Countdown till essaywriters.net. Close down: Will it EVER happen?

WB, what I find rather surprising is that EW admits that the Ukranians are fraudsters but then goes on to defend them. My question is simple, why would any legit company (as in one which intends to defraud neither writers nor customers) hide its REAL contact info and why, on earth, do they lie about nationality. Doesn't any of this underscore just how crooked their intentions really are? And the fact that many do it is really no excuse.

Oh, how sweet! After bragging about stealing customers from his employers for YEARS by going out of his way to repeatedly state that he is the "top" writer at both EssayBay and EssayWriters.net, he's suddenly grown a heart. Isn't that nice? How odd it is that his heart growth just happens to coincide with my challenge to provide his writer ID. This "caring" approach to his employers comes from a crook who has repeatedly bragged about taking off-the-books orders via PM by way of advertising his self-proclaimed status as the "best writer" for both sites.

Look, everyone, EW_writer just "kicked my *ss" again!

Ownage.

What about it EW? List your subject areas and WB will post a topic for you on the forum, with a reasonable deadline. Once you've finished, just post it here and we'll 1) check it using turnitin and if it passes the plagiarism test 2) you select a panel of 2 judges from the forum (WB will be the third) and they will grade your work. The two you select, however, have to be native speakers ... You can do it so why not? It is the low season and really won't take up much of your time.

That's because he's an anonymous coward who monetarily benefits from the CRIMES of his employer. It's easy to outwardly promote and condone fraud when one is an anonymous coward.


Their entire business model is based on fraud and deception.


Sorry, not acceptable. My challenge is based on him providing his writer ID. Plus, no way in hell do I give him advance warning.

Contrary to EW_writer's lies, I have made some bold statements/predictions in this forum and made quite good on them. Here are a few, in no particular order:

* "The YSM advertising accounts of EssayRelief.com, MasterPapers.com, and bestessays.com will shortly be banned by Yahoo, leading to a sweeping ban on all essay sites." OUTCOME: True. (After this prediction came to fruition, EW_writer's pitiful excuse was that his employer "voluntarily" shut down its own account. LMAO! Of course, he asserted that I had absolutely nothing to do with it, either. He's already laying the groundwork to make that same claim in the future.)

* "The days of the EssayRelief empire are numbered, regardless of their location in Pakistan." OUTCOME: True.

* "My work will help to make the industry more transparent for consumers." OUTCOME: True.

Yes, I see your point. You want to see EW's average/standard work.

EW - Just PM your ID to WB. Why not?

WB - the *****, SNR case? It turns out that you were right. I just came across a full summary of the US case now. Apparently, what I had read via Westlaw was the Pakistani case:

Student Term Paper Website Brings a Lawsuit; Instead Gets Nailed With $700k Award Against It--***** v. Student Network Resources
By Eric Goldman

***** v. Student Network Resources, 2008 WL 4754907 (D. N.J. Oct. 22, 2008). The Justia page. *****'s initial complaint. A letter from defense counsel to the judge recapping some of the sad story.

I'm always fascinated when plaintiffs initiate a lawsuit but end up owing the defendants money. I understand that litigation inherently involves uncertainty about the outcomes. However, when the plaintiff ends up owing money, the plaintiffs appear to have made a major miscalculation. Certainly they should have just stayed home rather than mixing it up in court.

Today's case involves the apparently brutal and cutthroat (perhaps literally?) business of student term paper websites. You may recall that Google blacklisted all term paper websites from its AdWords program. I've also blogged on Blue Macellari's complaint against some term paper sites she thought had ripped her off (the case settled). The Turnitin lawsuit is also relevant.

The litigants in today's case are competitors in the student term paper business. *****, a Pakistan-based IT services company, initiated the lawsuit by alleging that SNR was trying to steer business away from ***** through defamatory statements at the home page and user forums of a website operated by SNR. The complaint cites some pretty strong allegations by the defendants beyond just selling bogus term papers, including purported accusations that the plaintiffs are a "crime syndicate," run a "prostitution ring" and threatened reporters with murder. [Note: I have received legal demands from ***** regarding this paragraph. To make sure there's no confusion, the last sentence refers to the allegations, all of which ***** has denied.]

