Fair Play: Jesse Willms Pulls My Posts

The few readers of these pages may have noticed some diminishment in content recently; specifically:


You’ll now find that these links no longer work.

Cause and Effect

The cause of all of this was a cease and desist request to me via email by a lawyer, Matt Thomson working at Kronenberger Burgoyne.  They found me by the simple expedient of checking my WHOIS for this website.  This public visibility is something that in his earlier business of Just Think Media and many of the websites run by him, Jesse Willms obviously failed to do – it being very well documented on-line in such places as the legal settlements with the various organisations and persons that he offended, say. Currently, his WHOIS is visible, and I’ve now discontinued those postings or comments and/or their threads above, as requested.

The cause of my postings was my observance of the extremely high level of complaints by users of Mr Willms services at his websites, and reported as such on a host of consumer-focussed websites and organisations, which I won’t list here for brevity, but are widely available.  This is what attracted my attention and I would not have published anything without this high level of consumer complaint. (Obviously, why would I suddenly start spouting on a personal blog site about a Canadian about whom I knew nothing?  Like der!)

The effect of the wide complaints, was that users of Mr Willms services complained to their finance organisation using such terms as “deceptive practices” and “unlawful withdrawals” from their bank or credit accounts. (n.b. this is the recommended procedure as reported here with a concert ticket selling scam – Added 12/11/10)

Whether we think that all these people were under the mass delusion that they all had the same experience, or not, the effect of this was that credit processing was limited to Mr Willms businesses which made transactional business difficult for him.

Mr Willms therefore sought to apportion blame to his customers and any organisation reporting their complaints for his downturn in business. ( His earlier businesses for which he reached a legal settlement with Oprah Winfrey et al he appears to have terminated.)

This, for all the above in this paragraph above entitled “Cause and Effect”, is my opinion of the history surrounding Jesse Willms and his businesses over the last few years.  How he now conducts business is a different issue entirely, which is why I’m stating the fact here.

This “Cause and Effect” paragraph now ends.

Fair Use

I’ve published the full message to myself below, and it makes interesting reading for those interesting in such things.

A very interesting part of the threatening letter to myself from Matt, was the limits to my free speech on something that only they deem confidential and that may or may not be subject to copyright laws!  Matt says:

This letter is without prejudice to the assertion of any and all rights and remedies of Mr.Willms, all of which are expressly reserved. This is a confidential legal communication and is not intended for publication, including publication on a website or via email distribution. Any republication of dissemination of any part of this letter will constitute infringement of copyright and a breach of confidentiality.

Remember, the letter was sent to me without my request.  Now as far as I’m concerned, and as a subject of the United Kingdom of Great Britain etc,  anything I receive, except something from HM Government in the UK that is subject to the Official Secrets Act, I can publish or copy as I see fit if I have a copyright.  Is this letter copyrighted?  Even if it is, and I profoundly disagree that it is…..I can still publish.  How so?

Being a published musician with my copyright works being plundered on-line, I’m not unfamiliar with copyright law.

This is some Crawling Chaos music for you to enjoy and has Jeff Crowe at his finest and for which I have a Copyright that allows me to play it here etc.

A clause in the US version, which almost exactly follows that in the UK and elsewhere through international treaty and general agreements, is that it’s not illegal to reproduce copyright work under the “Fair use” clause for a host of reasons.  This is the clause below, taken from the Cornell Uni. Law School website which is copied from the required US law.  (They state: Title 17 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Feb.1, 2010, and it is this version that is published here.)

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Cease and Desist

And here’s the cease and desist to myself Link, to which I’ve complied with all listed terms and by the removal of listed exhibits.
I’ve complied in that all of what I’ve said previously about Willms and a host of other on-line businesses and services, (don’t forget), is either

  • fair comment
  • opinion
  • prior art
  • repetition of opinion, fair comment and prior art from other sources when I consider them as such.  My website history shows that I’ve blocked commentary or linkage that is tortious, slanderous, insults appearance, race or sexual orientation of a person, is bigotted etc.

