Legal chat: Are we co-conspirators?

[GtownBrown]

I was just on discord talking about the implosion of the CZGB. The organizer says she’s receiving threats, so she shut the whole thing down and refuses to talk to anyone “upon advice of counsel.” I feared this would happen when people started getting angry about how slow she was to communicate and ship. Then the “no peptide” vials hit and calls to “report her” became more frequent.

I am of the mind that we at the very bottom of the supply chain are complicit in the crime of smuggling illegal goods because we commissioned it with our cash and our orders. Others say we are blameless because it’s not illegal to use or possess peptides. I think it’s about intent, in a legal sense. I am of the view that we should support the organizer, no matter her personal failings, because she is only doing (however badly) what we asked her to do. We didn’t want the risk, so we paid her to take it for us, for a fee. Is that not conspiracy?

 

[stickfigure]

Sorry, not familiar with that GB, but has it been importing controlled substances like HGH? If not, I don't think there are many reasons to worry. No one goes after end users of unlawfully imported legend drugs. Of course unless the end users name is something like Rush Limbaugh

 

[GtownBrown]

Sorry, not familiar with that GB, but has it been importing controlled substances like HGH? If not, I don't think there are many reasons to worry. No one goes after end users of unlawfully imported legend drugs. Of course unless the end users name is something like Rush Limbaugh

I’m not worried. I know police wouldn’t bother with the end user. I’m just wondering about the legal technicality.

 

[YoYoFat]

I am of the mind that we at the very bottom of the supply chain are complicit in the crime of smuggling illegal goods because we commissioned it with our cash and our orders.

Nope. It is not illegal to sell, buy, or use research peptides.

What's illegal is selling research peptides as if they are FDA-approved prescription medication intended for human use, like the Florida med spa lady who was selling pre-filled syringes of "medication" for pick up under her front doormat.

Apples and hand grenades. Making the former out to be the latter is moronic.

 

[stickfigure]

It all comes down to intent. Is the intent to use the imported drugs for humans? If so, it's illegal.
Intent has to be proven, but for something like tirz no one is going to bother with end users.

 

[Vicki]

Sorry, not familiar with that GB, but has it been importing controlled substances like HGH? If not, I don't think there are many reasons to worry. No one goes after end users of unlawfully imported legend drugs. Of course unless the end users name is something like Rush Limbaugh

They consider glp1s to be legend drugs apparently and it's also illegal. Just because it's not a controlled substance doesn't mean people aren't breaking the law. As long as the intent for human use is there it's illegal. You can call it research all day but just reading a little bit and you can see nobody is actually doing research

This is why I'm so against people getting pissy and reporting discords, people, etc. It just shines a big light on everyone here.


Sorry I didn't answer the question.

Technically, yes we are co-conspirators Do they care enough to look into it further? I guess it might depend who you are.

 

[GtownBrown]

This is why I'm so against people getting pissy and reporting discords, people, etc. It just shines a big light on everyone here.

Totally agree

 

[YoYoFat]

It all comes down to intent. Is the intent to use the imported drugs for humans? If so, it's illegal.
Intent has to be proven, but for something like tirz no one is going to bother with end users.

Cite the section of the USC, please.

 

[stickfigure]

Title 21 of the U.S. Code (Food and Drugs). In particular, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) makes it a prohibited act to introduce (including import) any non‑FDA‑approved (unapproved) drug into interstate commerce with the intent for human use. Two key sections are usually cited together:

1. 21 U.S.C. § 355 (New Drugs) – This section establishes that any “new drug” (i.e., not generally recognized as safe and effective, or not approved by FDA) may not be introduced into interstate commerce without an approved application.
2. 21 U.S.C. § 331(d) (Prohibited Acts) – Prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of an unapproved new drug in violation of § 355.

When these sections are read together, they make it unlawful to import (or otherwise introduce) unapproved drugs for human use into the United States without prior FDA approval.

 

[GtownBrown]

Cite the section of the USC, please.

It’s not the code but it’s a simple enough concept

 

[brentm]

I like how none of the self-disclosed attorneys have not responded to this thread.

 

[Vicki]

It’s not the code but it’s a simple enough concept

Also we should keep in mind that all the discussion of human use is enough to imply intent. Even if we say "research subject"

 

[YoYoFat]

I like how none of the self-disclosed attorneys have not responded to this thread.

I have.

 

[raw_oyster_eater]

it's like tearing that tag off your mattress. some people actually worry about these things.

 

[YoYoFat]

It’s not the code but it’s a simple enough concept

I’m an attorney. You’re wrong. There is no section of the code that makes buying, selling, or engaging in research of research peptides unlawful.

