EssayScam ForumEssayScam.org
Unanswered [15]      
Forum / Writing Careers / 94

List of qualified writers who have been defrauded by essaywriters.net



WritersBeware  
Sep 29, 2009 | #1
Everyone, feel free to add your name to the list:

boom8088

boom8088 (part 2)

margie

mjr_writer

mnomn

OxbridgeResearchers

rustyironchains




FYI, apparently, EssayWriters.net attempts to blackmail writers who complain:

mnomn:
one of their terms specifies that an account will be terminated with no reimbursement whatsoever if there is any evidence that the writer has disparaged the company's name in any way. So much for freedom of speech. If you choose to criticize their business and they find out = they are not going to pay you for all the hard work you have been doing for them. What kind of agreement is this? Wouldn't they have more to gain if they took care of their own reputation by being even somewhat professional?

http://www.essayscam.org/Forum/14/essaywriters-net-fraud-1230/#msg19924

Edit

The correct "boom8088 (part 2)" URL is as follows:

http://www.essayscam.org/Forum/14/fine-imposed-just-one-order-essaywriters- net-1257/2/#msg20972

Lavinia:
EW is the most complained about company from a writer's perspective on this forum. i find it really hard to believe that everyone who has posted complaining about them plagiarized. if you choose to write for them despite all the posts, don't come whining here when they decide to start holding payments again.


Oops, I forgot about these legitimate, defrauded writers:

avoidessaywriterscamring

devangini

essayer

essaywriterswriter

fanaticalteacher

jaebaeli

musa1969

onedrflday

requiemdem

Sarah Peter

veronica

After briefly searching this forum, I came across the preceding 18, qualified writers who were abused and/or defrauded by EssayWriters.net. I'm absolutely certain that there are many, many more example victims in this forum alone. For every defrauded writer who finds this forum and then actually takes the time to recount his/her story for us, how many other victims post their stories elsewhere or quietly stop writing for EssayWriters.net and move on with their lives?

veronica:
Is someone initiating a class action lawsuit? I'm interested if that process has begun. If not, does anyone know how that works? I have the same basic story as the rest of you. I was paid once, $320. The now owe me about $800 and have my payments on hold for 3 months due to plagiarism and their inability to check the papers quickly enough. The plagiarism they found was on cited quotes in the body of the paper, as requested by the "customer". The other plagiarism issue was on a complete copy of a journal article used in the paper, which I sent to the customer at their request. They are using the plagiarism software as an excuse not to pay writers...if you take a looka t the instructions for the software (turnitin) you can see that it's not meant to be a confirmed report....the "professor" is supposed to use the software to point out red flags. The professor then reviews, sees that the work is cited and understands that it's not plagiarism. Essaywriters is not doing that recheck. Everyone should notify the software compnay of the misuse of the software....give them a bad name. Again, lawsuit and I'm in.

Sep 30, 2009 | #2
Can you kindly add me to that list? I used to work for that company but they kept fining me for mistakes that were not mine. There was this one time when they fined me because of bad feedback that the client left for the previous writer who worked on his paper. Even though the client already praised my revisions, they would not lift the penalty off. I collected what they owed me minus the fines and stopped writing for them. I now work for several websites that are relatively better but I am still looking for that site that openly admits to hiring writers from all locations. I was lucky enough to find such a site but some hot-tempered people started complaining when I posted to ask about it.


Sep 30, 2009 | #4
WRT:
More to the point, they are defrauding all their writers. Take a look at today's orders and price per page:


I agree. I haven't taken any orders from them for quite sometime now because of the ridiculous prices. I've tried to talk some sense into them about it but it's pointless. They would REALLY get so much more business if they start treating their writers better. :(

pheelyks  
Sep 30, 2009 | #5
Do they actually pay strictly by the page, whether its single- or double-spaced (as indicated on the screen shots)?

WritersBeware  
Sep 30, 2009 | #6
Does anyone else notice how EW_writer is the only person to consistently defend EssayWriters.net in the face of overwhelming evidence of fraud and illegal activities? He has claimed repeatedly that only fraudulent, unqualified, plagiarizing, and/or otherwise deserving-of-punishment writers get abused by EssayWriters.net. For example:

the only disgruntled EW writers that we ever see here are the ones who did plagiarize or write poorly or do anything else that could give EW the excuse to penalize their earnings.



EW_writer:
They would REALLY get so much more business if they start treating their writers better. :(

Shut up, kiss-ass. You have repeatedly insulted every member whose name appears in this thread. Why don't you post your proof as to exactly how each and every one of these members "DESERVED" the abuse that he or she received from your filthy employer?

Manunulat

WRT

This thread is a class action lawsuit waiting to happen.