Now back to checking the internet to ensure that businesses are run fairly and that consumers (i.e. me, you and everyone else) do not suffer.  This website, and all its contributors, will continue in this vein. All documentation and IP Addresses is available to any legal process, especially those that seek to protect the common man from the bad people and iniquities that exist in our fast-changing world.
After all, it’s always the common man that suffers from the actions and decisions of the creative types… Mostly, they just want to get on and live their lives free from harassment.
Here ends my bit for now.

By Strangely

Founding member of the gifted & talented band, "The Crawling Chaos" from the North-East of England.


  1. Willms’ lawyer that sent me the nice letter, Matt Thomson, seems to have moved on from  Kronenberger Burgoyne, to Blue Global Media…

    What’s all this with the “media”?   Come to think of it, what’s the connection to Scottsdale, Arizona again, previously seen with Pacific Web and the Google Treasure Chest bollox? It must be the weather, or co-incidence, I guess.


  2. I'm sure there's quite a bit not on there that you and NotKevin have talked about since it was done. If I get some time I'll update it, although things are insanely busy right now.

  3. How funny, I've never seen an actual diagram of how to tear toilet paper. Thanks for the enlightenment.

    This arrived today, classified as spam by Akismet.

    The IP address area etc look like an actual bidsauce toileteer:


    'bidsauce@yahoo.com – Willms' employees use a lot of yahoo email addresses too!


    – (added by SP)

  4. It's like a Barry Scott advert for Cillit Bang, and because of all the interlinked promotions from Willms and his jobbies, about as nastily viral!

    The latest from "Jack Stanton here":


    ….had me thinking three words:


    ..followed by the two words:


    So Well Done Jack Mate! You're alright.

    You made no mention at all about the BBB review of Just Think Media here:
    where the F rating seems more justifiable and does not look a "mistake in the organisational structure" as you put it:

    And you didn't mention that this same business illegally used the awareness/trade mark of the Pink Ribbon breast cancer according to the Sydney Morning Herald? See:
    and screen-shot below:

    In fact, this result from the International Court of THe Hague puts a 10k Euro per day fine on infringements! See:

    And you didn't mention the slightly better review here about the Swiping websites:

    But Jack, just keep up the writing. Good style, limited content.

  5. …and yeah. I've finally got off my arse and blocked the Google adverts from the twat – at least until they make a few more domains. 17 in total, what a faff. It'll take 30 minutes for them to go.

  6. Best of all, unfortunately for them, are the 426 people so far that have signed up to an on-line petition directly to the FBI to chase after the volte-face philanthropist.



    My”>]https://strangelyperfect.tv/wp-content/uploads/gavel-1[1].jpg” /> My earlier optimistic thoughts about big refunds following the collapse of SwipeBids now seem hopelessly misguided because the 426 (and rising) want at least their initial "membership" fee back, and maybe more.

    The 426 certainly want Jesse Willms to atone more for their perceived vision of his sins than the highly visible few grand of mere altruistic shadow work.

    Time after time after time, when reading the long list, you can feel the genuine spleen of their ire and disbelief that an acknowledged fraudster, (having previously caved in at least three times for his deeds), can just set up business again leaving a slug's trail of evidence for which "the government of the people" seem uniquely inept at coping with.

    How long this goes on? I dunno. But if I had fallen into the now familiar website traps I'd for sure be signing the petition and every other class action under the sun to get some redress from internet scammers of all kinds.

  7. US Gov closes counterfeit websites!

    Yep! That's the news today as Uncle Sam closes down 70 fraud websites. See

    They say:

    More than 70 sites alleged to be selling counterfeit goods or offering pirated content have been shut down by the US government.

    Handily, they've left the above graphic for potential customers, although true to form, the "free-marketeers" have already set up shops elsewhere! Funnily enough, and in a direct comparison to this news, a few years back eDirectSoftware used to sell dodgy on-line software and were forced to pay a million in compensation to Microsoft…..

    Unfortunately, the oodles of folks that "bought" the naffness had no recompense and had to buy the software again from Microsoft… So they paid twice!

    And here's the killer for anyone getting swayed by the "philanthropic" adverts now targeting this posting…..