Conspiracy requires an overt act in furtherance of a crime. If there is no underlying crime, no conspiracy.

Full stop. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

You’re also all over Discord describing research peptides as “counterfeit medication.” You’re just flat wrong.

 

[YoYoFat]

Also we should keep in mind that all the discussion of human use is enough to imply intent. Even if we say "research subject"

Hahaha no.

 

[YoYoFat]

Title 21 of the U.S. Code (Food and Drugs). In particular, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) makes it a prohibited act to introduce (including import) any non‑FDA‑approved (unapproved) drug into interstate commerce with the intent for human use. Two key sections are usually cited together:

1. 21 U.S.C. § 355 (New Drugs) – This section establishes that any “new drug” (i.e., not generally recognized as safe and effective, or not approved by FDA) may not be introduced into interstate commerce without an approved application.
2. 21 U.S.C. § 331(d) (Prohibited Acts) – Prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of an unapproved new drug in violation of § 355.

When these sections are read together, they make it unlawful to import (or otherwise introduce) unapproved drugs for human use into the United States without prior FDA approval.

These code sections do not apply to research peptides, vitamins, or supplements. Peptides themselves — what research peptides are — also aren’t drugs, medications, or pharmaceuticals.

Common sense should make this clear to you, given the abundance of domestic single vial sellers of the very same products that have been around for a long long time without so much as a whiff of concern from law enforcement.

EL and NN engaging in scare tactics to get compounders and research retailers to stop is an entirely different, patent- and market share-based issue.

 

[chmuse]

These code sections do not apply to peptides, vitamins, or supplements. Peptides are not regulated by the FDA. Peptides also aren’t drugs.

Will that change if EL or NN manages to get them classified as biologics? (I remember seeing somewhere that they're trying but probably won't succeed. Just being curious.)

 

[noteablequotable]

This is not a conversation we should be having, lol, but I think there is a distinction to be made between an unapproved drug, and a drug produced and distributed through unapproved channels.

That's all I'm going to say. Dipping from this conversation as well ✌️

 

[stickfigure]

Is Tirzapetide, or Retatrutide, both synthetic incretin mimetics not drugs in context of FD&C act? What is the area of law you practice? Are you an expert in FDA regulation compliance? I want to understand what makes you so confident in your opinion. Do you have case law examples to support your theory?

 

[GtownBrown]

I’m an attorney. You’re wrong. There is no section of the code that makes buying, selling, or engaging in research of research peptides unlawful.

Conspiracy requires an overt act in furtherance of a crime. If there is no underlying crime, no conspiracy.

Full stop. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

You’re also all over Discord describing research peptides as “counterfeit medication.” You’re just flat wrong.

 

[GLP69]

Police have limited resources. They're worried about stopping the selling. They don't care about small time buyers. This same type of thing has been going on with illicit drugs on the dark web for a long time and I don't think I've ever once heard of someone getting scooped up because the police got their info from a seller getting busted. It simply doesn't happen.

This Jessica person comes across as the exact type of person who would drop some vague line about "advice of council" to spook people into leaving her alone. If she was actually lawyered up she would have completely disappeared from this scene as any real lawyer would have told her to get a million miles away from any of this.

 

[YoYoFat]

Will that change if EL or NN manages to get them classified as biologics? (I remember seeing somewhere that they're trying but probably won't succeed. Just being curious.)

I think you mean that they are trying to reclassify their name brand drugs as biologics. That would have no impact on peptides in and of themselves remaining peptides.

 

[YoYoFat]

Is Tirzapetide, or Retatrutide, both synthetic incretin mimetics not drugs in context of FD&C act? What is the area of law you practice? Are you an expert in FDA regulation compliance? I want to understand what makes you so confident in your opinion. Do you have case law examples to support your theory?

Pretty hard to prove a negative. Read the code. Read the case law.

You’re the one making the claims of illegality, it’s on YOU to back that up.

It doesn’t exist.

 

[YoYoFat]

@GtownBrown You seem to be having some technical difficulties with quote responding. I know what I said. You don’t need to regurgitate it.

 

[GtownBrown]

I’m an attorney. You’re wrong. There is no section of the code that makes buying, selling, or engaging in research of research peptides unlawful.

Conspiracy requires an overt act in furtherance of a crime. If there is no underlying crime, no conspiracy.

Full stop. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

You’re also all over Discord describing research peptides as “counterfeit medication.” You’re just flat wrong.