WRT:
More to the point, they are defrauding all their writers. Take a look at today's orders and price per page:

Thank you for shedding light on the fact that EssayWriters.net pays desperate, foreign and/or ESL writers $3.24 per page (or less), and then has the audacity to fine them because their writing is "poor." No sh*t, Sherlock—who else accepts such paltry pay?

Paltry payment + baseless fines = approximately 90% profit for EssayWriters.net.

Sep 30, 2009 | #7
EW_writer:
I've tried to talk some sense into them about it but it's pointless.

It looks like they've listened to you :)
WritersBeware:
EssayWriters.net pays desperate, foreign and/or ESL writers $3.24 per page (or less),

Don't be so quick to judge! St. Nick's paid EW a visit and brought a whole sack of $4 -$5 orders along.








Sep 30, 2009 | #8
pheelyks:
Do they actually pay strictly by the page, whether its single- or double-spaced (as indicated on the screen shots)?


Single-spaced pages pay double

WritersBeware:
how each and every one of these members "DESERVED" the abuse


Give it up, egg-sucker. I never said that EVERYONE who was ever fined or fired by EW DESERVED it. "Kiss-ass"? Try quoting the entire post, moron.

EW_writer:
I agree. I haven't taken any orders from them for quite sometime now because of the ridiculous prices. I've tried to talk some sense into them about it but it's pointless. They would REALLY get so much more business if they start treating their writers better. :(


So I kissed WRT's ass because I what? Agreed with him that ew is a cruddy company? So that I can do what? Defend ew? Ha! You're hopeless.

Hey.. I checked that reading comprehension class and found that I can get you enrolled in it for only US$89.25. How about this, I'll pay for both that and your critical thinking lessons? :P

WritersBeware  
Sep 30, 2009 | #9
WRT:
Don't be so quick to judge! St. Nick's paid EW a visit and brought a whole sack of $4 -$5 orders along.

My bad.

"Deny, deny, and if that doesn't work, deny some more!"

EW_writer:
I never said that EVERYONE who was ever fined or fired by EW DESERVED it.

WritersBeware:
the only disgruntled EW writers that we ever see here are the ones who did plagiarize or write poorly or do anything else that could give EW the excuse to penalize their earnings.

Does anyone here trust anything that this flagrant liar and word-spinner types? Seriously—I think that he attended "The Clinton School of Semantics."

Sep 30, 2009 | #10
I signed up in 2006. Picked up one three-page order, assuming that the order total was their per page offering. After I discovered my mistake, decided not to write for them again. That was almost two years ago. Last week I received a flurry of emails from them so, out of curiosity, logged in. Guess what?! They had assigned me an order (never even notified me) and then proceeded to fine me about $150 for not delivering within the 48 hour deadline.

Customers - should you trust a site which assigns your orders to inactive writers?

Sep 30, 2009 | #11
WritersBeware:
"Deny, deny,


Blah blah blah...

EW_writer:
the only disgruntled EW writers that we ever see here are the ones who did plagiarize or write poorly or do anything else that could give EW the excuse to penalize their earnings.


Why don't you ask WRT or Manunulat if they believe everything that you're saying against me? :P

WritersBeware  
Sep 30, 2009 | #12
EW_writer:
Why don't you ask WRT or Manunulat if they believe everything that you're saying against me?

No problem!

Hey, WRT and Manunulat, do you believe what I type? If not, please let me know precisely what you would like me to prove further, and I will gladly oblige. Unlike EW_writer, I actually provide evidence to support my claims.


WritersBeware  
Sep 30, 2009 | #14
As time has gone by, EW_writer has begun to disingenuously insert words like "usually," "generally," and "most" in an attempt to cover his ase in future arguments with me (like this one).

Bottom line:

EW_writer has provided absolutely no proof whatsoever that even 10% (let alone "all" or "most") of the "hacks" and "crying" writers (his words, not mine) who have posted their experiences here "deserved" being fined and/or denied previously earned payments. Remember, originally, he claimed that "only" fraudsters got fined and denied earnings. Then, after people challenged him, he began to slyly incorporate (as if nobody would notice) the convenient "exit plan" words in his bullsh*t defenses of EssayWriters.net so that he could later type, "Oh, but I didn't state that every writer deserves it; only 99 out of 100 (sssshhhhhhhhhh, be vehhhhhwy, vehhhhhhwy quiet—it's witer season").


elmer

Sep 30, 2009 | #15
WritersBeware:
Hey, WRT and Manunulat, do you believe what I type?

About the scumbags? No, I don't. Not a word. EW is honest and only ever hires qualified, Native English language speakers with PhD's and MA's. Same goes for Academia-Research and all the others. What do you think?

