from Immigration and the UK Border Agency. So, I feel that I know what I am doing. Besides, I have full faith that these aggrieved writers are intelligent enough to read and comprehend everything before deciding to make a "go" of their respective complaints.

I am wondering what motivated you to think and feel the way you do. If I would "listen" to what you are saying--I would feel that you sound like a "P.R." But of course, perhaps you are merely expressing your deep fears and concern for the aggrieved writers.





Cause of action is determined by the material allegations of actual and real facts. There is always peculiar element for every aggrieved writer in relation to his SOLE case/complaint. It cannot be determined by speculations, conjectures, or genalisations. Each complaint contains factual narration of events that transpired and NOT merely based on doubts or inkling. Short of any recital of facts sent to me and MAK (who identified himself to be a solicitor), any comment is a mere speculation or a call to discourage and preempt the aggrieved to seek redress.

And if were an aggrieved writer, I would just allow these people to kick me around--then I will whimper like a dog in one corner and tell myself, 'charge everything to experience.' Who cares about the rest of potential victims, I should not give a hoot.

But you see, I am not.

Generally, if there are not too many complaints, then perhaps some are truly just mere 'propaganda' but that does not detract from the fact that there were alleged violations of pertinent laws for which investigations of ALL are necessary.

By the way, I sent emails to WB and to this forum about a request to take web screen shots of the article in another thread. I have yet to receive a reply. Be that as it may, it is all right WB and Mod. I have sufficiently addressed the request. Thanks anyway. I have taken major steps already and I will be taking a few more till my adieu. Then I will watch.

Aggrieved writers,
These people capitalise and exploit your weaknesses both in terms of the lack of a built-in procedure to redress your grievances and vindicate your rights and the lack of sufficient knowledge of the rights and privileges granted to you by law.

They try to mislead you and threaten you with your fears which are based on your very own erroneous assumption of the weakness of your position.

It is your choice and prerogative to assert your rights or feel like 'losers' the rest of your life. Time to make a stand, time to 'put your foot down' or whimper in one corner.

I truly understand what you have just related to this forum. This is the same sentiment of the other writers. The writers write for these entities in the hope of augmenting their income. There is nothing revolting about one's desire to will the best for his own or his family's life.

It is this very intent that some of these entities exploit and make 'use' of. I can only hope the best for you, that is for you to receive everything, in full and without any unjustifiable delay that which you have worked so hard for.

Should you feel later on that your rights have been trampled on, you are most welcome here to express your disgust and anger.

What others here seek is to lessen the risks, if not eradicate altogether the risks that ALL writers would have to face everyday in their writing careers with these entities.

Personally (and I am sure this goes with the others too), I/we am/are not here to condemn the writers who had become victims--they have suffered enough of having to face the-everyday-fear of not receiving their fees at all or with undue delay based on greed but sugar-coated with some flimsy excuse to withhold payment. I/we am/are not here to laugh at those writers who had become victims after refusing to heed our advice and warnings because I/we understand that part of human nature--that some people would rather experience things for themselves in order to believe.

I/we am/are here to be happy for those who may have justly received their fees and we can only hope that they would not suffer the same plight as most of the other writers here.

I/we am/are here in the fervent hope of enkindling and awakening that part of human nature--of compassion for others and of a universally accepted principle-- that there are times and instances when WE cannot just live for ourselves alone because to a certain extent, we need to look out for each other so that the industry where we seek to find that 'extra' for ourselves and our families can maintain and preserve its integrity. Towards this end and as a consequence thereof, we can assure ourselves that there would be a constant flow and payment of the fees, we have lawfully and justly earned.

All hail WB! All hail to those who exert tirelessly their efforts, their time and use their own personal resources just so others may know of the TRUTH.

The path and climb WB, I and others have taken is long, difficult and rocky BUT if we join hands to ferret truth, we will all succeed--FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CONSUMERS/PUBLIC including the DUPED WRITERS.

My gratitude to WB and others, your efforts did not go unrecognised.

The height of impertinence and insolence!

There is no rush, Serene. It is all right :)

I would suggest that you read my post again. You missed the point. First, allow me to correct your misimpression--I am not the owner of the legitimate companies or company so your use of the possessive pronoun "your" is misplaced. Second, do you not think that your question is based on a premise that is a fallacy of logic?

You are asking me to compare two values which are totally different, a fallacy. And if I may say, was not within the meaning of what I have posted, remotely or otherwise. You are asking me to compare the number of "customers who are serviced by your legitimate companies go unsatisfied vis a vis the customers who go unsatisfied by the the so called inferior companies"--Two values: legitimate companies and inferior companies. To the first group, legitimacy is determined by law. To the second group, inferiority is determined by accepted performance-based determinants.