The defendants fought back with counterclaims alleging that ***** was ripping off SNR by buying term papers and then republishing them through the ***** website. The defendants then sent a Rule 11 letter asserting that the complaint's allegations lacked merit. After the letter, plaintiff's counsel withdrew, saying "Dreier discovered information which, if known at the time the complaint was filed, would have caused Dreier to refuse to file the complaint in this matter on behalf of *****." This left ***** without counsel, and apparently it had difficulty finding new counsel because it asked the court if it could proceed pro se. The court predictably denied the lawsuit because companies can't appear pro se in court. As a result, the litigation went to default judgment on defendants' counterclaims.

In the Oct. 22 opinion, the court awards damages of $300k and attorneys' fees of $36k for the copyright infringements, plus regular damages of $2.5k and punitive damages of $350k under the NJ unfair competition act. All told, an award of nearly $700k to the defendants in a lawsuit that the plaintiffs should not have brought.

***** may have defaulted, in part, because it is pursuing a parallel lawsuit in Pakistan. Assuming it can win in its home court, it's still not clear how ***** can collect on a Pakistani judgment against the defendants. At the same time, it will be interesting to see if the defendants can get paid themselves.

blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/11/student_paper_w.htm

Fingers crossed the Ukranians will go the same way ...

SNR got "paid" when Honorable Judge Freda Wolfson of the US Federal District Court of New Jersey ordered all 555 of *****'s sites to be transferred to SNR. More importantly, the public benefits by way of 555 fraudulent, copyright-infringing sites being shut down. Indeed, Judge Wolfson echoed the exact same sentiments that I have communicated in this forum: such action by the Court is in the best interests of the public good, as there is no reason to believe that the fraud will otherwise stop. The Ukrainian fraudsters are looking down the same barrel.

The Pakistani case is a complete joke. Court records and attorney letters to the judge indicate that SNR completely ignored the after-the-fact lawsuit in Pakistan because it was, and still is, utterly inconsequential and meaningless. US Federal Court of New Jersey records and attorney letters to/from the judge also prove that the Pakistanis behind ***** filed that new, "sour grapes" lawsuit in Pakistan-using virtually the EXACT SAME complaints that were already crushed in New Jersey-only AFTER their own attorney in New Jersey DUMPED them and the writing was on the wall. Have you read all of the Court documents and Order? Fascinating. Indeed, SNR's attorneys were so brilliant and their countersuits so strong that *****'s own attorney wanted nothing to do with ***** any longer, petitioning the judge to unilaterally close the case against *****'s will! The judge complied. Any attorney will tell you that such action by a Federal judge NEVER happens, aside from instances of, for example, egregious fraud and deception against members of the Court and/or damaging testimony in camera to the judge by a party's OWN attorney. Along with a devastating ruling against *****, which, among other things, awarded to SNR nearly $700,000 and all 555 of *****'s sites, the judge issued a scathing Opinion of exactly what she thinks of *****'s egregious "business practices."

I have no doubt-whatsoever-that Judge Wolfson or any other US judge will hold the exact same opinion of essaywriters.net[DND*] and Universal Research from Ukraine.

Yes - absolutely shocking! I know that many in this industry are plain dirty and believe that just because they are operating e-commerce entities, do not need to pay heed to any laws. But to this extent?! And why aren't the Ukranian gangsters taking notice? Their practices are just as despicable.

I agree with you - any who doubt that the fraudsters and scammers are going to have to face the music one day, only need read up on this case. The industry needs to be fumigated; ***** is out and the Ukranian gangs will soon go the same way if they don't shape up (I don't believe they ever will as they are pathological fraudsters).

Well, as you indicated, their attitude is "come and get me" (specifically repeated by EW_writer in this forum). What they are too STUPID to realize is that legal precedent is now set by the ***** case, making legal action against the Ukrainians MUCH more simple and straightforward than it originally was against the Pakistanis at *****. Plus, there is much MORE evidence against the Ukrainians. Basically, all it will take to shut down Universal Research-and therefore stop them from defrauding the public-is virtually any type of lawsuit that brings the evidence before a judge, even a class action by former writers and/or customers. In fact, I'm sure that there are plenty of attorneys who would be willing to take this type of case pro-bono or on a contingency basis.

Exwriter, any connections? ;)

Completely true ... going after the Ukranians will be much less complicated. Certainly, gathering evidence, preparing a case, etc takes time but, enforcement will be simpler than with ***** (which was successful despite the jurisdiction complications).

Yuriy ... Alexei ... wake up! *****'s own lawyers withdrew. So what do you think your respective lawyers will do? Hang, disembowel, quarter and burn you?

I think I'm going to have to call it a day because I just can't handle EW_writer "kicking my *ss" so much (in his own threads). I need a cold pack.