Seriously now, what has WB been saying over the past 3 years:
1) EW underpays writers and lies to customers;
2) AR underpays writers and lies to customers;
3) Unless you can actually write in English, don't write in English;
4) Companies should not claim to be American or British unless they really are (ownership is British/American and not just fake, online registration);
5) etc etc etc

Do I believe her? Definitely! Do I want her to continue? YES.

Short answer: Yes, I believe you on the issues and think you are doing a good job exposing the scammers.

EW_writer:
Why don't you ask WRT or Manunulat if they believe everything that you're saying against me?

About you, as a person? No.

WritersBeware  
Sep 30, 2009 | #16
WRT:
EW_writer:
Why don't you ask WRT or Manunulat if they believe everything that you're saying against me?

About you, as a person? No.

OK, if I understand correctly, you do not believe everything I have claimed about EW_writer. That's fine. I actually welcome doubt, as it affords me the opportunity to present evidence. What, specifically, would you like me to prove?

Sep 30, 2009 | #17
Haha! So now that I corrected what WRT and Manunulat should be replying to, you go uinto full gear trying to divert the topic. :) The quotes that you posted don't mean a thing. The first two were made in threads where some unqualified writers were complaining against EW and were obviously made in the context of those threads. The last three clearly do not state that ALL writers who get fined by ew deserved it.

Now, let's wait for WRT and Manunulat's response, shall we? Or would you rather muddle things even further?

The question stands:

EW_writer:
Why don't you ask WRT or Manunulat if they believe everything that you're saying against me? :P


WritersBeware:
No problem!

WritersBeware  
Sep 30, 2009 | #18
Idiot.

WritersBeware:
OK, if I understand correctly, you do not believe everything I have claimed about EW_writer. That's fine. I actually welcome doubt, as it affords me the opportunity to present evidence. What, specifically, would you like me to prove?


EW_writer:
The last three clearly do not state that ALL writers who get fined by ew deserved it.

WritersBeware:
As time has gone by, EW_writer has begun to disingenuously insert words like "usually," "generally," and "most" in an attempt to cover his arse in future arguments with me (like this one).

Sep 30, 2009 | #19
WRT:
About you, as a person? No.


Thanks.

WRT:
1) EW underpays writers and lies to customers;
2) AR underpays writers and lies to customers;
3) Unless you can actually write in English, don't write in English;
4) Companies should not claim to be American or British unless they really are (ownership is British/American and not just fake, online registration);


1.) I agree.
2.) I don't know for certain 'coz I've never taken an order from them.
3.) I agree. It affects the industry negatively.
4.) I disagree, on the grounds that this entire industry is unethical and so unethically doing other things besides supplying students their homework really doesn't matter much in my book.

WritersBeware:
OK, if I understand correctly, you do not believe everything I have claimed about EW_writer. That's fine. I actually welcome doubt, as it affords me the opportunity to present evidence. What, specifically, would you like me to prove?


This I gotta see. :D

Sep 30, 2009 | #20
Well, I definitely disagree with the above quotes. They, in no way, represent the reason why EW fires or fines writers. Not even "generally" or "usually."

Sep 30, 2009 | #21
Note: Msg 26 was posted in response to msg 23.

WRT:
Well, I definitely disagree with the above quotes. They, in no way, represent the reason why EW fires or fines writers. Not even "generally" or "usually."


If you meant the quotes from msg 22, you can go right ahead and click the first two links to read the posts of some of the writers who I was referring to as "hacks". As for the last three quotes, I stand by them but have no problems with you disagreeing with them.

WritersBeware  
Sep 30, 2009 | #22
EW_writer:
4.) I disagree, on the grounds that this entire industry is unethical and so unethically doing other things besides supplying students their homework really doesn't matter much in my book.

WRT, how does one even attempt to reason with such a criminal mindset? (Never mind the fact that numerous people have already posted evidence and testified to the fact that the core, original companies in the industry are ethical and law-abiding, having already appeared in court to prove themselves as such.)


EW_writer's mottos:

"If you're going to be a criminal, be the best criminal."

"If you see a robbery in progress, always help the robber because secondary crime does pay—and it's not illegal!"

Sep 30, 2009 | #23
EW_writer:
4.) I disagree, on the grounds that this entire industry is unethical

Two wrongs do not make a right, especially not when there are a couple of little things called consumer law and consumer rights hanging over our heads.
EW_writer:
supplying students their homework

Not all the companies and the writers in this business do that. Some very very explicitly (and in big print) dissallow the use of their services in any way which would violate academic integrity principles. Others only pay lip service to this basic ethics tenant through the publication of a hardly visble, 4-5 word, disclaimer at the footer of their homepage.

