Native Writers vs ESL Writers

Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678

OxbridgeResearchers:

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

Great summary, OR!

By the way, *****'s people filed the sour grapes, face-saving lawsuit in Pakistan after it became painfully clear that they would inevitably lose the suit that they filed in New Jersey (indeed, *****'s own attorneys—including Andrew P. Napolitano from Fox News—in New York/Jersey unilaterally petitioned the judge to drop the suit). SNR's attorneys ignored that completely toothless suit in Pakistan because 1) the Pakistani court has absolutely no jurisdiction; 2) the precedent had already been set by SNR's dominant victory in US Federal Court, which binds all entities in the US (which is all that matters).

Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678

EW_writer:

There are multiple versions of that same court case written all over the internet.

Really? Let's see your "multiple versions," liar!

There is ONE official judgement ("Order") from the US Federal District Court of New Jersey, signed by United States District Judge Freda L. Wolfson:

Order

Judge's Official Opinion

Now, stop your blatant lies.

Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678

Boy, you are one dumb SOB. Those aren't two "versions" of the New Jersey lawsuit, idiot. Those are two separate lawsuits, of which the Pakistani iteration is utterly meaningless in every conceivable way (if you don't believe me, ask OR). As I clearly communicated (and OR confirmed), ***** filed the original lawsuit in New Jersey, and when it realized that it was getting pummeled and would certainly suffer a humiliating defeat (including its own attorneys giving it the ax), it filed a new, absolutely impotent lawsuit in Pakistan in order to save face on its home turf.

Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678

EW_writer:

WritersBeware:
Those aren't two "versions" of the New Jersey lawsuit

Never said they were, idiot.

EW_writer:

I've said it once and I'll say it again:

There are multiple versions of that same court case written all over the internet.

I repeat: you are a liar and one dumb SOB.

Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239

EW_writer:

There are multiple versions of that same court case written all over the internet.

Then the above post was a mistake. I should have said multiple versions of the same issue. My mistake, sure but it doesn't change a thing. There are still:

OxbridgeResearchers:

two versions and two rulings. One was a Pakistani case and the other the American one.

and I still say that:

Whether or not one person or another claims which of the versions is true is irrelevant in as far as the purpose of this forum for clients who visit here is concerned. In that regard, I think that I'm fairly confident that what few clients visit here are aware of the use of pretend-lawyer skills to dissuade them from ordering from foreign companies and are unaffected by it. That's good enough for me. :)

Who's LMAO-ing now? :p

Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239

WritersBeware:

You got embarrassed and were left with no choice but to admit it.

Err.. no, I made a mistake and I owned up to it. I know that's a very foreign concept to you but hey, at least you have those eggs to suck on, right? It's actually funny how you try to blow up my mistake and make it seem like it proves any of my contentions false. ^_^

WritersBeware:

Plus, all you do is copy-and-paste the same, already-defeated arguments over and over,

Dude, I'm not doing it for you. I figured that the only way to get my message across is to keep repeating my statement so that every new poster can easily read it. It also allows me to kick your sorry a** over and over again without exerting significant effort. So once again:

Whether or not one person or another claims which of the versions is true is irrelevant in as far as the purpose of this forum for clients who visit here is concerned. In that regard, I think that I'm fairly confident that what few clients visit here are aware of the use of pretend-lawyer skills to dissuade them from ordering from foreign companies and are unaffected by it. That's good enough for me. :)

Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239

WritersBeware:

You lose.

Wrong, you lose.

Whether or not one person or another claims which of the versions is true is irrelevant in as far as the purpose of this forum for clients who visit here is concerned. In that regard, I think that I'm fairly confident that what few clients visit here are aware of the use of pretend-lawyer skills to dissuade them from ordering from foreign companies and are unaffected by it. That's good enough for me. :)

See how that's working for me? I don't even need to waste my time reading your responses anymore. :) Clients who come here will read the statement above and know for a fact that all the legal b*llshit that you use to generate propaganda against foreign sites mean nothing. What matters to them are quality and price and they should let no one bully them into thinking otherwise.

Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678

EW_writer:

What matters to them are quality and price and they should let no one bully them into thinking otherwise.