I play by the rules so as not to get myself into trouble. I think JenniferAA would agree that simply saying that "I'm the best writer of Essaybay" without posting my I.D. doesn't really constitute as grounds for account termination.


In the words of dearbats: "This entire INDUSTRY is based on fraud and deception." Oxbridge? You disagree? :p

Do you have proof that YSM particularly banned Universal Research or essaywriters.net or even some unscrupulous websites selling homework to college students? :p No? I thought so.


What, only American homework makers should be allowed to survive? :D


Right.. and what do you think WB would do with that information, seeing how she likes me so much? o.O The thing is, I don't need to prove anything. I've said it once and I'll say it again, I don't field for clients on this message board (well, I get a few every now and then but I don't actively find them). It's WB who wants to prove that my writing skills are inferior so she should be the one to make an effort to abide by my terms. ^_^ As for me, I know that I am one of essaywriters.net's best, I (and you) know that I am one of essaybey's best (if not its best altogether), and I'm quite satisfied with what I've achieved in the industry in the past few years that I've been in it.

Day 771 folks. essaywriters.net is still up and running (although we got like haha 49 orders left since its the low season)

I wonder... why is WB so agitated by this thread? I mean, Why doesn't she just leave me to count my employers' days (which are supposed to be numbered) in peace? Who's obsessed with who here? o.O

Day 771.

1. I think WB meant "flog," not "flock" you.
2. Yes - I do agree that you probably are the best of what Essaywriters has now and know that you are really selling yourself short by staying on with them. But you have got to remember I know because I know and you cannot expect any to agree BECAUSE THEY DO NOT KNOW.


Definitely not - only those who do not claim to be what they are not should be allowed to survive. If essaywriters.net were honest about its identity and its writers' qualifications, I would not have a problem with their being Ukranian. It is not American and British vs Ukranians and Pakistanis - it is honesty versus dishonesty. They promote themselves through blatant lies and, hence, can only be categorized as scum.


No, to a degree I agree. Yes, some of us keep our noses clean and do not lie about who we are, etc etc ... we treat both writers and customers fairly but, AT THE END OF THE DAY, we know that some students will present the model papers they purchased from us, as their own work. So, yes - we are enabling student fraud. I admit to that and I also admit to the fact that despite our disclamers and all that, I KNOW but shrug it off as student fraud not our fraud. Do I convince myself... No I don't. Despite that, our fraud (legit companies) is nothing compared to that which the industry gangsters have based their businesses upon. They are founded upon lies and deception and regularly cheat both writers and customers ...


You are the one who started it EW - so, in all honesty, this thread is something of a testament to your obsession with her :)

This makes this:


pointless, does it not?


The fraud of helping students cheat their way to becoming accountants, lawyers and *gulp* nurses and doctors is nothing compared to.. what? Pretending to be Americans as a marketing ploy for attracting such students? o.O

I could not have put it any better myself! This matter has absolutely NOTHING to do with geographical location. In fact, I have gleefully invited EW_writer and numerous other "crook types" to provide me with ANY justification to criticize American or British companies for engaging in ANY form of fraud, and he/they can't do it! These fraudsters LIVE to prove me wrong, and they can't! That's why they are so VERY frustrated.

You know what else is funny-the more EW_writer flaps his virtual lips and gives the investigator additional inspiration to research and post more and more convincing arguments and evidence against his disgusting employer, the more and more attractive the case becomes to lawyers on a pro-bono basis. The less work that a lawyer anticipates having to do, the more likely that he/she is to accept the case pro-bono.

EW_writer, you're just too stupid to realize that your fruitless attempts to prevent honesty and justice have merely helped in building an extremely strong legal case against your employer. Let's make one thing clear-the information that is already public is MORE than sufficient to get your employer shut down permanently via Federal injunction. Plus, a good investigator will NEVER show all of his cards until it really counts. ;)

Up to this point, the only things that have prevented EW_writer's employer from being shut down are:

1. dedicated people with legal experience who have sufficient, personal time to address the situation;

2. funding.

Thanks to EW_writer, #1 is no longer an issue and #2 is on its way to becoming a non-issue.

Much love, EW_writer.

EW_writer's argument is that Toyota is criminally responsible if one of its customers uses a Prius as a weapon.

Why is it so easy to beat every one of EW_writer's arguments?