WritersBeware  
Sep 30, 2009 | #24
EW_writer:
I disagree, on the grounds that this entire industry is unethical and so unethically doing other things besides supplying students their homework really doesn't matter much in my book.

"I disagree that a rape that takes place in a pr0n shop is illegal, on the grounds that the entire **** industry is unethical and so unethically doing other things besides supplying pr0n really doesn't matter much in my book."

Sep 30, 2009 | #25
WRT:
Two wrongs do not make a right, especially not when there are a couple of little things called consumer law and consumer rights hanging over our heads.


But there are laws against peddling homework too, so even in that regard, the issue is a tie. However my opinions (and everyone elses') on the matter have little value on this forum. I say we all just wait for charges to actually be filed and for foreign essay mill companies to actually be proven guilty of misrepresentation.

WRT:
Not all the companies and the writers in this business do that. Some very very explicitly (and in big print) dissallow the use of their services in any way which would violate academic integrity principles.

But have absolutely no teeth to enforce such prohibitions, right?

WritersBeware:
"I disagree that a rape that takes place in a pooon shop is illegal, on the grounds that the entire pooon industry is unethical and so unethically doing other things besides supplying pooon really doesn't matter much in my book."

Talk about false parallelisms. Did I mix illegal with unethical anywhere in my post? Nope. Go back to sucking those eggs and please continue to consider my offer on those courses that you desperately need to take.

Sep 30, 2009 | #26
EW_writer:
But have absolutely no teeth to enforce such prohibitions, right?

If we want to and can prove it, we can take the customer to civil court for the violation of the Terms of Service.
EW_writer:
But there are laws against peddling homework too

Unethical does not necessarily mean illegal. Plagiarism is, unequivocally and inarguably, illegal because it is a form of 1) fraud and 2) involves the violation of copyright laws. `Homework peddling' (although this is not what the `real' companies and writers do) is not illegal. In both the EU and Australia, however, there is an attempt to define it as a form of `corruption.' If successful, this means that those who knowingly encourage and participate in plagiarism for financial gain, could be found guilty of facilitating public corruption.
EW_writer:
I say we all just wait for charges to actually be filed and for foreign essay mill companies to actually be proven guilty of misrepresentation.

I do not believe that charges will be filed any time soon. I, for one, will not hold my breath. Furthermore, even if they are found guilty in a court of law, many of these companies are only paper-registrants in the UK and US; they are not physically located in either of these countries and their owners are not US or UK nationals. So, even if they are found guilty and a ruling is entered against them, how will it be enforced?

WritersBeware  
Sep 30, 2009 | #27
EW_writer:
I say we all just wait for charges to actually be filed and for foreign essay mill companies to actually be proven guilty of misrepresentation.

Hey, genius—it already happened. See the ***** vs. SNR case. All 555 of *****'s sites went bye-bye.


EW_writer:
But have absolutely no teeth to enforce such prohibitions, right?

Do auto makers have "teeth" to prevent consumer abuse of their products? Do gun makers have "teeth"? Do beer makers have "teeth"? Do prescription drug makers have "teeth"? Shut up already with your pathetic, miserably failed excuses to commit fraud.


WRT:
So, even if they are found guilty and a ruling is entered against them, how will it be enforced?

Those with forethought always finish ahead.

The people who sue EssayWriters.net need not have any expectation of monetary recovery or criminal prosecution. That's the beauty and simplicity of the complaint. The only thing that matters is the almighty search engine (again, see ***** vs. SNR). It doesn't matter if EW_writer's crooked employer is in Ukraine or on Krypton. As long as a US Federal Court (in any district) orders Google, Yahoo, and MSN to ban his filthy employer's sites (as happened in the ***** vs. SNR case), the sites are as good as dead, and EW_writer can kiss his dirty income good-bye. The crooks can't sell what consumers can't find.

Sep 30, 2009 | #28
WRT:
If we want to and can prove it, we can take the customer to civil court for the violation of the Terms of Service.


That may be so but your first "if" is the big IF. >.<

WRT:
Unethical does not necessarily mean illegal.


Never said it was.

WRT:
`Homework peddling' (although this is not what the `real' companies and writers do) is not illegal.


You should watch the CNN report. Homework peddling is illegal across many American states.

WritersBeware:
the sites are as good as dead, and EW_writer can kiss his dirty income good-bye.


Dirty income? You mean what I earn from providing clients with excellent yet reasonably priced work? Ok... I'm sure my clients would be happy to see me gone. >.<

WritersBeware  
Sep 30, 2009 | #29
EW_writer:
You should watch the CNN report. Homework peddling is illegal across many American states.

