Many Research Chem Companys raided, Customer Lists Taken, Now What?

RC vendors busted..customer names taken...

suppose that a FOAF of mine ordered something from one of those websites that got busted (link)..and the DEA pursues charges against the individual based on information in a seized database... but when this person is arrested..no drugs or analogues are found...what kind of a case could the govt pursue in that instance?...

EDIT ..change title...
 
Last edited:
Hypothetically, there's nothing to stop the feds or local police from charging this person. All you need to bring charges against someone is probable cause, and having your name in a seller's database is probably sufficient.

However, obtaining a conviction would probably be more difficult. This would be particularly true for analogue substances, since the prosecutor needs to prove the intent to consume in order to get the conviction. There would need to be some other evidence to prove up the intent (e.g. if you had written records of your experiences).

In short, it is very unlikely, especially since this is a federal prosecution. For one thing, federal prosecutors generally focus only on big fish: people dealing fairly large quantities, where there is lots of money and property to seize. To the extent they go after the smaller people, it is to force them to testify against the primary targets -- and for that, they are going to want witnesses who can actually be pressured into testifying in a convincing fashion (i.e. people who have the substances in question on them).
 
mahan atma..

in your opinion..given the limited information available..how strong is the DEAs case in court?...one would like to think that merely selling to a customer with a stupid email address like acidtripper@ doesnt prove knowledge or intent of illegal use.. but its prolly not that simple...
 
Very general advice -- be cool, whatever's on order is just for research, the stuff's not for human consumption so it's just some stuff. If the merchant wasn't responsible that's their too bad.

Thanks, MA, for the political cast. The law's an ass.
 
Annapurna1 said:
mahan atma..

in your opinion..given the limited information available..how strong is the DEAs case in court?...one would like to think that merely selling to a customer with a stupid email address like acidtripper@ doesnt prove knowledge or intent of illegal use.. but its prolly not that simple...
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about the facts to know how strong their cases are. I do know that the feds don't usually pursue cases unless they are strong (if they don't have something close to a slam dunk, they usually kick it down to the local prosecutors).

Juries are allowed to infer intent. So a prosecutor could tell the jury about the email addresses, and let them decide.

If you were a juror (who wasn't also sympathetic to drug users), what would you think?
 
i don't care how sympathetic you are to drug-users; it's a tough sell to argue that you ordered drugs but that you didn't intend to take them, since drugs are without value unless ingested.
 
autopilot said:
i don't care how sympathetic you are to drug-users; it's a tough sell to argue that you ordered drugs but that you didn't intend to take them, since drugs are without value unless ingested.
Click to expand...

Tough sell, maybe, but not impossible. I know people who collect these things just because they're rare, or because they're hoping to resell them at a higher price some day.

And technically, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to establish intent beyond a reasonable doubt. That would make things a little harder, at least if you have a persuasive defense attorney. Get 1 out of 12 jurors to actually apply reasonable doubt, and maybe you get your acquittal. Maybe.
 
I on the other hand think beating a case for ordering a couple grams of whatever on any of those sites, is alot easier than beating most speeding tickets.
 
inthegame said:
I on the other hand think beating a case for ordering a couple grams of whatever on any of those sites, is alot easier than beating most speeding tickets.
Click to expand...

Do you know someone who has actually been tried and acquitted for this?

Getting out of a charge may be one thing - there are many ways to do that (cutting a deal, getting evidence suppressed, the cops don't know what drugs you have, whatever). But if you're actually going to go to court, I somehow think it's not that easy.
 
Well we'll just have to sit back and wait and see if they go after any individuals, then I guess we will know for sure.
 
^ according to at least two sources..they are going after customers ..

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=73461&ran=50370

Besides Linder, eight other suspects were arrested this week in New York, Georgia and California. Six Web sites have been shut down, and agents are tracing customer e-mails to those who purchased chemicals from those sites.
Click to expand...