Faulty parallelism. You can have a gazillion reasons to buy a car but you can only have ONE reason for buying a custom-made paper on homework assigned to you by your university. Got you again (See? I just don't keep count).


Great. Now shut your stinking trap and let me continue my count.

Day 771 people.

On a side note, I showed WB's "Toyota" argument to a friendly rival of mine at last year's World's (She happened to be online). She had this to say: *Barf*

Really? Can you show ANY proof, whatsoever, to support this assertion? Nope, you can't. Would you like me to show you PROOF that you are 100% wrong?


It must have been a video chat.

Any student who'd be willing to pay $100 for an essay would most certainly not just use it as a guide and just properly reference it in his/her actual paper. Some students may take precautions and paraphrase some of the work but even then, the fact that somebody else did the research already constitutes academic fraud. So where's your proof? :p


Nope, that's exactly what she typed.

Re: Boston University vs. Term Paper Companies, 1997-1998

----------------------------
"One of the companies named in the suit, a N.J.-based firm called The Paper Store Enterprises, turned over [as ordered by subpoena] a list of seven BU students who bought papers there and a university investigation found that [only] one of the students tried to pass the work off as his own. The other [six] buyers apparently used the papers properly, as research material."

eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=31843&CFID=8419205&CFTO KEN=27456135
----------------------------

This is documented, LEGEL PROOF that students do not buy example papers only to cheat. In this real-world example, 86% of the students referenced/cited the papers properly.

So much for the basis of EW_writer's ENTIRE DEFENSE in this forum. Thanks for playing!

EW_writer gets OWNED yet again (in his own thread).


Really? What's that you say? According to EW_writer, the hundreds of thousands of teachers and professors around the world who benefit from the use of research assistants are, as he asserts, "academic frauds."

EW_writer gets RE-OWNED yet again (in his own thread).

I assert this once again. This industry IS based on fraud and deception.

It's like arguing whether the sale of drugs to the youth and future of a country is based on moral and ethical grounds and whether those who engage in such practices adhere to the so called rules and laws of legitimacy.

First provide a platform to cheat and when you get competition, design laws, rules regulations to prove supremacy!!

I feel fine strangely enough lol. I was merely pointing out that IF this site WAS your ONLY source of work, that 11 orders divided amongst god knows how many writers would hardly constitute being swamped.

Essaybay also seems to have quite a lot of OPEN orders, but very few where writers have been selected for the projects. Seems to suggest that customers are not quite so enamoured with the service as they have posted their projects and then not bothered to select a writer to assist.

Great, it's good that that's cleared up. From your first post it seemed that you were implying that I was getting my work entirely from EW. ^_^


WOW... 86% of all students who buy papers on their homework DO NOT use those papers to cheat. Ok people, you get a free lesson is Statistics. Do you know WHERE WB got her 86%?


Here's the computation that led to the generalization that 86% of students who buy papers from homework writing sites do not use it for cheating.

6/7=0.857142857 x 100% = 85.71% or 86%.

What's wrong with this computation? You can't base your generalization on just ONE company much less just 7 samples from that one company when there are hundreds of companies and thousands of students buying from them. :D

Sigh... I do get tired of winning all the time.. really. What this pathetic MORON passes off as evidences for issues that really matter are crap. Period. XD

Still day 771, people.

Did I make a "generalization"? Nope. YOU did, moron. Here it is:


I posted LEGAL EVIDENCE to prove that your claims are horses-i*. You DO know what EVIDENCE is, don't you? You know-that stuff based in FACT? You're just mad because I beat the tar out of you-AGAIN.

YOU LOSE. Would you like some cheese with your whine?



By the way-who thinks that EW_fraudster "won"?


WOW. Delusion personified, my friend . . . . Loserville has a new resident.

EW_writer's definition of "victory" = posting how long I've been a member

LMAO!

Your evidence IS horse__it. ^_^ Nobody's going to believe your statement that most students who use homework writing companies do not turn in the work they buy as their own. You're not generalizing? Great, then you're not proving anything except that I'm right. ^_^


Yeah... who thinks that WritersBeware is correct that most of the students who buy from homework writing sites such as EW and ET DON'T turn in the stuff they buy for credit? C'mon.. LET'S HEAR IT PEOPLE!!!! ^____^

I don't think you get it, crook. It does not matter what YOU or any of your fraudulent cohorts THINK. Where is your EVIDENCE to support ANY of your claims that ALL student's hearts are as dark as yours? Where is your proof that "ALL" students are inherently evil? Just because YOU have a filthy, CHEATING soul does not mean that the majority of others share your deviant nature.

