| WritersBeware |
|
Oct 2, 07, 03:53PM
| #81 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678
|
Quoting: julie24963 Since when did I state I was seeking civil damages? Yet again you make your own assumptions. I do not need to be representing any third party for the complaint that has been lodged. You are merely trying to guess as to what the complaint is about and I shall leave you to continue guessing.
All you do is type baseless, unsubstantiated trash. As I stated previously, just shut the hell up and bring it!
|
|
| Lavinia |
|
Edited by: Lavinia Oct 2, 07, 03:58PM
| #82 |
Joined: Aug 7, 07
Threads: 4
Posts: 546
|
Quoting: julie24963 I did my homework before submitting my complaint and have presented my findings to the moderator. I have asked for a response within 14 days before my senior partner in chambers and I take further action. I do not need to nor am going to explain to you or anyone on here what the grievance is and I will let the forum administrators review the information submitted to them so they can decide what action if any they propose to take. At present I have been advised to discontinue posting on here by my senior partner as it could effect the outcome of the proposed action. I am not at liberty to discuss this further and so for now this is the last post I will be making.
IF anything happens to this forum, which i doubt, then i'll be setting up another and inviting WB to write a daily blog. heck, even EW et al would be invited to join and call me a monkey. it would be like old times. i have a free domain i'm doing nothing with anyway.
julie, your threat of a suit is close enough to blackmail to make it thoroughly distasteful. dancing about and continuing to post while refusing to actually explain the complaint is just childish.
|
|
| julie24963 |
|
Oct 2, 07, 05:09PM
| #83 |
Joined: May 3, 07
Threads: 3
Posts: 140
|
Quoting: Lavinia julie, your threat of a suit is close enough to blackmail to make it thoroughly distasteful. dancing about and continuing to post while refusing to actually explain the complaint is just childish.
The rule of law disallows me from publishing details of the complaint as that would prejudice the case in point. All will be revealed in due course. As stated above the moderators have been asked to respond within 14 days at the bequest of my senior partner and I will be at liberty to discuss this once the outcome of their response is known.
For your information Lavinia blackmail is defined as
' blackmail, in law, exaction of money from another by threat of exposure of criminal action or of disreputable conduct. The term was originally used for the tribute levied until the 18th cent. upon the inhabitants of the Scottish border to provide immunity from raids by Scottish bands. Statutes often treat blackmail as a form of extortion.'
As I have not attempted to exact money from anyone, including the moderators , then there is no blackmail. The action being pursued is not of a financial one and is unlikely to result in any form of remuneration.
|
|
| Lavinia |
|
Oct 2, 07, 05:13PM
| #84 |
Joined: Aug 7, 07
Threads: 4
Posts: 546
|
i didn't say that your threat IS blackmail, i said that it is very close to being blackmail, so close that it's distasteful.
the fact that you felt the need to distinguish between the two proves my point.
|
|
| Lavinia |
|
Edited by: Lavinia Oct 2, 07, 05:32PM
| #85 |
Joined: Aug 7, 07
Threads: 4
Posts: 546
|
Quoting: julie24963 For your information Lavinia blackmail is defined as ' blackmail, in law, exaction of money from another by threat of exposure of criminal action or of disreputable conduct. The term was originally used for the tribute levied until the 18th cent. upon the inhabitants of the Scottish border to provide immunity from raids by Scottish bands. Statutes often treat blackmail as a form of extortion.'
since we're trading legal information, let me point out that, under British Law, blackmail doesn't HAVE to involve the attempt to extract money:
From Green, S. (2005) Theft by Coercion: Extortion, Blackmail and Hard Bargaining, Washburn Law Journal, vol 44, p. 557.
"A much broader use of the term "blackmail" occurs under British
law, which has no separate offense of extortion. Under Section 21 of
the U.K. Theft Act of 1968, a person is guilty of blackmail if, "with a
view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another,
he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces."10 This kind
of blackmail is broader than informational blackmail in two significant
ways: First, the "view to gain . . . or intent to cause loss" language
encompasses both demands for money and demands for something
other than money, such as that the victim give the blackmailer a job,
that the victim permit the blackmailer to take indecent photographs of
her, or that the victim destroy letters written by the blackmailer to
her.11 Second, the "any unwarranted demand with menaces" language
is—at least on its face—broad enough to encompass threats of
a very wide range of conduct, both lawful and unlawful."