1. The general quality that your employer provides to customers is GARBAGE.

2. Your fraudulent, Ukrainian employer's prices are now HIGHER than the prices of many—if not most—of the American companies.

I just clubbed you like a baby fur seal with your own argument. EW_writer "wins" again! Idiot. LMAO!

Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678

Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239

Above we see WB's version of a rebuttal. Short, sweet, and completely moronic. :D

Previous thread	Next thread
Is it off-season?	a fine of $579 imposed on me for just one order by essaywriters.net

WritersBeware		Edited by: WritersBeware Sep 19, 09, 04:38PM \| #41
Joined: Apr 19, 07 Threads: 152 Posts: 8,678	OxbridgeResearchers: I had earlier clashed with WB on the question of the *** ruling. I found two versions and two rulings. One was a Pakistani case and the other the American one. When I dug deeper into Westlaw's case study archives I found that it was the US ruling which dominated and was, eventually, implemented. Apparently, * had gone after Student Network Resources, accusing them of defamation. SNR countersued and provided evidence which established that *'s complaints were groundless and, importantly, that it had been purchasing papers off the SNR database and then republishing them on its own for monetary gain, in direct violation of the terms and conditions of sale. The * lawyer then came across info which led him to withdraw from the case, stating that had he been aware of the nature of *'s operations from the outset, or in possession of all facts relevant to the case, he would never have attached his name to the lawsuit. Not only did the court find in SNR's favour but awarded all of *'s websites to SNR (as well as monetary compensation in excess of 600k). The ruling was enforced and the ownership of *'s 555 sites was transferred to SNR and all major search engines (including Google) were notified - all complied. Great summary, OR! By the way, **'s people filed the sour grapes, face-saving lawsuit in Pakistan after* it became painfully clear that they would inevitably lose the suit that they filed in New Jersey (indeed, *****'s own attorneys—including Andrew P. Napolitano from Fox News—in New York/Jersey unilaterally petitioned the judge to drop the suit). SNR's attorneys ignored that completely toothless suit in Pakistan because 1) the Pakistani court has absolutely no jurisdiction; 2) the precedent had already been set by SNR's dominant victory in US Federal Court, which binds all entities in the US (which is all that matters).

EW_writer		Sep 19, 09, 07:08PM \| #42
Joined: Jul 2, 07 Threads: 27 Posts: 2,239	I've said it once and I'll say it again: There are multiple versions of that same court case written all over the internet. Whether or not one person or another claims which of the versions is true is irrelevant in as far as the purpose of this forum for clients who visit here is concerned. In that regard, I think that I'm fairly confident that what few clients visit here are aware of the use of pretend-lawyer skills to dissuade them from ordering from foreign companies and are unaffected by it. That's good enough for me. :)

WritersBeware		Edited by: WritersBeware Sep 19, 09, 07:13PM \| #43
Joined: Apr 19, 07 Threads: 152 Posts: 8,678	EW_writer: There are multiple versions of that same court case written all over the internet. Really? Let's see your "multiple versions," liar! There is ONE official judgement ("Order") from the US Federal District Court of New Jersey, signed by United States District Judge Freda L. Wolfson: Order Judge's Official Opinion Now, stop your blatant lies.

EW_writer		Edited by: EW_writer Sep 19, 09, 07:24PM \| #44
Joined: Jul 2, 07 Threads: 27 Posts: 2,239	WritersBeware: Really? Let's see your "multiple versions," liar! OxbridgeResearchers: I found two versions and two rulings. One was a Pakistani case and the other the American one. There you go, meathead (not you, OR). For the umpteenth time: whether or not one person or another claims which of the versions is true is irrelevant in as far as the purpose of this forum for clients who visit here is concerned. In that regard, I think that I'm fairly confident that what few clients visit here are aware of the use of pretend-lawyer skills to dissuade them from ordering from foreign companies and are unaffected by it. That's good enough for me. :)

WritersBeware		Edited by: WritersBeware Sep 19, 09, 07:34PM \| #45
Joined: Apr 19, 07 Threads: 152 Posts: 8,678	Boy, you are one dumb SOB. Those aren't two "versions" of the New Jersey lawsuit, idiot. Those are two separate lawsuits, of which the Pakistani iteration is utterly meaningless in every conceivable way (if you don't believe me, ask OR). As I clearly communicated (and OR confirmed), *** filed the original lawsuit in New Jersey, and when it realized that it was getting pummeled and would certainly suffer a humiliating defeat (including its own attorneys giving it the ax), it filed a new**, absolutely impotent lawsuit in Pakistan in order to save face on its home turf.