    >eDirect was Jesse Willms.

    Read these links from disgruntled customers of Jesse and his gang.

    Read the Microsoft claim and settlement.

    Then Just Think?






    …and if you've had enough of that, just read up on Okuma Nutricals. This webpage was set up by them specifically to accuse the counterfeiters and has never been removed! Lawsuit happy Willms leaves it up… even the bit where his activities are slammed… Gosh. Just Think?

    https://www.truthaboutwulongtea.com/ (TAWT)

    Think what?

    https://www.wulongtea.org/ (WT.org) (an anonymous organisation hidden by a Madeiran business) have a list of "comparisons" that really does TAWT down. But as part of the TAWT website says, WT.org is not what it seems. Essentially, they claim it's a front.

    I see another goose chase afoot – wahay! The tea story harks for my attention.

  8. Looking to learn more about Mark Jenney and his associates and their numerous frauds. I need your help understanding how he works. Please contact me if you can assist me. Thanks.

  9. Desperate Straits!

    I've recently put an RSS feed on my pages to a website providing information about "Class Action Lawsuits" – it seeming a good way to watch the flow, so to speak.

    And what did I espy with my little eye in the top left of the Class Actions website, right at the top of the Google paid-for adverts? Check below and see!

    It's the ubiquitous philanthropist's website, of course!


    Now is this crystal ball gazing with the name in the wrong column, or keyword manipulation? Hmmm?

  10. By the way, some Jesse Willms news just in..Jesse Willms is setting up yet another Jesse Willms news site:

    "The site, located at jessewillmsheadlines.com will be updated whenever there is news about Willms and will also maintain an ongoing archive about Jesse Willms. "

    Yes his very own news channel website about the great leader, er "sorry entrepreneur and philanthropist" – perhaps the most one sided "propaganda in the name of news" since the launch of Fox News in the US or Kim Jong-il TV in North Korea!

    Joking aside, you really must have an ego the size of a small planet to set up quite so many websites telling the world how amazing you are – either that or you are trying to distract attention from some other websites you don't happen to own which may just have a slightly different story to tell?

    Or perhaps all these Jesse Willms sites are "engineered to attract a large number of viewers through the manipulation of keywords" and trying to get placed "higher in the list of search results" – hang on a minute isn't that similar to what he is accusing Penny Auction Watch of?

    1. I've spotted "Quotes" and "Advice" as well. It's dismally laughable. It seems that he's going through the dictionary using every word to append to his name!

      Well only another 60k to go, or 2 million if he uses the big one! When that happens it'll be a one man JW internet with all sites linking back to the Death Star mothership…

      We could place bets on the next website issue – in fact – we could set up an online bid auction for the next website name where the pennies ramp up until the correct name pops out.

      Gotta be the next big thing!

    2. Phil Le Tropist has an interesting networking community going.

      From his now-almost-anonymous-with-a-photo-so-small-it-could-be-anybody Facebook page he's accepted a "friend" request here:
      …with some interesting results. Apparently, he "likes" the comment "Aint afraid of no Scams!" from the group author…!! See:


  11. "When the court orders the payment of administrative monetary penalties, on first occurrence, individuals are subject to penalties of up to $750,000 and corporations, to penalties of up to $10,000,000. For subsequent orders, the penalties increase to a maximum of $1,000,000 in the case of an individual and $15,000,000 in the case of a corporation. The court also has the power to order interim injunctions to freeze assets in certain cases."

    That's a powerful consumer law they have up there in Canada, I hope they actually use it sometimes and it's not just "for show"?

    1. It certainly is a powerful incentive to make entrepreneurs and their ilk stay on the right side of the law – you'd think!

      I think a nice test case is what's needed! In Canada, not some other country.

  12. This page in the massive scamraiders thread has a comment from Justin Asking that explains part of consumer law, with penalties, as they exist in CANADA!!! Neat eh?


    This is a sample from the comment:

    False or Misleading Representations

    Under its criminal regime, the Competition Act, prohibits knowingly or recklessly making, or permitting the making of, a representation to the public, in any form what ever, that is false or misleading in a material respect.