Furthermore, a more narrow interpretation of blackmail even allows for the threat of a lawsuit to qualify as blackmail legally:
Green, same source:
"There is also a third, "in-between" sense of the term blackmail.
Unlike blackmail under the Theft Act, this kind of blackmail is limited
to demands for money, as opposed to other kinds of compelled conduct.
But, unlike blackmail in the narrow sense, such blackmail is not
limited to threats to expose embarrassing information; it also includes
threats to do other putatively lawful acts, such as filing a lawsuit, stag-
ing a work stoppage, or even going on a hunger strike."
hence the claim that your threat is pretty darn close to blackmail.
Furthermore, you should probably cite your source, since at the moment you are plagiarzing someone's work by not offering an appropriate citation.
|
|
| julie24963 |
|
Oct 2, 07, 05:32PM
| #86 |
Joined: May 3, 07
Threads: 3
Posts: 140
|
Quoting: Lavinia the fact that you felt the need to distinguish between the two proves my point.
I did not feel the need to distinguish I merely wished to set the record straight. Please explain how my dealings with the moderators can be deemed to be blackmail. I have highlighted a problem with the forum which I have suggested that they should deal with as they are risking legal action being brought against them if they do not address the problem. That is not blackmail, that is explaining how they are putting themselves at risk for not moderating the forum in accordance with their own rules and guidelines.
|
|
| julie24963 |
|
Edited by: julie24963 Oct 2, 07, 05:51PM
| #87 |
Joined: May 3, 07
Threads: 3
Posts: 140
|
Quoting: Lavinia "A much broader use of the term "blackmail" occurs under British law, which has no separate offense of extortion. Under Section 21 of the U.K. Theft Act of 1968, a person is guilty of blackmail if, "with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces."10 This kind of blackmail is broader than informational blackmail in two significant ways: First, the "view to gain . . . or intent to cause loss" language encompasses both demands for money and demands for something other than money, such as that the victim give the blackmailer a job, that the victim permit the blackmailer to take indecent photographs of her, or that the victim destroy letters written by the blackmailer to her.11 Second, the "any unwarranted demand with menaces" language is—at least on its face—broad enough to encompass threats of a very wide range of conduct, both lawful and unlawful."
If your going to quote from the theft act include the full wording as found in Blackstone's manual (as used by the police)
Theft Act 1968 s21 , a person is guilty of blackmail if, with a
view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another,
he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief -
(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demands; and
(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reiforcing the demand.
s34(2) Theft Act 1968 defines gain or intent to cause loss as temporary or permanent, in money or other property.
Menaces as described by Blackstones p356
Words or conduct which would not intimidate or influence anyone to respond to the demand would not be menaces... but threats and conduct of such nature and extent that the mind of the ordinary person of normal stability and courage might be influenced or made apprehensive so as to accede unwillingly to the demand would be sufficient for a jury's consideration.
I have not made any THREATS or MENACES to the moderators, and since you do not know the content of the communication sent to them you are not in a position to be able to make such an assertion.
My first definition of blackmail was taken from an online dictionary, the above is taken directly from Blackstone's, which is kind of the barristers bible along with Archbold which is also extensively used.
When it comes to criminal law I can run rings round you as I live, eat, sleep and breath the stuff night and day so challenging me on legal definitions is futile.
|
|
| Lavinia |
|
Edited by: Lavinia Oct 2, 07, 06:14PM
| #88 |
Joined: Aug 7, 07
Threads: 4
Posts: 546
|
is your only defense to the blackmail comparison that you didn't make a threat? really?
Quoting: julie24963 I have not made any THREATS or MENACES to the moderators, and since you do not know the content of the communication sent to them you are not in a position to be able to make such an assertion.
Quoting: julie24963 but threats and conduct of such nature and extent that the mind of the ordinary person of normal stability and courage might be influenced or made apprehensive so as to accede unwillingly to the demand would be sufficient for a jury's consideration.
remember this?