By the way, I'm also still waiting on your justification for asserting that all professors who use research assistants are "academic frauds"?

I challenge ANYONE here to support your claim that MOST STUDENTS who buy from homework writing sites DO NOT submit what they buy for credit. You WON'T hear anyone supporting you because your claim is PLAINLY ABSURD. ^_^ It's like saying that most people who buy marijuana use it for its medicinal qualities. Had enough?


It's fu**-n academic fraud when you're given an assignment by your professor and you ask someone else to do it for you. Professors have research assistants whose job it is to research stuff for the professors. The professors assign research work to research assistants in the same way that they assign work to students, the difference is students get graded for their research work and earn academic credit for them. It's clearly NOT THE SAME THING. >.<

BINGO!!!

Please, oh please, don't "kick my *ss" any more. I just can't take it! LOL!

I posted LEGAL PROOF that you are a lying fraudster:



Where's YOUR proof that all (as you have outright claimed)-or even the majority-of people who buy papers use them to cheat?


Do you think you're clever by referring to example research sites as "homework writing sites"? You think I've overlooked your little game? Your brainwashing and propaganda won't win this argument.

Where's YOUR proof that all (as you have outright claimed)-or even the majority-of people who buy papers use them to cheat?


Calm down, bucko. We really don't need your frustrated vulgarities.

Where is your PROOF that all people who buy example papers turn them in for academic credit? I've already shown LEGAL PROOF that you are wrong. Here is the proof again:

Every poster who EVER complained on this site about one company or another intended to submit the paper as their own based on their complaints. Most of them go so far as to say "now I have to do the paper on my own" and other statements like that. You had enough?

ANYONE wanna comment on the quality of WB's LEGAL EVIDENCE of 6 out of 7 customers from one writing company to substantiate her claim that most people DO NOT use sites like ET or EW to cheat? :p

Hey, this is fun but I think I kicked your ass in enough places for today and I still gotta finish three resumes at $50 a pop so I'll see you tomorrow when we turn to day 772. Buhbye. :D

Consumers hire example research companies to provide reference material in PRECISELY the same way that professor's use research assistants. I have already proven such with LEGAL EVIDENCE.

You lose.


Anyone want to comment on EW_Writer's evidence? Oh, wait-HE HAS NONE!


I must admit that I am quite disappointed in the utter lack of challenge in destroying EW_writer's senseless, lie-based arguments over and over again.





"Somebody, anybody, help me! I'm drowning!"

Sigh... ok, I'm beat. You got me...

Students, buy from the sites that WB calls legitimate ONLY IF you are going to use what you buy as samples and will not be submitting them as your own work. Sites such as ET which WB considers legitimate sells papers ONLY AS SAMPLES. Be careful as they DO NOT CONDONE students submitting purchased papers for credit.

There.. end of story. You win. Horray! Now, will you let me get back to my resumes?

You'll never hear from me again as long as you leave me the hell alone.

Very very interesting! Will read up on that case now

Day 772, people.

• 
  ^_^
  

You have a very short memory.

The abused inner child within EW is desperate for attention at any cost.

• 
  rmcn2l.jpg
  

Sigh....

^_^

Day 772 and counting.

EW_writer, how does it feel to know that virtually EVERYONE in this forum thinks that you are a crooked liar and absolutely nothing that you assert has any credibility whatsoever? Must suck . . . .

Although I have absolutely no need to school you more that I already have, and everyone is well aware that I have continually crushed you in every possible way, I feel compelled to point-out that your reference to "77*" only proves you to be an even bigger idiot than I have already shown. Yes, I signed up in April of 2007, but on what date did I first state that I would "personally shut down" your fraudulent employer?

Waiting . . . .

Really?

It is the last attempt of a third world, good for nothing, jack of an entrepreneur to rescue his sinking venture that was destined to be doomed before it took off!!!

HERE LIES CHACHA, HE WAS AUDACIOUS ENOUGH TO CARRY A MALICIOUS SOUNDING PUNJABI NAME, DESPERATELY BELIEVING THAT NO ASIAN WILL EVER VISIT THIS FORUM. HATED BY THOSE HE INTENDED TO WIN, IGNORED BY THOSE TO WHOM HE BELONGED. MAY HIS SOUL REST IN PEACE AND MAY THE ALL COMPASSIONATE GOD BLESS HIM WITH FREE BRUNCHES IN HEAVEN.