Legal chat: Are we co-conspirators?

[RobNord]

This is not a 1:1 comparison at all, but I can expand on some related import / buy / sell nuances.

Obviously I don't want to get too specific, but I've been involved in investigations (in a civil capacity) for various luxury brands that pursue counterfeiters of their IP in China and the U.S.

Lets use a counterfeit Rolex as an example of the differences of what is an illegal act, what is prohibited, etc

- importation of a fake Rolex is prohibited
- but, attempting to import the item is not a criminal act. The item is seized and that's it.
- once it is past the port of entry and you have it, it can't be seized.

Meaning, if the item prohibited from importation is discovered at a port of entry it can be seized. But you attempting to bring it in is not a crime. (Obviously there is nuance here- if you are involved in selling thats a different story)

It's not a crime to purchase a counterfeit Rolex. It's not a crime to possess or own one. It is a criminal act to sell a counterfeit Rolex, even one. Even while it was not a criminal act to attempt and successfully import that same watch (even though it is prohibited). Get it?

(I wont get into manufacturing as thats not relevant to the U.S., with 99.999% of counterfeit watches being made in China. There was one prolific American counterfeiter for over a decade but he stopped before being properly pursued and now has a legitimate brand)

Then there are the civil actions one could face for manufacturing or selling a counterfeit Rolex.

As you can see there a number of nuances to the law / regulations surrounding importing / buying / selling certain products. One act might be illegal, another act might just be prohibited but not criminal, and another not prohibited and not criminal. All involving the same item. Then, you can face civil actions from brands, or not.

Determining where your product / substance and your actions fall under federal code is not simple for a novice, or even an attorney if they dont specialize in these things.

Having said that, I have no idea what the correct answer for this issue is.

 

[YoYoFat]

This is not a 1:1 comparison at all, but I can expand on some related import / buy / sell nuances.

Obviously I don't want to get too specific, but I've been involved in investigations (in a civil capacity) for various luxury brands that pursue counterfeiters of their IP in China and the U.S.

Lets use a counterfeit Rolex as an example of the differences of what is an illegal act, what is prohibited, etc

- importation of a fake Rolex is prohibited
- but, attempting to import the item is not a criminal act. The item is seized and that's it.
- once it is past the port of entry and you have it, it can't be seized.

Meaning, if the item prohibited from importation is discovered at a port of entry it can be seized. But you attempting to bring it in is not a crime. (Obviously there is nuance here- if you are involved in selling thats a different story)

It's not a crime to purchase a counterfeit Rolex. It's not a crime to possess or own one. It is a criminal act to sell a counterfeit Rolex, even one. Even while it was not a criminal act to attempt and successfully import that same watch (even though it is prohibited). Get it?

(I wont get into manufacturing as thats not relevant to the U.S., with 99.999% of counterfeit watches being made in China. There was one prolific American counterfeiter for over a decade but he stopped before being properly pursued and now has a legitimate brand)

Then there are the civil actions one could face for manufacturing or selling a counterfeit Rolex.

As you can see there a number of nuances to the law / regulations surrounding importing / buying / selling certain products. One act might be illegal, another act might just be prohibited but not criminal, and another not prohibited and not criminal. All involving the same item. Then, you can face civil actions, or not.

Determining where your product / substance and your actions fall under federal code is not simple for a novice, or even an attorney if they dont specialize in these things.

Having said that, I have no idea what the correct answer for this issue is.

A long time ago, I bought a couple handbags from a street vendor in Rome. I naively thought they were real.

I learned upon my return to the U.S. and passing through customs that said bags were not real. They took them from me. That's it. That's all that happened.

Years later, a then-BF had given me a large LV piece of luggage. Dude was loaded so I had no reason to think it wasn't real. Nor did he, he Googled and bought it online. I'd used it for months.

Upon returning from a trip to Germany, CBP seized my entire bag! They had me take my clothes and toiletries out by hand, and they took my damn luggage. That was embarrassing, but again -- all that happened.

I also accidentally recently "imported" flowers from Thailand, or so the dog at SFO said upon sniffing my bag. They took my dried flowers (a sort of lei-like thing), and sent me on my way.

That's all that happened. And trust me, I'd know if I got put on any list.

 

[YoYoFat]

As to distributing or selling "research peptides," I'd recommend anyone who wants to avoid getting in trouble with the law to avoid doing those things. It may be possible to do things in the US without violating any criminal laws. However, it seems like a dangerous minefield.