WRT, EW_writer is lying, and he knows it. The CNN reporter is either mistaken or misread the laws (if she read them at all). I already quoted the exact laws in another thread and proved—beyond a shadow of a doubt—that example research sites are, in and of themselves, absolutely not illegal. What is specifically illegal is for any person, Web site, or company to sell a ready-to-submit paper to a person who gives the seller reasonable cause to believe that the he or she plans to use the paper to commit plagiarism and/or academic fraud.

Is selling a pickup truck illegal? No.

Would a car salesman be held criminally responsible if he sold a pickup truck, on-the-spot, to a customer who walks onto the lot and says, "Hey, Carl, sell me this pickup truck so that I can commit vehicular homicide against my wife"? Yes.


WritersBeware:
As long as a US Federal Court (in any district) orders Google, Yahoo, and MSN to ban his filthy employer's sites (as happened in the ***** vs. SNR case), the sites are as good as dead, and EW_writer can kiss his dirty income good-bye. The crooks can't sell what consumers can't find.

LOL, the clock is ticking. By the way, the ***** case will serve as uncannily relevant precedent for the plaintiffs. Oh, and by the way, when a class action lawsuit gets filed against EssayWriters.net, any person can join in the litigation against EssayWriters.net.

Sep 30, 2009 | #30
WritersBeware:
The CNN reporter is either mistaken or misread the laws


Have them announce an erratum then. :p Oh, and blah blah on your false parallelisms that I'm not even going to bother to quote anymore. You're a joke.

WritersBeware:
Hey, genius—it already happened. See the ***** vs. SNR case.

Riiiiight... What was ***** found guilty of again? :P C'mon.. paste the exact ruling here so we can all see why you're wrong.

WritersBeware  
Sep 30, 2009 | #31
EW_writer:
Riiiiight... What was ***** found guilty of again? :P C'mon.. paste the exact ruling here so we can all see why you're wrong.

No problem, moron. It's not like a was prepared or anything. ;)

The following quotes are from the Judge's own, formal "Opinion" on her ruling, in which she lists the punishments that she levied against ***** and the reasoning behind those punishments:

---------------------------------------
*****'s conduct demonstrates an indifference to U.S. copyright law. Further, the evidence demonstrates that *****'s "business model" is constructed entirely on willfully infringing copyrights held by others. To impose the maximum statutory damage in this matter is necessary and appropriate to uphold the statutory policy of discouraging infringement.

An award of $500 in compensatory damages plus $350,000 in punitive damages, for *****'s violations of the Lanham Act, New Jersey common law of unfair competition and tortious interference with Defendants' prospective economic advantage;

A permanent injunction enjoining ***** from future false advertising, misrepresentation, fabricated reviews, false and misleading information, and other acts of unfair competition with Counterclaimants, pursuant to the Lanham Act and common law; and

A permanent injunction enjoining ***** from making false and misleading representations and warranties regarding the quality and originality of *****'s products and services in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

Specifically, the acts committed and continuing to be perpetuated are causing irreparable injury that cannot be fully compensated or measured in monetary terms. Thus, there can be no reasonable doubt that Plaintiff will continue to infringe copyrights, compete unfairly, and violate the Lanham Act and the Consumer Fraud Act, unless enjoined. . . . Finally, the public interest will be served by ceasing further infringement and providing misleading statements by Plaintiff.

See also N.J. Citizen Action v. Schering-Plough Corp., 367 N.J. Super. 8, 12-13 (App. Div.), cert. denied, 178 N.J. 249 (2003). "[To] constitute consumer fraud . . . the business practice in question must be 'misleading' and stand outside the norm of reasonable business practice in that it will victimize the average consumer. . . . " Id. at 115. As described in the ----- Declaration, *****'s misrepresentations and misleading warranties regarding the quality and originality of its products and services will unquestionably victimize the average consumer, and constitute an unconscionable commercial practice of deception, fraud, and unlawful conduct in connection with the sale of goods and the performance of services sought by consumers.

Here, *****'s wanton and willful disregard for persons who foreseeably might be harmed by its acts and omissions are outlined throughout the ----- Declaration. Clearly, as the evidence shows, ***** acts with reckless disregard of the likelihood that serious harm will arise from its conduct, its conduct continues unabated, and it takes repeated devious measures to conceal that *****'s false and misleading representations and deceptive practices have led to SNR's loss of customers and goodwill, and have caused SNR economic harm and the loss of prospective economic advantage in an amount not less than $500. ----- Decl. at ¶ at 54; see Skolnik Decl. at ¶¶ 46-47, 49. SNR has also sustained an ascertainable loss under the Consumer Fraud Act of $843.25, as noted earlier. To penalize and discourage *****'s egregious conduct, the Court shall award punitive damages in the amount of $350,000 for *****'s violations of the Lanham Act, New Jersey common law of unfair competition and tortious interference with Defendants' prospective economic advantage, and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. An appropriate Order shall follow.