EW_writer		Sep 19, 09, 07:35PM \| #46
Joined: Jul 2, 07 Threads: 27 Posts: 2,239	WritersBeware: Those aren't two "versions" of the New Jersey lawsuit Never said they were, idiot. And once again: Whether or not one person or another claims which of the versions is true is irrelevant in as far as the purpose of this forum for clients who visit here is concerned. In that regard, I think that I'm fairly confident that what few clients visit here are aware of the use of pretend-lawyer skills to dissuade them from ordering from foreign companies and are unaffected by it. That's good enough for me. :)

WritersBeware		Edited by: WritersBeware Sep 19, 09, 07:38PM \| #47
Joined: Apr 19, 07 Threads: 152 Posts: 8,678	EW_writer: WritersBeware: Those aren't two "versions" of the New Jersey lawsuit Never said they were, idiot. EW_writer: I've said it once and I'll say it again: There are multiple versions of that same court case written all over the internet. I repeat: you are a liar and one dumb SOB.

WritersBeware		Edited by: WritersBeware Sep 19, 09, 08:26PM \| #48
Joined: Apr 19, 07 Threads: 152 Posts: 8,678	WritersBeware: EW_writer: WritersBeware: Those aren't two "versions" of the New Jersey lawsuit Never said they were, idiot. EW_writer: I've said it once and I'll say it again: There are multiple versions of that same court case written all over the internet. I repeat: you are a liar and one dumb SOB. I'm sorry, but I have to LMAO!

EW_writer		Edited by: EW_writer Sep 19, 09, 11:05PM \| #49
Joined: Jul 2, 07 Threads: 27 Posts: 2,239	EW_writer: There are multiple versions of that same court case written all over the internet. Then the above post was a mistake. I should have said multiple versions of the same issue. My mistake, sure but it doesn't change a thing. There are still: OxbridgeResearchers: two versions and two rulings. One was a Pakistani case and the other the American one. and I still say that: Whether or not one person or another claims which of the versions is true is irrelevant in as far as the purpose of this forum for clients who visit here is concerned. In that regard, I think that I'm fairly confident that what few clients visit here are aware of the use of pretend-lawyer skills to dissuade them from ordering from foreign companies and are unaffected by it. That's good enough for me. :) Who's LMAO-ing now? :p

WritersBeware		Edited by: WritersBeware Sep 19, 09, 11:48PM \| #50
Joined: Apr 19, 07 Threads: 152 Posts: 8,678	EW_writer: Who's LMAO-ing now? :p Um, yeah—still me. *You got embarrassed* and were left with no choice but to admit it.** LMAO! Plus, all you do is copy-and-paste the same, already-defeated arguments over and over, sort of like a mindless robot that can't read the writing on the wall. EW_writer: Whether or not one person or another claims which of the versions is true is irrelevant in as far as the purpose of this forum for clients who visit here is concerned. In that regard, I think that I'm fairly confident that what few clients visit here are aware of the use of pretend-lawyer skills to dissuade them from ordering from foreign companies and are unaffected by it. That's good enough for me. :) Translation = "I got owned, so I'll just use one of my typical excuses to slink away." Way to go, EW_robot!