If it’s not a crime to import it, why do the sellers conceal what it is? Why do we use anonymous sites to procure it? Why use crypto to buy it? And how is paying money to a smuggler of legend drugs not an overt act? There IS a crime involved, likely several. I don’t know how you can say it’s not, you being an attorney and all. The one sitting next to me right now wants to know where you got your law degree.

 

[YoYoFat]

This is not a conversation we should be having, lol, but I think there is a distinction to be made between an unapproved drug, and a drug produced and distributed through unapproved channels.

That's all I'm going to say. Dipping from this conversation as well ✌️

There is also a difference between a research peptide and a drug, whether approved or unapproved.

Just as there is a difference between a vitamin and a drug, or a supplement and a drug.

 

[YoYoFat]

If it’s not a crime to import it, why do the sellers conceal what it is? Why do we use anonymous sites to procure it? Why use crypto to buy it? And how is paying money to a smuggler of legend drugs not an overt act? There IS a crime involved, likely several. I don’t know how you can say it’s not, you being an attorney and all. The one sitting next to me right now wants to know where you got your law degree.

Using the first response to an Google search isn’t even decent research.

Peptides aren’t legend drugs. Peptides are ingredients in some drugs. Apples aren’t pies. Apples are ingredients in some pies. Apples are to peptides what pies are to drugs.

Why don’t you ask the one sitting next to you for the citations that support the claim that the sale or purchase of research peptides is unlawful. Or that the purchase of vitamins or supplements is unlawful. Since vitamins and supplements are also ingredients in drugs.

I’ll wait.

Actually, I won’t. I don’t engage people who resort to personal attacks. I quite literally ignore them.

 

[penewbie]

Ask the one sitting next to you for the citations that support the claim that purchase of research peptides is unlawful. Or that the purchase of vitamins or supplements is unlawful. Since vitamins and supplements are also ingredients in FDA approved drugs.

I’ll wait.

Actually, I won’t. I don’t engage people who resort to personal attacks. I quite literally ignore them.

You can't say you ignore these people in the same breath as you responding to them.

Well, you can, but it just makes you look silly.

 

[noteablequotable]

There is also a difference between a research peptide and a drug, whether approved or unapproved.

Just as there is a difference between a vitamin and a drug, or a supplement and a drug.

💯 Agree.

There are a lot of small distinctions to make that will be difficult for anyone who isn't an expert in this area of law to understand. I am not sure why the OP decided to start this topic because there is no way non-experts can come to any reasonable conclusion. Best outcome is a bunch of slap fighting which is a weird way to spend the weekend after Christmas.

I can say wholeheartedly that I don't believe I'm doing anything illegal or I wouldn't be doing it.

 

[YoYoFat]

I can say wholeheartedly that I don't believe I'm doing anything illegal or I wouldn't be doing it.

LOL, same x100000.

 

[YoYoFat]

You can't say you ignore these people in the same breath as you responding to them.

Well, you can, but it just makes you look silly.

That was my last and final response to that person, I put them on ignore as soon as I responded.

So no, it doesn’t make me silly. But it sure makes you look that way by choosing that, of all things, to pick at.

 

[YoYoFat]

💯 Agree.

There are a lot of small distinctions to make that will be difficult for anyone who isn't an expert in this area of law to understand. I am not sure why the OP decided to start this topic because there is no way non-experts can come to any reasonable conclusion. Best outcome is a bunch of slap fighting which is a weird way to spend the weekend after Christmas.

I can say wholeheartedly that I don't believe I'm doing anything illegal or I wouldn't be doing it.

Oh, but he’s sitting next to a lawyer! And that lawyer is telling him he’s engaged in a criminal conspiracy! And yet, he’s still doing it? Ummm, okay.

I’d have to link to law journals and conferences to back my ish up, and I’m just not in the mood to doxx myself. Because some pep people be crazy.

There’s a lot in this space that’s in flux, so obviously regs and code may change in the future, but as of right now, as Nene Leakes would say, I said what I said.

 

[keangkong]

I was just on discord talking about the implosion of the CZGB. The organizer says she’s receiving threats, so she shut the whole thing down and refuses to talk to anyone “upon advice of counsel.” I feared this would happen when people started getting angry about how slow she was to communicate and ship. Then the “no peptide” vials hit and calls to “report her” became more frequent.

I am of the mind that we at the very bottom of the supply chain are complicit in the crime of smuggling illegal goods because we commissioned it with our cash and our orders. Others say we are blameless because it’s not illegal to use or possess peptides. I think it’s about intent, in a legal sense. I am of the view that we should support the organizer, no matter her personal failings, because she is only doing (however badly) what we asked her to do. We didn’t want the risk, so we paid her to take it for us, for a fee. Is that not conspiracy?