---------------------------------------


Gee, do any of those violations ring familiar? LMAO!

WritersBeware:

EW_writer:
I disagree, on the grounds that this entire industry is unethical and so unethically doing other things besides supplying students their homework really doesn't matter much in my book.

"I disagree that a rape that takes place in a pooon shop is illegal, on the grounds that the entire pooon industry is unethical and so unethically doing other things besides supplying pooon really doesn't matter much in my book."


EW_writer:
Talk about false parallelisms. Did I mix illegal with unethical anywhere in my post? Nope. Go back to sucking those eggs and please continue to consider my offer on those courses that you desperately need to take.

Your employer is "raping" both consumers and freelance writers. Get it, Slingblade?


slingblade

(EW_writer waiting for the "big, rollie machine" after picking up "reference materials" from the kids' section of the library.)

Oct 1, 2009 | #32
So where in the entire post that you placed there, is it ever mentioned specifically that ***** was found guilty of posing as an American company when it is not? NOWHERE. :) The main thrust of the ruling was

WritersBeware:
*****'s conduct demonstrates an indifference to U.S. copyright law. Further, the evidence demonstrates that *****'s "business model" is constructed entirely on willfully infringing copyrights held by others.


***** may have been found guilty of many, many things by an American court, but it was not found guilty of masquerading as an American company. Anyone here wanna answer why that is? :)

WritersBeware  
Oct 1, 2009 | #33
Are you an idiot in real life, or do you just play one on the Internet?

First of all, lying about location is merely one of at least a dozen different, illegal acts perpetrated by EssayWriters.net and Universal Research. Secondly, the following snippets more than sufficiently cover your employer's violation of consumers' rights by way of lying about location and qualifications:


WritersBeware:
Consumer Fraud Act

WritersBeware:
common law

WritersBeware:
compete unfairly

WritersBeware:
fabricated reviews

WritersBeware:
false advertising

WritersBeware:
false and misleading information

WritersBeware:
fraud

WritersBeware:
Lanham Act

WritersBeware:
misleading statements

WritersBeware:
misleading warranties

WritersBeware:
misrepresentations

WritersBeware:
misrepresentation

WritersBeware:
New Jersey common law of unfair competition

WritersBeware:
public interest

WritersBeware:
quality and originality

WritersBeware:
repeated devious measures to conceal

WritersBeware:
tortious interference with Defendants' prospective economic advantage

WritersBeware:
unconscionable commercial practice of deception

WritersBeware:
unlawful conduct

WritersBeware:
victimize the average consumer

WritersBeware:
willful disregard

Oct 1, 2009 | #34
So many quotes, not one of them about ***** masquerading as an American company. Don't you ever get tired of losing? :P I'm actually willing to bet that if we view the entire proceedings of case, little to no mention of the "American" issue would be found. That's your a** handed to you right there.

EW_writer:
First of all, lying about location is merely one of at least a dozen different, illegal acts perpetrated by EssayWriters.net and Universal Research.


Haha... trying to wiggle out of another whammy? Let's not forget the quote that led to this entire discussion:

WRT:
4) Companies should not claim to be American or British unless they really are (ownership is British/American and not just fake, online registration);


The discussion was simple: has there ever been an essay mill that was brought to court and successfully convicted for its fudging of its location. The answer is NO.

You lose.

WritersBeware  
Oct 1, 2009 | #35
EW_writer:
Don't you ever get tired of losing?

It's fairly difficult for me to answer that question accurately, considering that I've never lost anything to you, except my temper.


EW_writer:
I'm actually willing to bet that if we view the entire proceedings of case, little to no mention of the "American" issue would be found.

Do you remember what I typed earlier about "those with forethought always finishing ahead"? I took a break to grab some dinner and then watch an episode of Ultimate Fighter with my husband, knowing perfectly well that you would bury yourself with a boatload of ignorant claims while I was gone. When are you going to learn that I NEVER show all of my cards at once, crook? It's far too easy to manipulate small, criminal minds (another great TV show, by the way) like yours.


EW_writer:
The discussion was simple: has there ever been an essay mill that was brought to court and successfully convicted for its fudging of its location. The answer is NO.

LOL, this is just too funny. I almost feel sorry for the idiot.


Now, let us proceed to yet another stomping of EW_writer's pebbles.