EW_writer		Sep 20, 09, 12:42AM \| #51
Joined: Jul 2, 07 Threads: 27 Posts: 2,239	WritersBeware: You got embarrassed and were left with no choice but to admit it. Err.. no, I made a mistake and I owned up to it. I know that's a very foreign concept to you but hey, at least you have those eggs to suck on, right? It's actually funny how you try to blow up my mistake and make it seem like it proves any of my contentions false. ^_^ WritersBeware: Plus, all you do is copy-and-paste the same, already-defeated arguments over and over, Dude, I'm not doing it for you. I figured that the only way to get my message across is to keep repeating my statement so that every new poster can easily read it. It also allows me to kick your sorry a** over and over again without exerting significant effort. So once again: Whether or not one person or another claims which of the versions is true is irrelevant in as far as the purpose of this forum for clients who visit here is concerned. In that regard, I think that I'm fairly confident that what few clients visit here are aware of the use of pretend-lawyer skills to dissuade them from ordering from foreign companies and are unaffected by it. That's good enough for me. :)

WritersBeware		Edited by: WritersBeware Sep 20, 09, 01:59AM \| #52
Joined: Apr 19, 07 Threads: 152 Posts: 8,678	EW_writer: Whether or not one person or another claims which of the versions is true 1. There are no "versions." Get that through your thick, criminal skull. There is ONE ruling, and one ruling only, which was issued by the United States Federal District Court of New Jersey and promptly executed in full. 2. There is no "claim" or contention as to the truthfulness or validity of the Federal ruling. Honorable Freda L. Wolfson decisively ruled in favor of SNR in every possible way, drafted an official Opinion (in which Wolfson communicated her personal disgust with ***'s business tactics, and to which I linked earlier), and issued a Court Order (to which I linked earlier). The Federal Court Order resulted in A) SNR taking ownership of all 555 of *'s essay site domains; B) Google, Yahoo, MSN, and all other search engines banning all of *'s domains; C) *—and any of its agents—being enjoined from ever again owning or operating such essay sites; D) * owing SNR nearly $700,000 in cash, which SNR can seize if *** ever steps foot in the US again. 3. The meaningless, impotent, after-the-fact, face-saving lawsuit in Pakistan resulted in A) squat; B) diddly-squat; C) doodly-squat; D) jack squat. EW_writer: is irrelevant in as far as the purpose of this forum for clients who visit here is concerned Irrelevant, hah? I proved, once again, that you are a worthless liar. You made all sorts of bullsht legal claims, every one of which I crushed (with repeated confirmations from OR, much to your dismay). Therefore, you have once again helped to further solidify my reputation with visitors ("clients," as you crookedly see them) as one of the most trustworthy members in this forum, and one who never posts invalid evidence. That's why people tend to trust me at face value, even though I always insist that they personally verify my evidence. I sincerely thank you. EW_writer: In that regard, I think that I'm fairly confident You think* that you're fairly confident? Wow, you're just overflowing with confidence. LMAO! You should start all of your claims that way. It works well for you. EW_writer: what few clients visit here are aware of the use of pretend-lawyer skills LMAO! First of all, I have never claimed to be a lawyer. Secondly, I have received DOZENS of "thank you" messages, both via private message and in posts. Plus, I have received much more significant appreciation outside of this forum. (If you think that the CNN investigation marks the end of your fraudulent employer's troubles, you're sorely mistaken. From what I hear, it's just the beginning, actually.) Furthermore, every legal statement that I have made is based on verifiable laws, public records, and court orders. So, unless you're man enough to prove false any of my legal statements (we both know that you're not, and you can't), you'll continue to show everyone just how completely unscrupulous and untrustworthy you are (and always have been). EW_writer: to dissuade them from ordering from foreign companies and are unaffected by it. Lie. Never once have I suggested that anyone use a particular site. I call a spade a spade. If a site is fraudulent, I do my best to warn the public. If a site is legitimate and law-abiding, I simply "let it be" (as this is "EssayScam.org," not "EssayLegit.org") and never bring up its name unless I see baseless attacks against it by liars and morally bankrupt competitors like you. I have come to the defense of numerous companies, even UK Essays. The fact of the matter is that there are literally THOUSANDS of fraudulent sites, operated by dozens of fraudulent companies. (It's not my fault that virtually all of the fraudulent companies are foreign. Maybe you should just get your house in order, eh?) Conversely, there are only a handful of legitimate companies, and those legit companies tend to have only a few sites each. There's much more bad than good in the industry, thanks to your ilk. So, in short, you're just mad because I type the truth and reveal your employer's scams for the benefit of the public. Deal with it, and shut up. You lose. The end.