Quoting: julie24963 I have asked for a response within 14 days before my senior partner in chambers and I take further action.
so what further action is it? to send the mod a goody basket? i doubt it.
you've admitted to everyone reading this that you threatened the mod.
Quoting: julie24963 My first definition of blackmail was taken from an online dictionary, the above is taken directly from Blackstone's, which is kind of the barristers bible along with Archbold which is also extensively used.
do you let your students cite like that? truly horrible, pretty much still bordering on plagiarism.
so where is that evidence about the legion of students using custom essays to cheat?
and the evidence of American companies hiring anyone from anywhere?
|
|
| julie24963 |
|
Edited by: julie24963 Oct 2, 07, 11:41PM
| #89 |
Joined: May 3, 07
Threads: 3
Posts: 140
|
Quoting: Lavinia do you let your students cite like that? truly horrible, pretty much still bordering on plagiarism
Of course I would never allow a citation to be presented in this manner. Get real! I was writing a post on a forum not writing a masters disertation. If you would really like the full citation it is as folows Murphy, P, Blackstone's Criminal Practice, 2007, Oxford. How does that grab you?
Quoting: Lavinia so what further action is it? to send the mod a goody basket? i doubt it. you've admitted to everyone reading this that you threatened the mod.
The moderators are well aware of the proposed action. In any form of legal action the protocol that has to be followed is to highlight to the party concerned the claim against them in order to allow their response. 14 days is a standard response time after which it is taken as granted that the person or persons do not wish to respond. It is then up to the person bringing the action to escalate the claim to the next level. That is how a lawsuit of any kind or description works. That is not MAKING threats that is giving the respondent the opportunity to put things right before court action is taken. I guess your one of those people who when you have failed to pay your bills and the company yhreatens legal action against you to recover the amount owing would consider you were being threatened. Live in the real world! If you do something wrong you expect to be punished. The moderators and administrators of this site have a duty to ensure they adhere to the way their forum is used. Failure to do this could mean that they could face civil or criminal proceedings against themselves.
Are you suggesting that every time a solicitor or barrister sends out a letter before action they are guilty of blackmail and threats? That's an interesting theory and one you would have difficulty proving anywhere!
I refuse to continue with this discussion any further as the actions taken by my colleague and I are legitimate and legal and I resent the accusation that my actions are unlawful, that my dear Lavinia is bordering on defamation.
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Oct 3, 07, 12:08AM
| #90 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678
|
Quoting: julie24963 that my dear Lavinia is bordering on defamation.
Sober up!
|
|
| Lavinia |
|
Edited by: Lavinia Oct 3, 07, 12:19AM
| #91 |
Joined: Aug 7, 07
Threads: 4
Posts: 546
|
wow, you finally cited your sources. it only took 2 posts to do so. so the lesson we can all learn from you is that it's ok to plagiarize on a forum, just not elsewhere. it's amazing how adept you are at rewriting ethical rules to suit you.
Quoting: julie24963 I guess your one of those people who when you have failed to pay your bills and the company yhreatens legal action against you to recover the amount owing would consider you were being threatened.
that is defamation, hypocrit. i am quite adept at paying my bills, no need to concern yourself.
anyone with a 2nd grade education can read that i didn't accuse you of blackmail. maybe you just have an aversion to the word? if you don't like the word "blackmail" then how about criminal coercion?
from my dear friend Green once again:
"As defined in theModel Penal Code, the offense of criminal coercion consists of "unlawfully . . . restrict[ing] another's freedom of action to his detriment"
by threatening to: (1) commit a criminal offense; (2) "accuse anyone
of a criminal offense"; (3) "expose any secret tending to subject any
person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to impair his credit or business
repute"; or (4) "take or withhold action as an official, or cause an
official to take or withhold action."14 Criminal coercion is thus distinguishable
from extortion and from blackmail (at least in the narrow,
informational sense of the term) in two important ways. First, as
noted, it does not involve obtaining any property from the victim.
Second, it can involve threats to engage in either lawful or unlawful
conduct, so long as it is intended to be detrimental to the victim."