One is legitmacy and the other is performance. There is no connection between both values. The existence of one value does not assure the existence of the other.


Suit yourself. The content of my post referred to the free interplay of market forces in an environment of fair competition.


Are we not engaging in another fallacy of logic? I was not generalising, you are.
I was referring to legitimate companies who would desire to hire ESL writers in a free market. I did not refer to hiring the ESLs over the EFLs. Now if you feel that ALL (you made the generalisation) EFLs are superior in the English language and if you own an essay writing website or company, you are totally at liberty to hire them over the ESLs. I have no qualms about it.

So if you would please excuse me, I have quite a number of things that beg my attention. I would rather not engage in a debate of mere generalised opinions between EFLs over ESLs anent the English language. You are entitled to your opinion. But, try to comprehend the thrust of my earlier post first.

Finally, if I may express my opinion: I think the issue is NOT one of EFLs vs. ESLs. The issue is one of deception--when a few websites claim to only hire ALL EFLs with Masters and PhDs but which in truth is NOT. Stated otherwise, I have no problem about legitimate companies hiring ESLs provided they do not mislead the public by claiming that ALL THEIR WRITERS ARE EFLs WITH MAs and PhDs. Therefore even without saying, I have gargantuan problems with illegitimate entities that hire ESLs (and exploit them by not paying their fees) and would mislead the public by claiming that ALL THEIR WRITERS ARE EFLs WITH MAs and PhDs.

Let us not try to muddle my post with issues not germane with my premise. Let us also not to try to divide the alleged victimised writers between EFLs and ESLs. I am very much aware of divide et impera of Machiavelli.

But no can deny ...
*no one. Sorry about the mistake.

I agree with you WB, that you pose a threat to them.


The essay writing websites which have been subject of (your) investigation, about which writers complained for not having been paid of their lawful fees and were discussed in this forum.


Perhaps, it may be an effective method but single and most? I would disagree. For me, the best and most effective is to prove violations of the provisions of the law.


Not really, there are a thousand and one ways to do it legally.
We talk of two aspects here:
a) preventing harm to writers--PROACTIVE; and
b) redress and vindication of those who allege to have been victimised (writers or customers/those who availed of the services of these websites but were allegedly short changed)--REACTIVE.

I would not subscribe to calling it "revenge" it is a mere retaliation. When there is retaliation, one opens himself to being sued for damages. Perhaps, only a difference of terminologies or semantics.

Personally, I would not want to be "playing their games." I call mine --applying the law and seeking justice.
My opinion, the "backlinks method" is good after writing about one's experience to the proper authorities. Then writing to the sites for the backlink removal would not be interpreted as profit oriented--or interference in business. There is a civil offence for unlawful interference with contract between parties. If I were the owner of the website allowing backlinks, I would think after receipt of a writer's email of complaint: "why complain here? Have you notified the proper authorities?"

Please allow me to discuss a little bit more:
The players in the industry relative to this issue of scams are:
a) owner/LLC/company of the essay writing website which is alleged to be fraudulent; (alleged to be not paying their writer/s despite considerable efforts to thresh out with them the issues or after resolving the issues, the writer/s feel that his/their rights were violated; alleged deception of consumers, etc.);

b) consumer/s-those who alleged to be short changed;
c) writer/s--(whether ESL qualified or not; EFL whether qualified or not); and
d) government--(state or federal and government intrumentalities and bodies).

Of the four: we only would expect 2 players to be aggrieved who may exercise their prerogative to bring forth a complaint (of a past injury--reactive), the consumer and the writer/s.

a) The consumer--very few if none at all, would want to bring a complaint even if they have been short changed because of the "weakness" of their position/situation. They cannot allege that they got an "F" because they presented in the university a written work of another and passed the same as theirs. They would immediately be expelled. The most that they can do is not avail of the pertinent website and post his/their experience on the web in forums, etc. which completely assures him/their anonymity of identity.

b) the writer/s--a group with members having different values and personalities.
b1) the indifferent writer--in the final stretch, he would not exert any energy to vindicate his rights or desire to collect the fees which were unlawfully withheld;

b2) the uninformed or misguided--those who believe that their position/situation is weak such as our international students in UK. This group includes also those who, albeit would like to demand for the fees owing but do not know of how to seek redress and vindicate their rights;

b3) Past victims who by reason of the length of time were discouraged to bring forth their opposition or complaint because of the apparent lack of "built-in mechanism or procedure" to seek redress.

b4) bold vicitms--those who would want to bring forth their complaints whatever would result out of their decision.