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/research_chems/research_chems_info1.shtml

According to emails Erowid has received in the past two weeks, other vendors have been the subject of investigation as well. Some customers who had ordered products from research chemical vendors were contacted and threatened with prosecution if they did not cooperate with the investigation.
Click to expand...

but OTOH..it doesnt really make sense that the DEA would tell everyone that they had the customer lists..or even announce the busts..if there were still arrests pending..since that would only serve to tip the suspects off...

so far..all the discussions have centred around the customer lists...but what about the couriers??...fedex might have a record of that delivery..and they might even still have your signature on it...and that could become additional evidence...
 
FOAF

Got a FOAF who ordered something from a website about 2 weeks ago that is not listed on that bust sheet, however usually the products arrive in about 1 week or so, and now the website is down, is it possible this person has been compromised too?
 
Re: FOAF

barron411 said:
Got a FOAF who ordered something from a website about 2 weeks ago that is not listed on that bust sheet, however usually the products arrive in about 1 week or so, and now the website is down, is it possible this person has been compromised too?
Click to expand...

That's impossible to know without more facts.
 
Annapurna1 said:
^ according to at least two sources..they are going after customers ..
Click to expand...

It's standard practice for them to go after customers in just about any drug bust. They want witnesses to testify against the suppliers.
 
punkrawkhighrllr said:
Let's say for some reason the cops are watching these companies and they come to your door asking about it. If you didn't have the actual chemical anymore or any documentation in your apartment linking you to it what would happen?
Click to expand...

Mahan, do you have any comments on this question? Based on recent events, I'm interested in any comments along this line.

It's obvious that orders could be traced back to a customer from the vendors. However, if the local law enforcement arrived with a search warrant and found nothing (chemicals or related evidence), do they have any basis to prosecute? I mean it's obvious based on credit card records, etc that compounds were accquired at some point in time from a vendor, but if they have been destroyed and disposed of prior to a search, would the customer be safe from prosecution?

Thanks

-gp
 
georgiapoppy said:
It's obvious that orders could be traced back to a customer from the vendors. However, if the local law enforcement arrived with a search warrant and found nothing (chemicals or related evidence), do they have any basis to prosecute? I mean it's obvious based on credit card records, etc that compounds were accquired at some point in time from a vendor, but if they have been destroyed and disposed of prior to a search, would the customer be safe from prosecution?
Click to expand...

This question is answered here:

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=149791&r=16

Short answer: Technically they could charge you, but it's unlikely to happen, and conviction is even less likely.
 
Well, let's look at this for a minute.

Let's say that you bought several grams of research chems (they are NOT marketed as drugs so they can't be "assumed" to be drugs) over a period of one or two years. How would an enforcement agency prove that you had intended to consume them?

Here are some points to consider:
  • The majority of these substances are [currently] only illegal if intended for human consumption
  • This (I assume) means that possession of these substances only becomes illegal based solely on "intent."
  • These companies stated on their web sites that they were not intended to be used for human consumption. So there is nothing to indicate to a buyer that human consumption is desirable.
  • Are research notes required to document "non-human consumption" use? (The FDA doesn't regulate private/individual research of non-scheduled compounds. So the notion of "Good Laboratory Practises" [i.e., journal and record keeping of experiments] does not apply here.)
How would an enforcement agency demonstrate "intent" in the absence of any documents/statements/notes/etc. which demonstrate "intent?"

Can an agency arrest you under the premise:

"We believe that you intended to consume these substances. Now you prove otherwise!"

I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that an enforcement agency would first need reason to believe that "intent" was for human consumption to place charges (or even to justify investigation).

To use a different situation, it is illegal to "intend" to rob a bank. But if proof of lack of "intent" were up to the defendant, then an enforcement agency could arrest anyone and claim that they intended to rob a bank (without evidence of intent or conspiracy).

I don't know, the laws and law practises have change a great deal since the Bush Administration has taken office (and since Ashcroft has been in charge of the Justice Department). But I think that the notion of the presumption of innocence is still intact.

Am I wrong about this?

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top