Quoting: julie24963 The moderators and administrators of this site have a duty to ensure they adhere to the way their forum is used. Failure to do this could mean that they could face civil or criminal proceedings against themselves.
at this point, i'm almost hoping this site decides to close. i'd love the opportunity to provide a forum for discussion and deal with your THREATS personally.
you had better brush up on your section 230 law. i'd suggest starting with Barrett v. Rosenthal. You know, it's the State of California Supreme Court 2006 unanimous decision that ruled that internet users can't be held accountable for defamatory statements made by others on their websites. the decision further stated that holding internet users who do not originate the defamatory speech liable for defamation would in effect chill free online speech. now, i'm no expert on UK law, but here in the US, free speech is actually pretty darn important. go figure.
your threat that the mod isn't doing his/her job is meaningless and hollow. you don't have a legal leg to stand on. my guess is that the mod of this site is laughing at you. but if not, rest assured, there are plenty of others of us who are.
|
|
| julie24963 |
|
Oct 3, 07, 11:54AM
| #92 |
Joined: May 3, 07
Threads: 3
Posts: 140
|
Quoting: Lavinia it's amazing how adept you are at rewriting ethical rules to suit you.
I just did not see the need on a forum to quote citations as one would do in an essay.
Quoting: WritersBeware that is defamation, hypocrit. i am quite adept at paying my bills, no need to concern yourself.
Oops I said WHEN instead of IF. This is not defamation as I have NOT accused you of NOT paying your bills.
Quoting: Lavinia criminal coercion?
In English law there is no crime of criminal coercion.
As defined in theModel Penal Code, the offense of criminal coercion consists of "unlawfully . . . restrict[ing] another's freedom of action to his detriment"
by threatening to: (1) commit a criminal offense; (2) "accuse anyone
of a criminal offense"; (3) "expose any secret tending to subject any
person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to impair his credit or business
repute"; or (4) "take or withhold action as an official, or cause an
official to take or withhold action."14 Criminal coercion is thus distinguishable
from extortion and from blackmail (at least in the narrow,
informational sense of the term) in two important ways. First, as
noted, it does not involve obtaining any property from the victim.
Second, it can involve threats to engage in either lawful or unlawful
conduct, so long as it is intended to be detrimental to the victim."[/quote]
By the very definition of the above it could be argued that bringing a law suit against anyone would be classed as criminal coercion and given that the US is one of the main countries were people take out law suits for the most trivial of faults I suspect the definition is much narrower then you are intrepreting it. When any law suit is issued it is by definition a warning to the other party that legal action may ensue. This is NEVER interpreted in law as THREATS and could NEVER be so interpreted as it would mean that the lawyers etc would NEVER be able to bring a law suit against someone.
Threats are interpreted in all law enforcement as actions causing the person to fear for their safety not fear that court action might be taken against them . If your assertion were correct that would mean that all criminals could bring an action against the police for threatening to arrest them if they don't discontinue with their behaviour. Get real!
As for your citation with regard to Barrett v Rosenthal 40 Cal.4th 33, 146 P.3d 510, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 55 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Nov. 20, 2006) this only applies if the provider of the service has not been given notice of the defamatory comments. Where the provider has received such notice and continues to allow such comments they can have action taken against them
Under the common law, "distributors" like newspaper vendors and
book sellers are liable only if they had notice of a defamatory statement in their
merchandise. - taken direct from the ruling in this case www.eff.org/legal/cases/Barrett_v_Rosenthal/ruling.pdf
Besides that the action that is being taken is not concerned with defamation anyway so try again!
|
|
| Lavinia |
|
Edited by: Lavinia Oct 3, 07, 12:30PM
| #93 |
Joined: Aug 7, 07
Threads: 4
Posts: 546
|
my goodness, how many times are you going to say you're done posting and then post anyway? i'm starting to not believe you.
Quoting: julie24963 I just did not see the need on a forum to quote citations as one would do in an essay.
and all those students in the UK don't see the need to quote citations in their essays.
Quoting: julie24963 Under the common law, "distributors" like newspaper vendors and book sellers are liable only if they had notice of a defamatory statement in their merchandise. - taken direct from the ruling in this case www.eff.org/legal/cases/Barrett_v_Rosenthal/ruling.pdf
good job reading only the first page of the ruling. something you would have read if you had made it to the second page:
"We further hold that section 230(c)(1) immunizes individual "users" of interactive computer services, and that no practical or principled distinction can be drawn between active and passive use."