We seek to target b2, b3 and b4, by providing guidance in informing them that their misconceptions are misplaced. For instance, international students being "workers" as defined under UK law is not within the ambit of the visa conditions and therefore, they can bring forth their complaints without fear of being adjudged to have violated their visa conditions (but this will have to be addressed on a case to case basis because there are visas with clear prohibitions against work such as those with 6-month duration); by providing them a machinery or a mechanism to seek vindication of their rights. The b3--by encouraging them to relate their past experiences without assuring them of being able to secure the fees which had not been paid, but by informing them that they would be able to help others who had been recently victimised and helping others who may in the future--be vicitimised; that is by establishing the regular but alleged unlawful business practices of the pertinent website. The b4, by providing guidance and machinery/mechanism to bring forth their complaints.

Once the proposed procedure/mechanism is established and in place--others will follow suit. Later on, these writers will no longer need MAK, me or anyone--they will take the initiative. At the same time, these unscrupulous websites will slow down in committing these alleged injustices because there is already a built in procedure to expose them. And finally, regardless of the result of this FIRST move now, we are able to let the authorities officially know that these practices occur. Thus, the "reactive" serves as "proactive" as well.

Again, we are not assuring any aggrieved writer that he would receive the fees to which he is entitled to BUT we are able to inform the proper authorities. What have we got to lose? If the writers are fainthearted now to act then we can conclude that they are not worth fighting for and that their fate is something they truly deserved.

I am here because I still believe they are worth fighting for--which is also the very reason why you are here WB, MAK, Serene and others. We do no need a thousand of victimised writers--we only need two for starters. The future of this industry depends on these writers because we cannot expect the consumers to complain even if they have been victimised. Please mobilise, organise and show all of them that writers can no longer be exploited!

I would expect that complaints will be pouring. I would also expect that not all of these are legitimately from aggrieved writers but a few may be from the unscrupulous websites. MAK and I would know and we are at liberty to refuse to include it in our drafts.

@WB

Thank you.
In general, I made the "offence" (outside of this forum) already so their attacks would be most likely a "defence." I do not intend to "fight" in this arena.

My posts containing facts are based on evidence and the provisions of pertinent laws which anyone can readily check and confirm with due diligence.
Documentary evidence including the video you posted (also at youtube) as well as a few of the documentary evidence I posted can only be DISPUTED by the same degree of credible evidence and not by mere personal assertions of individuals.

BUT NO ONE was able to controvert them despite the lapse of considerable time.
Any intelligent member here or any reader of the posts for that matter, would just simply take out personal attacks and focus on the amount and nature of evidence posted and easily they can be CONVINCED of the truth and credibility of the evidence.

Again, my gratitude for your concern. I have been "scared all my life" and attacked a number of times, but based on my experience--Truth always prevailed.

As what I have posted in another thread, you have been attacked by these unscrupulous people as one allegedly affiliated with a U.S. essay writing website.

My answer to that is: So what? Assuming, that is so--you are merely "leveling the playing field" because the truth is, some of the other essay writing websites are engaging in an alleged "unfair competiton."

They take in ESL writers whether they be qualified or unqualified. They rake in profit by selling their services at a very low price. They do not pay their ESL writers (qualified or not). And when they leave, they take in more ESLs.There is an apparent lack of regulation of standards and an apparent lack of a machinery for these ESL writers to collect the fees which they were unlawfully deprived. All together, with these alleged fraudulent websites engaging in this practice, consistently and regularly--they destroy the name of the industry. They fool the American, Australian and UK public/consumers who avail of the services as to the source of the product or service including the competency of their writers. Now, it seems that the labels of "scams, low and poor quality, deceptive, lies" are attached to the reputation of the essay writing industry.

If I were the owner of a legitimately organised, created and incorporated/registered and legitimately managed and operated company/LLC primarily devoted to essay writing--I would be disgusted! Of course, there may be flaws and violations committed by these legitimate companies and LLCs BUT it is not a reason for these fraudulent websites to engage in unfair competion and false advertising. Allow the proper authorities and the courts punish the legitimate companies and allow the market forces to freely shape the industry.

It is a basic economic principle that is why unfair competition and false advertising are PROHIBITED BY LAWS. Therefore, anyone who would desire to raise the issue of RACISM, please rethink your arguments. I am not against ESL writers writing for legitimate essay writing companies because I know with an environment of fair competition, the industry would in no time, rid and purge itself of the unqualified ESL writers.