"Claiming that you have not received our material is a crime" in the essay industry?

I'm not too good in U.S. law but is it true that if you don't receive an email and you complain you didn't receive the email you are in legal trouble? Or it's something about the essay writing industry only? I found this excerpt here:

"Claiming that you have not received our material is a crime"

scamessays/viewtopic.php?t=14

Yes, falsely misrepresenting to your credit card company or to the seller that you never received a product that you actually received for the purposes of reversing the charge or receiving a refund is called theft of services by fraud. It's obviously all about context: only an idiot would interpret that phrase to mean it's a crime to say never received an email more generally, but idiots deserve answers to their questions too. You're welcome.

Stu4 (Yuri M.) owns essaywriters.net and bestessays.com. He's a Ukrainian con-man and convicted criminal (see the proof in this forum) who takes any opportunity to attack legitimate competition.

Speaking on research paper writing criminals, it appears these 'features' of characters may be hereditary. The following is an interesting article on that.

Summary of: Heredity in Criminality. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2(3), 3-21

There are many issues that have to be taken into consideration when attempting to find a correlation between heredity and criminality. The studies in this article are not interested in Lombroso's "stigmata of degeneration" or finding the crime gene. Studies of twins and adoptions are as close as researchers have gotten to study the relationship between heredity and crime.

Many studies have been done on twins. This article combined the findings to show the concordance rates between monozygotic twins and dizygotic twins. It was found that the concordance rate was significantly higher for the monozygotic twins than the dizygotic twins. Possible reasons for the concordance rate between monozygotic twins is that the twins spend large amounts of time together and are very emotionally close. If one twin commits a crime it is possible that the other twin, in order to be similar will also commit the crime. Another reason may be that if one twin is incarcerated the other may have a hard time dealing with being alone and commit a crime to unconsciously be close to the other twin.

I think more was found when looking into adoption studies. These studies look into criminal parents and their children who they gave up for adoption. The researchers are interested in if the adopted children are more likely to have tendency toward criminal behavior then those who did not come from criminal parents. These studies are able to sift out environmental variables and focus on heredity.

Schulsinger looked into the national records of Denmark to collect the data of adopted children. He narrowed it down to 57 who had specific criteria for psychological disorders. He matched them with 57 controls and took into consideration, age, race, social class and neighborhood. The next step was to look into the personal history of the subject's biological and adoptive relatives. It was found that it was two and a half times more likely that the relatives of the subjects would have psychological disorders than the families of the control. No significance was found due to the very small sample size.

Huchings and Mednick (forthcoming) studied the same group as Schulsinger but looked specifically at the fathers of adoptees. The adoptees were matched with non-adopted controls. The adoptees had a higher crime rate than the non-adopted control. Very interesting results were found in this study. When looking at the fathers it was found that the results of criminal behavior were similar for adoptive fathers and non-adoptive fathers but when looking at the biological fathers they had a significantly higher crime rate. This leads you to believe that the biology is in fact important since the adoptees had a higher crime rate but their adoptive parents did not. It was also found that adoptive parents of children with criminal tendency have had a higher rate of crime than adoptive fathers of non-criminal adoptees. When looking at environment this lets you assume that sometimes environment can work either way; fathers with criminal pasts lead children into criminal behavior and vise versa.

Crowe instead of finding criminals who were given up for adoption looked into incarcerated females who gave away their children for adoption. These women had 52 children who were matched with similar controls. Eight of the 52 subjects were found to have criminal records compared to two of the control group. Another interesting finding was that children of the criminals were significantly more likely to have traffic violations than the control group. It was also found that there were a few cases where the children committed very similar crimes to that of their criminal parents.

Some issues arise when dealing with heredity and crime but many of these are no longer valid if the environment is totally taken out of the situation as seen in the adoption studies. When looking into heredity and its effects on crime other factors that can be pasted on through heredity must be taken into consideration. Some of these factors are IQ, brain abnormalities and temperament.

Reference

Rosenthal, D. Heredity in Criminality. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2(3), 3-21. Doi:10.1177/009385487500200101

The problem I have with @FreelanceWriter's explanation is that the illegitimate essay writing companies tend to use that claim when they are unable to produce a writer for the student. They make improper claims of having assigned the task to a writer, they get a staff member to pretend to be the writer, then they do not try to find an actual writer for the task anymore. After the deadline passes, they claim they sent the paper and the client may not have checked their spam mail, or some stupid claim like that. Then they actually use that legal claim when the student begins to venture into demanding a refund. Yes, the wording they use is highly similar to the way the OP asked the question. That is why I do not think the OP is an idiot. He just explained things in a way that he understood. There was no need to call the OP any names. That was unwarranted and a low blow.

You really need to familiarize yourself with the respective posting history of other posters before you decide to chime in to comment with your uninformed opinions about how different posters address one another and whether or not their choices of words are appropriate. FYI, the poster on behalf of whom you characterized my choice of words as a "low blow" used to refer to me here (unprovoked) as "rewriter" and routinely accuse me of not being well educated, not knowing how to do research, not writing well, and not having graduated from law school. Each of those accusations is totally false and he knew he had no basis for any of it because, among other things, he never saw anything I ever wrote besides my forum posts and he saw nothing here other than glowing comments from customers thanking me for my great work and comments from other well-known, reputable, and successful academic writers here (like Professor Verb) vouching for my work. The poster you're defending owned an essay company full of ESL writers and used to do this here as his only way of "competing" against legitimate NES writers like me. His other posts also happened to be beyond stupid, both in their substantive content and in their laughable attempts to write coherently in English, especially while presuming to criticize other people's writing.


Your reading comprehension isn't very good if you interpreted anything I wrote as any kind of "defense" for any essay company. My response couldn't have been more obviously sarcastic to the self-serving way that this essay-company owner purposely phrased his question for the purpose of trying to ridicule some other competitor's website notice about fraudulent (i.e. untrue) claims about not receiving work that was, in fact, received. That's why I answered his legal question and ridiculed him for ignoring the context of the situation that he purposely tried to twist into meaning something that it obviously didn't mean. Since you don't seem to understand what my post even meant, let me break it down to your level for you:

Some other essay company against which this guy was, apparently, competing posted a notice on its website that claiming not to have received their product after they emailed it is a crime. OBVIOUSLY, they meant falsely claiming not to have received a product that was actually delivered by email. This idiot thought he was being clever by pretending that what they'd posted was a notice that it was some sort of "crime" just to say that you never received an email. He knew that's not what it meant at all. He tried to make his competitor look foolish by asking, rhetorically, whether it's illegal to say you never received an email. I answered him that it obviously depends on the context, because if someone files a claim falsely stating that he never received a product or service that was actually delivered by email, that's criminal fraud, which it is. I don't know anything about the company he was trying to ridicule. I answered his obnoxious smart-alec question with a statement of fact about the legal question he was only pretending to ask and I characterized what he was trying to do (by pretending the other company was suggesting it was a crime to deny receiving a routine email) as stupidity, which it was.

Sounds familiar!

FW is right, Cite-- you should check out people's posting history, and also the responses of long-term members to their posts. That's what potential customers are doing to you.

It seems the "legalese" of the scam companies have greatly evolved from the time of this posting. They have learned how to sound more authoritative, their papers tend to look more legitimate, and the repercussions they claim, more convincing in terms of academic fraud. The companies have evolved their scamming routine into something that actually adds to their company income every month. That is really sickening. Legitimate writers and companies would never enter into this sort of practice.