As a criminal defense attorney, although not one who practices federal law, I disagree with your legal interpretation. From your post, I believe you feel some moral responsibility for what happened. I offer no opinion on the moral issues involved.

 

[penewbie]

That was my last and final response to that person, I put them on ignore as soon as I responded.

So no, it doesn’t make me silly. But it sure makes you look that way by choosing that, of all things, to pick at.

Haha. The pettiness is... *chef's kiss*

This forum is great.

 

[Vicki]

I think we should delete this topic when it's settle down 🫣. Just in case you know lol

 

[YoYoFat]

As a criminal defense attorney, although not one who practices federal law, I disagree with your legal interpretation. From your post, I believe you feel some moral responsibility for what happened. I offer no opinion on the moral issues involved.

I got the impression he was trying to tamp down on the pitchforks coming after the CZGB lady. Why, I don’t know. But you may be on to something.

 

[BenevolentMrTang]

Is anyone familiar with the prosecutorial practices of the various United States Attorneys located throughout our nation? I am. I actually wrote out a response that was really damn long, with all kinds of hypotheticals, but I just deleted it because there is really no point even in discussing it. The practical reality is this: federal prosecutors do not handle small cases. What is a small case is open to some interpretation, but in many jurisdictions, the threshold for financial loss is $100k before they want to get involved. Small-time drug dealers are not on their radar and won't ever be. No US Attorney will ever prosecute someone for buying Chinese peptides on the Internet for individual use, even if that US Attorney can cook up a legal theory that might actually work.

 

[chmuse]

Is anyone familiar with the prosecutorial practices of the various United States Attorneys located throughout our nation? I am. I actually wrote out a response that was really damn long, with all kinds of hypotheticals, but I just deleted it because there is really no point even in discussing it. The practical reality is this: federal prosecutors do not handle small cases. What is a small case is open to some interpretation, but in many jurisdictions, the threshold for financial loss is $100k before they want to get involved. Small-time drug dealers are not on their radar and won't ever be. No US Attorney will ever prosecute someone for buying Chinese peptides on the Internet for individual use, even if that US Attorney can cook up a legal theory that might actually work.

I have so many questions, all of which would probably show that all of my legal knowledge comes from television and James Patterson novels.

My thought would be, could EL or NN try to argue, with the prices being upwards of 1k/mo, that people selling are stealing money people would have spent with them?

Big companies can be petty. Like with the whole Disney arguing that a case has to go through arbitration because someone used Disney plus thing.

 

[mopo89]

I like how none of the self-disclosed attorneys have not responded to this thread.

I’m not a criminal lawyer. I’m not familiar with US criminal law (or Canadian, for that matter). If anyone wants to talk about how to expropriate a property or how to appeal a land use decision made by city council, I’m your girl. But I don’t participate in discussions about the law unless I can add something to it.

I also just feel like I talk about the law 40-70 hours a week and like to spend my free time/time off thinking about anything else lmao.

 

[BenevolentMrTang]

I have so many questions, all of which would probably show that all of my legal knowledge comes from television and James Patterson novels.

My thought would be, could EL or NN try to argue, with the prices being upwards of 1k/mo, that people selling are stealing money people would have spent with them?

Big companies can be petty. Like with the whole Disney arguing that a case has to go through arbitration because someone used Disney plus thing.

EL or NN could attempt to get federal authorities to pursue criminal charges against people for a variety of things, but I have a hard time believing that many prosecutors would be moved by their arguments or pleas. Their remedies are purely civil, and I am quite certain that they will continue to pursue them, probably with increased vigor if they believe that it's in their financial interest to do that.

 

[chmuse]

I’m not a criminal lawyer. I’m not familiar with US criminal law (or Canadian, for that matter). If anyone wants to talk about how to expropriate a property or how to appeal a land use decision made by city council, I’m your girl. But I don’t participate in discussions about the law unless I can add something to it.

I also just feel like I talk about the law 40-70 hours a week and like to spend my free time/time off thinking about anything else lmao.

I'd probably be annoyed if someone started asking me a million questions about my area of expertise in my time off, too.

 

[chmuse]

EL or NN could attempt to get federal authorities to pursue criminal charges against people for a variety of things, but I have a hard time believing that many prosecutors would be moved by their arguments or pleas. Their remedies are purely civil, and I am quite certain that they will continue to pursue them, probably with increased vigor if they believe that it's in their financial interest to do that.