The following quotes exist in the - docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:_sNwZpsgP-sJ:docs.justia.com/ca ses/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/3:2007cv05491/208337 /18/0.pdf - final counterclaim by SNR. The crucial fact to remember is that the Judge ruled 100% in favor of SNR on all counts, both as Defendant and Counterclaimant. This means that the Judge read the claims, studied the Exhibits, and found SNR's information to be 100% truthful and accurate (and so did *****'s own attorneys, by the way, which is why they immediately bailed, likely in fear of possible sanctions for wrongful and/or malicious prosecution).


--------------------------------------

Although *****'s Complaint (at paragraph 3) asserts that it is "a Pakistani corporation with a place of business in Karachi, Pakistan," statements on the *****.com website from at least April 21, 2004 to the present claim that "***** is based in the US," and/or that its "front office operations [are] in the US," and that ***** maintains only a "production facility" in Pakistan.


From "COUNTERCLAIMS" on Page 14

***** engages in a number of other deceptive and fraudulent practices, including but not limited to: (1) misrepresenting the credentials and experience of their writers, and thereby selling poorly-written papers prepared by persons who speak and write English only as a second language; (2) posting images of fake, non-existent awards in order to mislead consumers; (3) falsely claiming to have received accolades directly from Yahoo and other major Internet authorities; (4) using Yahoo's logo, without permission, for financial gain, by superficially and deceptively connecting each of *****'s term paper sites to Yahoo - a "visually familiar," trusted entity; (5) posting fake "customer testimonials," with corresponding photos of each "happy" customer.

*****'s originalthesiswriting.com - that blatantly and purposely lie about their credentials, experience, awards, and/or location in order to deceive American consumers into believing that they are purchasing the time, research, and writing of, e.g., a "retired professor with a PhD and years of teaching experience"

*****'s termpaperrelief.com and PapersHeaven.com - that sell products replete with the stilted language and grammatical errors common to the work of writers for whom English is a second language

Virtually all of *****'s hundreds of academic paper-writing sites have also wrongfully misappropriated the actual addresses of completely unrelated, legitimate companies and individuals - including the home address of an Illinois government official - as business addresses for its term paper sites; ***** has used those entirely false addresses when registering the Internet domain names of its term paper sites that engage in copyright infringement. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(3)(A), these misrepresentations by ***** - knowingly providing or knowingly causing to be provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering, maintaining, or renewing a domain name that ***** uses in connection with copyright infringements [and other violations] - create a rebuttable presumption that *****'s infringements [and other violations] have been committed willfully for purposes of determining relief.

***** owns and/or controls a website, IvyResearchPapers.com, which advertises that its writers are "a group of retired professors holding nothing less than PhDs in [their] respective fields," who are former "senior faculty members and research associates at various IVY LEAGUE UNIVERSITIES."


COUNT III (Violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)

***** falsely states that its services are performed by highly qualified, former faculty of American universities; and its term paper sites state or imply that their writing services are performed in the United States.

***** also fills orders by providing customers with work product prepared by authors who are not former faculty of American universities, but who are instead unqualified employees who speak and write English as a second language.

[ENJOINED:] *****, *****'s agents, and all those acting in concert with ***** and/or *****'s agents, generally - on *****'s academic term paper-writing sites, on any other type of Internet site to which ***** or any of *****'s agents submit any textual/visual content relating to academic paper sites, in *****'s advertisements in various Internet venues, or elsewhere - from falsely advertising and misrepresenting the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographical origin of its good and services in violation of the Lanham Act



COUNT IV (Common Law Unfair Competition)

***** operates a number of websites that make false and misleading representations that they provide "custom written, original and non-plagiarized research paper-writing services" performed by highly qualified former faculty members of American universities.

***** also fills orders by providing customers with work product prepared by personnel who are not former faculty members of American universities, but who are instead unqualified employees who speak and write English as a second language.

Acts of unfair competition engaged in on *****'s hundreds of academic paper-writing/researching websites include - but are not limited to - (i) advertising false experience or credentials (e.g., "American and British writers"; "writers who have graduated or earned degrees from American and British universities"; "writing for 25 years"); (ii) advertising fake awards and customer testimonials; (iii) advertising a "money-back guarantee"; (iv) advertising "non-plagiarized" documents; (v) advertising original document writing in "2-24 hours"; and (vi) claiming false geographical locations - either on the pages of *****'s actual websites or in the websites' Whois records - in the United States, Britain, or anywhere outside of *****'s true locations in Pakistan/United Arab Emirates/Dubai.



COUNT VI (Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, 56:8-1, et seq.)

***** owns, controls or otherwise enables the website IvyResearchPapers.com, which advertises its writers to be "a group of retired professors holding nothing less than PhDs in [their] respective fields," who are former "senior faculty members and research associates at various IVY LEAGUE UNIVERSITIES."