"By declaring that no "user" may be treated as a "publisher" of third party content, Congress has comprehensively immunized republication by individual Internet users."
Quoting: julie24963 As for your citation with regard to Barrett v Rosenthal 40 Cal.4th 33, 146 P.3d 510, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 55 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Nov. 20, 2006) this only applies if the provider of the service has not been given notice of the defamatory comments. Where the provider has received such notice and continues to allow such comments they can have action taken against them
That's either a blatant lie or you didn't actually read the case. Either way, that is factually false as an integral component of the complaint was that Rosenthal was warned and refused to remove the offensive material (further from the case):
"They alleged that Rosenthal republished various messages even after Dr.
Barrett warned her they contained false and defamatory information."
Furthermore, notice does not confer liability because that would destroy free speech on the net. From Barrett v. Rosenthal again:
"Similarly, notice-based liability would deter service providers from
regulating the dissemination of offensive material over their own services. Any
efforts by a service provider to investigate and screen material posted on its
service would only lead to notice of potentially defamatory material more
frequently and thereby create a stronger basis for liability. Instead of subjecting
themselves to further possible lawsuits, service providers would likely eschew any
attempts at self-regulation.
"More generally, notice-based liability for interactive computer service
providers would provide third parties with a no-cost means to create the basis for
future lawsuits. Whenever one was displeased with the speech of another party
conducted over an interactive computer service, the offended party could simply
'notify' the relevant service provider, claiming the information to be legally
defamatory. . . . Because the probable effects of distributor liability on the vigor
of Internet speech and on service provider self-regulation are directly contrary to §
230's statutory purposes, we will not assume that Congress intended to leave
liability upon notice intact." (Zeran, supra, 129 F.3d at p. 333.)
Now, I realize that your a big time barrister and all, but I'll rely on a state supreme court's interpretation of law before i rely on yours. that's just a judgement call.
Quoting: julie24963 Besides that the action that is being taken is not concerned with defamation anyway so try again!
exactly why i criticized you in the first place. your actions are distasteful. if you truly felt that you had an actionable complaint, the classy thing to do would have been to take it up with the mod privately. instead, you post all over this forum about it even while claiming that your senior partner wants you to stop posting:
Quoting: julie24963 At present I have been advised to discontinue posting on here by my senior partner as it could effect the outcome of the proposed action. I am not at liberty to discuss this further and so for now this is the last post I will be making.
oh, and since you hinted at negligence, section 230 has also been used to protect against that too.
|
|
| julie24963 |
|
Oct 3, 07, 01:04PM
| #94 |
Joined: May 3, 07
Threads: 3
Posts: 140
|
Quoting: Lavinia exactly why i criticized you in the first place. your actions are distasteful. if you truly felt that you had an actionable complaint, the classy thing to do would have been to take it up with the mod privately. instead, you post all over this forum about it even while claiming that your senior partner wants you to stop posting:
I have taken it up with the moderator privately which is why I haven't posted the details of the complaint. I merely pointed out that due to the impending action I could comment no further on various issues on here.
As for it being my last posting I am not going to stand idly by whilst you attempt to belittle me to try and win points.
I do not claim to be a expert on American or Canadian law but as the case to which you are referring is of no significance in this particular case there was no need for me to read any further into the decision of the court.
As the action would be brought in the UK regardless of the location of the forum or the moderators any action would be subject to English law. Court actions are brought in the jurisdiction of the applicant which in this case would be me, so the forum would have to defend under English law and could not rely on American statutes or Canadian Penal code as it would not be applicable.
Anyway this as far as I am concerned is the end of the matter though no doubt you will continue as WB usually does in making comments in the hope of provoking further comment so that you can then have a go for me responding.