    False or Misleading Representations

    The Competition Act provides criminal and civil regimes to address false or misleading representations.

    Section 52 of the Act is a criminal provision. It prohibits knowingly or recklessly making, or permitting the making of, a representation to the public, in any form whatever, that is false or misleading in a material respect. Under this provision, it is not necessary to demonstrate that any person was deceived or misled; that any member of the public to whom the representation was made was within Canada; or that the representation was made in a place to which the public had access. Subsection 52(4) directs that the general impression conveyed by a representation, as well as its literal meaning, be taken into account when determining whether or not the representation is false or misleading in a material respect.

    Any person who contravenes section 52 is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of up to $200,000 and/or imprisonment up to one year on summary conviction, or to fines in the discretion of the court and/or imprisonment up to 14 years upon indictment.

    Paragraph 74.01(1)(a) of the Act is a civil provision. It prohibits the making, or the permitting of the making, of a representation to the public, in any form whatever, that is false or misleading in a material respect. Under this provision, it is not necessary to demonstrate that any person was deceived or misled; that any member of the public to whom the representation was made was within Canada; or that the representation was made in a place to which the public had access. Subsection 74.03(5) directs that the general impression conveyed by a representation, as well as its literal meaning, be taken into account when determining whether or not the representation is false or misleading in a material respect.

    If a court determines that a person has engaged in conduct contrary to paragraph 74.01(1)(a), it may order the person not to engage in such conduct, to publish a corrective notice, to pay an administrative monetary penalty and/or to pay restitution to purchasers. When the court orders the payment of administrative monetary penalties, on first occurrence, individuals are subject to penalties of up to $750,000 and corporations, to penalties of up to $10,000,000. For subsequent orders, the penalties increase to a maximum of $1,000,000 in the case of an individual and $15,000,000 in the case of a corporation. The court also has the power to order interim injunctions to freeze assets in certain cases.

    Additional information on Restitution Orders and Interim Injunctions to Freeze Assets

    In order to proceed on a criminal track both of the following criteria must be satisfied: (1) there must be clear and compelling evidence suggesting that the accused knowingly or recklessly made a false or misleading representation to the public. An example of such evidence is the continuation of a practice by the accused after complaints have been made by consumers directly to the accused; and (2) the Bureau must also be satisfied that criminal prosecution would be in the public interest. More information on the choice of track is available from the following publication Misleading Representations and Deceptive Marketing Practices: Choice of Criminal or Civil Track Under the Competition Act.

    I hope that you've taken some of that in, because myself and many others have a veritable library of evidence going back years of:

    "the continuation of a practice by the accused after complaints have been made by consumers directly to the accused"

    To me this paragraph means ALL activities, not just the removal of a stock photo that'd been inadvertently inserted into a webpage.

    Now this website occasionally goes over the top, but virtually all content is verifiable, sometime back to original court documents.

    I've even blocked comment I deem below standard and have edited content after the event to ensure suitability. Sometimes several times and long afterward!

    Now compare that to the standards employed by the various parties that have appeared in these pages because their activities attracted and attained "bad web" status?

    Right from day 1 of their existence, many have paid vast out-of-court settlements to parties to whom they'd be tortious.

    Time after time after time after time. Each time, the exact nature of the business would change, yet the bad-web methods (as detailed in the Act above) remained mostly unchanged.

    What do you make of that?

  13. He is an entrepreneur who started an "online business" at a very young age and became a millionaire as a result. Now he has become a philanthropist dedicated to donating part of his wealth to deserving charities.

    Who am I talking about? No not Jesse Willms – Mark Jenney. Google his name and up pops a page of results all showing Mr Jenney in a very flattering light:

    Top of the pile is his markjenneycares.com

    "It is not what we get. But who we become, what we contribute… that gives meaning to our lives."


    You will also find the "Mark Jenney Success Blog" at markjenney.com a "blog about Success in Life and Success in Business. How to achieve success from a Philanthropist, Entrepreneur, Investor, Visionary."