***** also owns, controls or otherwise enables the website EssayRelief.com, which advertises "Writers holding PhDs and master's degrees, along with writing experience of no less than twenty-five years, to work on your essays."

In stark contrast to the descriptions, solicitations and representations on *****'s term paper sites, the services actually provided by those sites are unlawful, and reflect the shoddy and incompetent work of "writers" for whom English is a second language.

*****'s false and misleading warranties regarding the quality and originality of its products and services constitute an unconscionable commercial practice, a deception, a fraud, a misrepresentation, and unlawful conduct in connection with the sale of goods and the performance of services contracted for, in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act.


--------------------------------------


Hey, everyone-here comes the part where the proven liar, EW_writer, claims "victory." It's sort of like a buck claiming victory as it rides-tied down and half dead-on the top of a hunter's truck.

Oct 1, 2009 | #36
Oooh, nice. Here's WB trying to pass off documents submitted by SNR against ***** as the entire court proceedings of the case. ^_^ No cigar, loser.. not even a 5 cent cigarette. ;p

WritersBeware:
The crucial fact to remember is that the Judge ruled 100% in favor of SNR on all counts, both as Defendant and Counterclaimant. This means that the Judge read the claims, studied the Exhibits, and found SNR's information to be 100% truthful and accurate


The judge would not have mentioned anything in his or her ruling that was trivial to the case. If the judge found that there was anything illegal about ***** masquerading as a U.S. company on its website, he or she would have written so in the final ruling. Is there any mention of even the word "American" is this court document? :p

So once again:

Has there ever been an essay mill that was brought to court and successfully convicted for its fudging of its location? The answer is NO.

Oct 1, 2009 | #37
WritersBeware:
What is specifically illegal is for any person, Web site, or company to sell a ready-to-submit paper to a person who gives the seller reasonable cause to believe that the he or she plans to use the paper to commit plagiarism and/or academic fraud.

That's it!
Who else is Mizyuk defrauding?




Oct 1, 2009 | #38
WritersBeware:
What is specifically illegal is for any person, Web site, or company to sell a ready-to-submit paper to a person who gives the seller reasonable cause to believe that the he or she plans to use the paper to commit plagiarism and/or academic fraud.


A little bird told me that the day when companies (American or otherwise) would have to defend themselves in court on whether or not clients that come to them do present "reasonable cause" is fast approaching. Am I glad I'm on the safe side of that legal fence. :) Customers who order from foreign sites should be just as glad. ^__^

Oct 1, 2009 | #39
EW_writer:
A little bird told me that the day when companies (American or otherwise) would have to defend themselves in court on whether or not clients that come to them do present "reasonable cause" is fast approaching.

You mean as in have to defend the nature of the service they provide? Not at all true. The legally registered, tax-paying companies have declared the nature of the service they provide (their (SIC(03) code). They cannot be held legally accountable for the provision of a legally recognised and approved, service as long as they do so within the bounds of the law. For example,
1) we can provide model researches and strongly caution customers against submitting our work as their own. Our cautions should be explicit, very explicit. They need to be emphasised and entered into our Terms of Service. They should not take the form of barely discernible 3-4 word disclaimers.
2) we may not sell research papers for the purpose of buyers' submitting them as their own work. Doing so is, in legal terms, defined as the participation and facilitation of fraud.


Some companies actively encourage clients to submit the work as their own, while others do not.

Can we be taken to court and forced to testify against our clients? Most of us have legally enforceable confidentiality agreements in place. So, no, we cannot be forced to ` give up' our client lists and we cannot be forced to testify against them UNLESS we have knowledge of their involvement in a crime. Unless one of our clients is a terrorist, a homicidal manic, a serial rapist, etc etc., and we know about it, then we won't and cannot be forced to testify against them in a court of law.

EW.net: Encouragement and Knowledge
EW.net: Encouragement and Knowledge

Oct 1, 2009 | #40
WRT:
The legally registered, tax-paying companies have declared the nature of the service they provide (their (SIC(03) code). They cannot be held legally accountable for the provision of a legally recognised and approved, service as long as they do so within the bounds of the law. For example,


Unless it can be proven that what they say they're doing is contrary to what they actually do. Anyway, the information I have on the matter are nothing more than rumors. I am looking forward to it though.

WRT:
So, no, we cannot be forced to ` give up' our client lists and we cannot be forced to testify against them UNLESS we have knowledge of their involvement in a crime.


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

Evidence to the contrary courtesy of WB. ^_^ I don't think we have to guess what happened to the student who was caught submitting a purchased paper for credit.



Forum / Writing Careers /

32 users online in the last hour