On this occasion I refuse to rise to the bait but would caution you against any comments that might be read as defamatory as I would have no compulsion in including you in the same suit.
|
|
| Lavinia |
|
Oct 3, 07, 01:08PM
| #95 |
Joined: Aug 7, 07
Threads: 4
Posts: 546
|
ok, this is cool too and deserves its own post. right at the very end of the ruling if you want to skip to the end:
"As Rosenthal points out, the congressional purpose of fostering free speech
on the Internet supports the extension of section 230 immunity to active individual
"users." It is they who provide much of the "diversity of political discourse," the
pursuit of "opportunities for cultural development," and the exploration of
"myriad avenues for intellectual activity" that the statute was meant to protect.
(§ 230(a)(3).) The approach taken by the Batzel dissent would tend to chill the
free exercise of Internet expression, and could frustrate the goal of providing an
incentive for self-regulation. A user who removed some offensive content might
face liability for "actively selecting" the remaining material. Users in this
position, no less than the service providers discussed by the Zeran court, would be
motivated to delete marginally offensive material, restricting the scope of online
discussion. Some users, at least those like Rosenthal who engage in high-volume
Internet posting, might be discouraged from screening third party content.
Although individual users may face the threat of liability less frequently than
institutional service providers, their lack of comparable financial and legal
resources makes that threat no less intimidating."
If julie's interpretation of the case was correct (it's not but let's pretend that it hypothetically was), and the mod made changes to the content of some posts on this forum b/c of julie's complaint, then the person who wrote the posts could file a legal complaint for the action.
so WB, if your posts are the target of Julie's proposed corrective action, as they likely are given her posts, you would actually have a legal complaint against any censoring of your posts. yay free speech on the internet.
|
|
| Lavinia |
|
Edited by: Lavinia Oct 3, 07, 01:15PM
| #96 |
Joined: Aug 7, 07
Threads: 4
Posts: 546
|
Quoting: julie24963 I have taken it up with the moderator privately which is why I haven't posted the details of the complaint. I merely pointed out that due to the impending action I could comment no further on various issues on here. As for it being my last posting I am not going to stand idly by whilst you attempt to belittle me to try and win points.
you had zero reason to post that the complaint had been filed. zero. zip. nada. none. you posted the information as a means of attacking WB and attempting to silence her dissent. the posts are there. there is nothing illegal about my criticizing that distasteful act.
so where is the promised evidence for 20% or more of all customers using their custom essays to cheat?
where is the promised evidence that companies reporting to only hire American workers will hire anyone?
2 weeks is plenty of time to find the evidence and post it. would you like me to quote again your PROMISE to provide the evidence?
Quoting: julie24963 As the action would be brought in the UK regardless of the location of the forum or the moderators any action would be subject to English law. Court actions are brought in the jurisdiction of the applicant which in this case would be me, so the forum would have to defend under English law and could not rely on American statutes or Canadian Penal code as it would not be applicable.
you really think that the U.S. just gives up its citizens to any frivolous foreign case?
wait i need a moment... lol
Quoting: julie24963 On this occasion I refuse to rise to the bait but would caution you against any comments that might be read as defamatory as I would have no compulsion in including you in the same suit.
your THREATS do not get to silence my free speech, bully.
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Oct 3, 07, 02:36PM
| #97 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678
|
Everyone, Julie24963 claims that the "action" does not involve defamation, and then, only two posts later, she contradicts herself:
Quoting: julie24963 . . . the action that is being taken is not concerned with defamation . . . !
Quoting: julie24963 [Lavinia, ] . . . I . . . would caution you against any comments that might be read as defamatory as I would have no compulsion in including you in the same suit.
Julie24963, given this evidence, you are a liar, and what little credibility you had is shot.
By the way--defamation does not exist if the statements that you happen to find offensive are TRUE and FACT-BASED. If I provide evidence that proves you to be a liar (as I have done above), do you really think that the law would support your belief that I have no right to refer to you as a "liar"? Think again. The evidence speaks for itself.
|
|
| Lavinia |
|
Oct 3, 07, 02:50PM
| #98 |
Joined: Aug 7, 07
Threads: 4
Posts: 546
|
there are other problems with the defamation accusation.
like the fact that "julie24963" isn't an identity that can be defamed. no one knows who that is.
the second being "fair comment." julie chose to introduce the subject of her complaint into the public realm by posting about her communications to the mod. so i get to offer my opinion on subjects that she chose to present in the public sphere. my comment that i believe julie's posts to be distasteful is no different from julie's posts claiming others are rude. that's not defamation, it's opinion and it's legal, even in the UK.
while i realize that British defamanation law does favor the plaintiff, to try to accuse me of that is just a wee bit of a stretch.
|
|
| julie24963 |
|
Oct 3, 07, 03:14PM
| #99 |
Joined: May 3, 07
Threads: 3
Posts: 140
|
ok just to respond to WB' accusation that I lied... the threat of defamation was against Lavinia not against the moderator. it is possible to bring 2 separate law suits arising from the same series of events.