    As well as markjenneysuccess.com and markjenneysuccesstips.com and … well you get the picture…

    But try a slightly different search and you get a very different set of results from Google:

    Now we find another side to "Philanthropist, Entrepreneur, Investor and Visionary" Mark Jenney! Like a modern day Jekyll and Hyde we find sordid tales of alleged "Underground cash secret scams" and accusations of "an even LARGER scam company in Akron, OH , called NSA Technologies".

    Never heard of NSA Technologies – no strings attached perhaps!? So back to Google once again and we find this :

    "Government Actions

    September 16, 2010 The Ohio Attorney General's office filed suit again NSA Technologies, LLC and Home Job Placement, and its principals, Mark W. Jenney, Victor J. Bierman III, and Vincent E. Fisher, with multiple violations of Ohio's consumer Sales Practice Act. According to the lawsuit, Fisher, Jenney and Bierman operated NSA Technologies which advertised 'Work at Home' programs, self-employment guides and job placement services through online ads. The operation is accused of taking money from Ohions in payment, – some victims paid hundreds of dollars a piece, – and then not providing the services that were purchased. The lawsuit charges the operation with violations of the Consumer Sales Practice Ace that include failure to deliver of provide refunds, unfair or deceptive sales practices and unconscionable acts. The Ohio Attorney General is seeking restitution, civil penalties and a permanent injunction."

    Accused of "unconscionable acts" – oh dear! Looks like Mark Jenney the "philanthropist who cares" may have been churning out all those websites and blogs to distract attention from other less savoury matters?

    Now where have we seen that before? 🙂

    1. Paul & you had a pop at Mark Jenney here back in September – I thought I recognised the name! See:
      https://strangelyperfect.tv/7910/internet-business… and a few comments afterwards.

      Now what started out as a "trend" is now turning into another deluge. There are a load of bid-gamble-auction sites and the amount that are loaded with charitable works and deeds that they've done is remarkable!

      The guys at ScamRaiders in this HUGE thread here:


      …and other pages thereabouts, have catalogued the creation, development and publicising of a few, say selloffauctions.com and yobid.com

      selloffauctions.com even has lists of winners and a "How we give back" page – and they're not even up and running yet!

      The "giving" is particularly sickening and they should be strung up for that.

      YoBid say they're a Nevada outfit and blatantly use stock photos in their "winners" headshots on the main page! (I stuck up my screendumps on ScamRaiders)

      Helpfully, ScamRaiders research has shown the folks behind much of this rubbish "have prior", as they'd say on CSI.

      There's some incredible work being done in that thread – all documented and live as it happens stuff. It's unfortunate that it's all in the one thread as it could be categorised a bit more for easier reference. But who am I to talk? Once the info starts pouring in, you just get it out, which is why I'm looking at a full rework of this site to solve the very problem I've mentioned!

  14. Do this search:

    One result is to here:


    Down on the right is a Jesse Wills link!

    The link takes you to one of his image-boosting press lugs here:


    How does that happen? I'd ask the domain holder, but of course, they're hidden!!

    You see, the links on this website are ones for me or that I'd like to give backlinks to.

  15. …er. Willms is suing against those naughty copycat businesses. There are a string of cases against Clickbooth & Quibids for instance as well as a collection business…

    Meanwhile, the class action against Willms proceeds for the dodgy processes involved under the swipebids name. And very nicely catalogued is the complaint as it makes references to all the various US laws that are alleged to have been broken complete with damning screenshots. Melissa Therieau pops up again!

    See https://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/31/OnlineFr

    Also, see this amazing expose of the whole BBB thing: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/business-bureau-bes

    What a pile of poo. Close 'em down – it's like T Dan Smith all over again…

    1. Courtesy of Scamraiders here, a recent addition to Mr Jesse Willms website armoury is called:

      jessewillmslesbiangossip dot com

      And among the crop of recently registered websites (which he MUST keep public as a condition of his settlement with Oprah Winfrey et al), the latest edition of the bid/swipe/auction/gamble/cactus/swoop looks like being called:

      selloffauctions dot something or other

      I wait with bated breath and have the affiliate spam filters at the ready on my email inbox.