I guess that's more what I worry about. Not that they'd be successful with criminal charges, but that they'd financially ruin a lot of people via frivolous litigation.

 

[FreeSpectator8]

I have so many questions, all of which would probably show that all of my legal knowledge comes from television and James Patterson novels.

My thought would be, could EL or NN try to argue, with the prices being upwards of 1k/mo, that people selling are stealing money people would have spent with them?

Big companies can be petty. Like with the whole Disney arguing that a case has to go through arbitration because someone used Disney plus thing.

As with the case of that Disney mayhem, that would end up as a civil case, not a criminal case. Could EL or NN come after the sellers for loss of profit and duping their research? Maybe, but they haven't really yet, so I would say they don't have a case or don't care enough.

My legal knowledge is ALSO lacking, so I don't say this as an absolute, but I am pretty sure only the government can prosecute a criminal case. So as @YoYoFat says, the government does not seem to give a shit about non violent buyers of grey market supplements.

 

[BenevolentMrTang]

I guess that's more what I worry about. Not that they'd be successful with criminal charges, but that they'd financially ruin a lot of people via frivolous litigation.

They certainly have the financial resources to ruin plenty of people and businesses, but that comes at a cost to them, as well. The real goal is to frighten everyone and discourage people from doing things that will hurt them financially.

 

[FreeSpectator8]

They certainly have the financial resources to ruin plenty of people and businesses, but that comes at a cost to them, as well. The real goal is to frighten everyone and discourage people from doing things that will hurt them financially.

I guess that's more what I worry about. Not that they'd be successful with criminal charges, but that they'd financially ruin a lot of people via frivolous litigation.

I mean despite the whole "we will bankrupt you in court costs" mantra shtick, you do actually need to have a legitimate case against someone to even start a civil suit.

Judges WILL throw out frivolous lawsuits.


*EDIT*
I mean even if you buy peptides over your whole life, NN and EL have only a claim to a few of them, and even then, the mixture we buy on grey market is NOT the same as what EL and NN produce. I really don't personally think there is much of a case for them. And I just dont see how a court is going to let a company go after a buyer of a product, thats not where the liability lies in the transcation, the only target they could go after would be the sellers I would think.

I mean we have no contract with EL or NN, no agreements, hell most of us probably dont even have prescriptions for NN or EL products.

 

[mopo89]

Actually this brings up an interesting question for me. Does the US have private prosecutions?

We have them here but they are notoriously difficult to advance. Basically a private citizen can swear an information against a legal entity and attempt to prosecute them themselves. I’ve attempted a few (I worked for a crazy guy at one point) and I’m pretty sure none of them ever got past the first couple of steps and there was zero chance of success. I believe the Crown would get involved at some point to determine if they wanted to take over the prosecution but that NEVER happened. I never got past the discovery stage I don’t think.

 

[FreeSpectator8]

Actually this brings up an interesting question for me. Does the US have private prosecutions?

We have them here but they are notoriously difficult to advance. Basically a private citizen can swear an information against a legal entity and attempt to prosecute them themselves. I’ve attempted a few (I worked for a crazy guy at one point) and I’m pretty sure none of them ever got past the first couple of steps and there was zero chance of success. I believe the Crown would get involved at some point to determine if they wanted to take over the prosecution but that NEVER happened. I never got past the discovery stage I don’t think.

I do not know, I could probably google, but I will just say I have literally never heard of anything like that ever. We have some stupid Citizen's Arrest bullshit, but that shit never actually holds up.

 

[BenevolentMrTang]

Actually this brings up an interesting question for me. Does the US have private prosecutions?

We have them here but they are notoriously difficult to advance. Basically a private citizen can swear an information against a legal entity and attempt to prosecute them themselves. I’ve attempted a few (I worked for a crazy guy at one point) and I’m pretty sure none of them ever got past the first couple of steps and there was zero chance of success. I believe the Crown would get involved at some point to determine if they wanted to take over the prosecution but that NEVER happened. I never got past the discovery stage I don’t think.

Private prosecutions under federal law are allowed under certain federal acts, but they are still rare. Many states have banned private prosecutions by law or through case law, but some states still allow some concept of private prosecution, which actually just means that a person can file a complaint, affidavit or other such document with a magistrate who can then decide whether it should proceed. Even then, a public prosecutor then takes over and can do whatever with the case, including tossing it. So, the simple answer is: Mostly no, not in a meaningful way and only in a few rare instances.

 

[BenevolentMrTang]

The most painful civil cases I worked on in my career were against people representing themselves pro se. I think that's probably true for most lawyers who have done some litigation.