Why don't you contact the moderator yourself if you are so interested in the complaint that was made though I doubt that they would discuss it with you either.
I was not accusing Lavinia of defamation I was stating that she should be careful of posts that might defame the person they are aimed at.
Anyway I have had more fun watching paint dry then trying to explain the law to those with limited intelligence such as you are displaying. I have no need to explain myself any further and am leaving all future dealings on this issue with my colleague as it is he who is bringing the action on his own behest.
|
|
| Lavinia |
|
Edited by: Lavinia Oct 3, 07, 03:30PM
| #100 |
Joined: Aug 7, 07
Threads: 4
Posts: 546
|
Quoting: julie24963 the threat of defamation was against Lavinia not against the moderator.
sweet, we all agree that you did threaten me.
and just for the record, the PUBLIC PROMISE:
Quoting: julie24963 Lavinia I was going to post you my research on student cheating as promised earlier, however I will have to do this another night as I have just got back from a case conference on a child abuse case and I still have 3 cases to prepare for court tomorrow. Its all a bit crazy where I live right now we have had 2 murders within 2 days of each other and I have been called in to advise on evidence and forensic submissions that need doing in order to prove the offence. I have not forgotten that I have promised to provide proof of my assertions on here and will do this as soon as I get chance to.
still no promised evidence to support the claim that all patrons of the industry are cheating cheaters. still no promised evidence to support the claim that American companies claiming to hire only American writers will actually hire foreigners. we know what it means when we break a promise, right?
Quoting: julie24963 I have no need to explain myself any further and am leaving all future dealings on this issue with my colleague as it is he who is bringing the action on his own behest.
promise? you won't post again? like, really? not like... well you know...like these...
Quoting: julie24963 At present I have been advised to discontinue posting on here by my senior partner as it could effect the outcome of the proposed action. I am not at liberty to discuss this further and so for now this is the last post I will be making.
Quoting: julie24963 Until I receive instruction from the moderators as to how they propose to deal with these matters I will continue to monitor posts on here but not respond.
Quoting: julie24963 Anyway this as far as I am concerned is the end of the matter though no doubt you will continue as WB usually does in making comments in the hope of provoking further comment so that you can then have a go for me responding.
Quoting: julie24963 I refuse to continue with this discussion any further as the actions taken by my colleague and I are legitimate and legal
and my personal favorite
Quoting: julie24963 Just in case you need clarification of the last statement here it is in simple terms END OF DISCUSSION. I fully expect you will reply as you do not know the meaning of the word END but let me add a few definitions end - The point in time when an action, an event, or a phenomenon ceases or is completed; To bring to a conclusion.; To come to a finish; cease. Anyway rant and rave as much as you like from this point onward it will only show your ignorance in failing to understand the meaning of the word END!! |
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Oct 3, 07, 04:28PM
| #101 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678
|
LOL!
Hey, you know what they say about 9 times being a charm . . . .
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Oct 3, 07, 04:42PM
| #102 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678
|
Quoting: julie24963 Anyway I have had more fun watching paint dry then trying to explain the law to those with limited intelligence such as you are displaying.
Riiiiiiight. What threads are YOU reading? Any objective person who reads these posts will surely recognize that you have been severely outclassed in every possible way by both Lavinia and me.
You attack me for being "rude" to the self-proclaimed dog-eater and crook, Joey, despite the fact that the EVIDENCE proves that Joey attacked me first with unspeakable vulgarities.
You provide zero evidence to support your claims.
You make blanket statements about students' lack of integrity.
You make repeated promises to never post again, yet you return each time.
You threaten people with "legal action" when they prove you to be a liar.