EW_writer		Sep 20, 09, 03:21AM \| #53
Joined: Jul 2, 07 Threads: 27 Posts: 2,239	WritersBeware: You lose. Wrong, you lose. Whether or not one person or another claims which of the versions is true is irrelevant in as far as the purpose of this forum for clients who visit here is concerned. In that regard, I think that I'm fairly confident that what few clients visit here are aware of the use of pretend-lawyer skills to dissuade them from ordering from foreign companies and are unaffected by it. That's good enough for me. :) See how that's working for me? I don't even need to waste my time reading your responses anymore. :) Clients who come here will read the statement above and know for a fact that all the legal b*llshit that you use to generate propaganda against foreign sites mean nothing. What matters to them are quality and price and they should let no one bully them into thinking otherwise.

WritersBeware		Edited by: WritersBeware Sep 20, 09, 04:05AM \| #54
Joined: Apr 19, 07 Threads: 152 Posts: 8,678	Crawl back under your rock, crook. I completely outclassed you in every possible aspect of this argument. You lost, as usual. You can claim a delusional "victory" all day long, but if you'd like others' opinions on who decisively won this massacre through the provision of evidence and facts, ask pheelyks, FreelanceWriter, OR, exwriter, boom, etc.

WritersBeware		Edited by: WritersBeware Sep 20, 09, 04:11AM \| #55
Joined: Apr 19, 07 Threads: 152 Posts: 8,678	EW_writer: What matters to them are quality and price and they should let no one bully them into thinking otherwise. 1. The general quality that your employer provides to customers is GARBAGE. 2. Your fraudulent, Ukrainian employer's prices are now HIGHER than the prices of many—if not most—of the American companies. I just clubbed you like a baby fur seal with your own argument. EW_writer "wins" again! Idiot. LMAO!

EW_writer		Sep 20, 09, 04:23AM \| #56
Joined: Jul 2, 07 Threads: 27 Posts: 2,239	WritersBeware: Crawl back under your rock, crook. I completely outclassed you in every possible aspect of this argument. Nope, you didn't. I was able to show clients that they shouldn't listen to your scare tactics and that's the entire point. WritersBeware: but if you'd like others' opinions on who decisively won this massacre, ask pheelyks, FreelanceWriter, OR, exwriter, boom, etc. Oh c'mon.. you're not honestly going to try that again, are you? Every time you ask to be backed up by the other, much more decent members of this forum, you just get even more humiliated. Can't you accept the fact that while they may agree with you on matters that suit their interests, they won't back you up when it comes to matters of your interest? You're their b*tch, they're not yours. :P WritersBeware: 1. The general quality that your employer provides to customers is GARBAGE. 2. Your employer's prices are now HIGHER than those of most of the American companies. I just clubbed you like a baby fur seal with your own argument. Oh sure... you "clubbed" me real well with your counterarguments above. Look at all the evidence and reasoning present in those two numbers that you gave. Like... WOW. ROFLMAO! Take a hike, mike. When it comes to the issues that matter, the quote above clearly shows how little evidence you can really dish out.

WritersBeware		Sep 20, 09, 04:23AM \| #57
Joined: Apr 19, 07 Threads: 152 Posts: 8,678

WritersBeware		Sep 20, 09, 04:25AM \| #58
Joined: Apr 19, 07 Threads: 152 Posts: 8,678	I have to get some sleep, retard, but I'll slap you with the evidence for numbers 1 and 2 tomorrow.

EW_writer		Sep 20, 09, 04:25AM \| #59
Joined: Jul 2, 07 Threads: 27 Posts: 2,239	Above we see WB's version of a rebuttal. Short, sweet, and completely moronic. :D

EW_writer		Edited by: EW_writer Sep 20, 09, 04:31AM \| #60
Joined: Jul 2, 07 Threads: 27 Posts: 2,239	EW_writer: I have to get some sleep, retard, Hey.. goodnight. Or should I say, good morning? It should be like early morning in the U.S. by now. Either you're nocturnal or .... :P