  16. Hopefully Mr Willms, will be taking action against those businesses that have recently spawned in the gambling field of penny/bid/auction websites and with which he has been in direct competition.

    I'm specifically thinking of those that I mentioned earlier in this very website that used his business name in email spam to me yet was redirected through the affiliate marketing chain to their own;

    or that manipulated the Google searches to boost their own sorry websites in the results.

    I took very good screen-shots of these things and he's quite welcome to use them as he sees fit in any future cases. Like this one, say:


    That sorry mess just proved to me (again!) what a rotten field of business are internet promotions of almost all types, because essentially, the trust factor is the weakest link in the whole chain.

    There are just too many links, is the key.

    So if I did it, I'd want complete control for long-term trust and stability, and forego the short-term gains of mass marketing through a myriad of unknown "partners".

    As for this website, I "trust" Google's artificial intelligence to place reasonable ads on my website. In essence, I don't care what people click on! It's their choice. And I don't advertise – why should I? The fact that my old band's website is top of Google searches proves that advertising isn't necessary. See https://www.google.com/#q=crawling+chaos and the top two band results are for the https://crawlingchaos.co.uk domain, aren't they?

    For the UK, I'm top two! See https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=crawling+chaos
    Even when the ads make me look hypocritical as if I'd somehow "accepted" them onto my website, I don't really care, as it's all in my T&Cs.

    And if someone wants to seriously place ads my way, then I really can't afford the time to block them using Google's limited ads filters.

    And by the way, Mr Willms has explained why he's suing like mad on his website, post 562. I should have had that bit first, shouldn't I?

    Which website? Well the official one, of course!

    1. This comment on Paul's website is the clearest statement of how the fake news & flog sites are set up and run.

      <a href="https://www.workathometruth.com/blog/2009/01/15/internet-scam-review-com-no-thanks/comment-page-1/#comment-25518


      It's an indication that even though one end of the selling chain may be trying to run legitimately, the whole shebang is only as strong as the scammiest link in the chain.
      And because of time delays in communications between sellers, promoters, sub-promoters and buyers, it means that even when only one link from the chain breaks the circle of trust, the whole package becomes suspect.

      Sincerely, this network marketing lark is pants and because of the lack of regulation and my previous points about time lags etc above, the potential for consumer mistrust leaves me to think that anyone going into it as a business venture must be mad.

      1. The other thing about these pesky ads, is that the onus is on me to block the things…..

        True, you can set Google Ads up to block various things, but ones like Willms' offerings of self-promotion bear a depressing familiarity with the Kevin Makes Good/ Kevin Gets Rich kind of things from last year and lead me to think that this is the beginning of a plague.
        The active promotion on these "blog" sites via Google Ads on top of the ridiculous plugs via free press aggregators and elsewhere of the Willms "brand", means that if I actually decided to block them, it'd be a never ending job – I mean, what's the next one going to be? ….jessewillmseatsblubber dot com, jessewillmsfightsfraud or something?

        Who knows? I could make a website devoted to willms spotting like Private Eye's OBN or Colemanballs, but hey! Life's too short. So the ads stay.

        1. Not only the that – I've just run your Google search – just check out the selection of images seen in the image results….

          It appears that his past has caught up with him, image-wise.

          All those earlier empty blogs about recipes, women & fast cars plus the various pieces of journalistic reporting on his earlier business ventures are all that's being shown!

          And speaking of earlier ventures, I'm not making any sarky comment at all about the swipeauctions website apart from that the earlier news gossip that refunds wouldn't be honoured is completely different to the statement on the SA front page.

          It simply states that all membership fees for the last 90 days will be refunded – roughly. There's a bit of a spin, about which, following threats, I will say no more. I'll leave that to others.

          However, if it's true and we don't get a deluge of complaints on the various consumer sites about refund troubles, then I guess Mr Willms is showing his true colours and doing what he says.

          You can't say fairer than that, can you?

          However, the business of penny/bid/auctions or whatever you want to call them – it's all still just gambling, and should be governed and regulated as such to protect people from themselves as well as the sharks.

          That's one thing that "the people" make laws for.

Comments are closed.