You start referring to people as "stupid" when you have no other way out of a losing argument.
You threaten to legally harm a site that fights crime and fraud, instead of investing your time and effort in fighting the criminals and frauds.
-----------------
I promise that this will NOT be my last post.
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Edited by: EW_writer Oct 10, 07, 04:07AM
| #103 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
Do people really mind ESL writers writing their essays?
^___^
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Oct 10, 07, 04:27AM
| #104 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678
|
Quoting: EW_writer Do people really mind ESL writers writing their essays?
Would 100% of customers "mind" if they were to find out in advance that you plan to purposely DECEIVE them about your credentials? YES.
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Oct 10, 07, 07:53PM
| #105 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
Quoting: WritersBeware Would 100% of customers "mind" if they were to find out in advance that you plan to purposely DECEIVE them about your credentials? YES.
Sez who? ^_^ You? Right.. I forgot how you're the epitome of credibility.. :D
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Oct 10, 07, 08:52PM
| #106 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678
|
Where's your proof that my claims are false? PROVE it, or STFU.
|
|
| Lavinia |
|
Oct 10, 07, 09:01PM
| #107 |
Joined: Aug 7, 07
Threads: 4
Posts: 546
|
Quoting: EW_writer Sez who? ^_^ You? Right.. I forgot how you're the epitome of credibility.. :D
lol... are you serious? ok, let's take a poll... who likes being lied to? show of hands?
*crickets*
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Oct 10, 07, 09:10PM
| #108 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678
|
EW_writer, following is what your fraudulent employer from Ukraine, EssayWriters.net, now has the hypocritical audacity to claim about other foreign sites on the BestEssays.com home page:
"They don't use native English speakers!
Nowadays many essay writing companies are either from Asian or African countries or just outsource writers from there. They can pay dirt-cheap wages and thus, they can lower their prices to $9-10 a page or even lower to attract more customers. Don't be fooled! Their papers are written by Filipinos, Pakistanis, Indians, and Nigerian, who can (somewhat) speak English. That's why you should think twice before ordering from the cheapest providers! The quality will be the cheapest too!"
Ironically (LMAO), aside from the humorously broken English, this is the same message that originated in 2005 from EssayFraud.org--ABOUT sites like EssayWriters.net and BestEssays.com! You and other EssayWriters.net henchmen try to discredit EssayFraud.org publicly, yet you hypocritically espouse the same message as EssayFraud.org while wearing sheep's clothing to purposely deceive customers at BestEssays.com. You people are the lowest of the low!
1. How do you justify BestEssays.com's blatant hypocrisy about other foreign companies hiring ESL writers, considering that the vast majority of EssayWriters.net's writers are Filipino, Pakistani, Indian, Nigerian, etc.?
2. How do you justify BestEssays.com's blatant misrepresentation of their national origin and qualifications to customers?
3. How do you justify BestEssays.com's bold-faced lie to customers about employing "over 1,000 American-only writers with MA and PhD degrees"?
P.S.: Hurry up and tell everyone that I am not credible, and don't forget to forget the proof again!
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Edited by: WritersBeware Oct 12, 07, 07:54PM
| #109 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,678
|
The notorious crook and EssayWriters.net henchman, EW_writer, is trying to publicly avoid yet another, embarrassing defeat by claiming that he can't respond to my Post #108 at http://www.essayscam.org/Forum/9_306_5.html#msg4596 because, in his devious words, "it's too long."
LMAO!
What a filthy crook!
|
|
| dnm |
|
Sep 27, 10, 03:37PM
| #110 |
Joined: Sep 27, 10
Posts: 14
|
WritersBeware: Would 100% of customers "mind" if they were to find out in advance that you plan to purposely DECEIVE them about your credentials? YES.
if we put that to a vote, i think most all customers would agree with writersbeware. forget about the customers, the law `minds'
|
|
| AmonsEssays |
|
Dec 9, 10, 05:37AM
| #111 |
Joined: Dec 8, 10
Threads: 2
Posts: 201
|
Yeah, this is silly. The whole point was that a) it's all about the consumer being informed and b) the fact that the Americanness/Britishness of companies is used as a metric of their quality. It's a guess.
|
|