I agree with this. I certainly wouldn't advise any client to run a GB, for example.

But participating in one? Not an issue.

 

[chmuse]

Thank you guys for answering questions for us!

So what I'm understanding is, I'm probably safe, but whoever runs our domestic sources and group buys might not be, but even that's complicated?

 

[YoYoFat]

Thank you guys for answering questions for us!

So what I'm understanding is, I'm probably safe, but whoever runs our domestic sources and group buys might not be, but even that's complicated?

Yes.

I would not want to be one of the people running those GBs, if only because if something goes wrong, the pitch forks come out and can cause a GB runner a huge and costly headache (defense attorneys aren't cheap), even if nothing ultimately comes of it.

 

[YoYoFat]

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.

Honestly? Same. I'd much rather spend my time reading @chmuse pontificating about Taylor Swift. But when I see just patently wrong statements about the law from lay people that make an entire community unnecessarily anxious, I can't help myself.

 

[AndyPanda]

NO MORE TAYLOR SWIFT, PLEASE! It could make me want to brush my teeth with a shotgun.

 

[chmuse]

NO MORE TAYLOR SWIFT, PLEASE! It could make me want to brush my teeth with a shotgun.

Please.

Boys only want love if it's torture.

You like her, admit it.

P.S. I'd also just like to point out, I'm not even the one who went to her concert.

 

[AndyPanda]

Please.

Boys only want love if it's torture.

You like her, admit it.

Never!!! lol

 

[GimmeABreak]

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

My wife is a family law attorney and she is to the point she doesn't tell people because once they find out they feel they must share their custody or divorce case with her to get her opinion. She has been through more hair stylists than I can count (they all have drama).

 

[YoYoFat]

NO MORE TAYLOR SWIFT, PLEASE! It could make me want to brush my teeth with a shotgun.

You need to calm down. 😉

 

[chmuse]

My wife is a family law attorney and she is to the point she doesn't tell people because once they find out they feel they must share their custody or divorce case with her to get her opinion. She has been through more hair stylists than I can count (they all have drama).

Every parent I work with whose kid was gifted a pet this year has already messaged me

Who gives a kid a turtle without asking first

 

[keangkong]

I agree with this. I certainly wouldn't advise any client to run a GB, for example.

But participating in one? Not an issue.

I've thought about participating in one. Although I haven't participated in one yet, my reasons for not participating have nothing to do with avoiding liability for crimes.

 

[keangkong]

My wife is a family law attorney and she is to the point she doesn't tell people because once they find out they feel they must share their custody or divorce case with her to get her opinion. She has been through more hair stylists than I can count (they all have drama).

If there is any fault, it's my fault for bothering to answer a question to which I knew the answer but I had trouble articulating. Then it started to bother me that I couldn't quickly find the legal authority. Then my obsessiveness took over. However, that's just the way I am.

 

[YoYoFat]

I've thought about participating in one. Although I haven't participated in one yet, my reasons for not participating have nothing to do with avoiding liability for crimes.

I’ve participated in two from the same gal. She’s been great. And while everything has worked out, I now know that I simply don’t have the patience to wait 8-12 weeks from purchase to receiving testing results from the randomly selected vials (which depends on those people having their sh*t together and timely sending their stuff in), which seems to be the norm.

And God help her if anything ever goes wrong, she’ll be in danger of crazy pep people going off the deep end and causing her a headache.

 

[hexagonal]

Please.

Boys only want love if it's torture.

You like her, admit it.

P.S. I'd also just like to point out, I'm not even the one who went to her concert.

I'll wait for T Swift's death metal era to give her a spin.

 

[chmuse]

I'll wait for T Swift's death metal era to give her a spin.

Yoyo is going to hate me, so this is my last joke for this thread.

 

[BenevolentMrTang]

I wrote out a really long post giving numerous examples of why the end user of a product would never be prosecuted under a theory of conspirator liability. And I wrote a lot of other stuff, too. But I deleted it. 🙂 The US Attorney for a certain jurisdiction (the one in which I practice) is a friend of mine. I’ll probably talk to him about some of these issues when I get a chance!

 

[GimmeABreak]

I appreciate all of the attorneys in the house taking the time to weigh in on this topic. I am not an attorney a fact that my attorney wife frequently points out whenever I talk about anything legal related. Her line "are you an attorney? Then shut the f&^k up!". So have learned to keep quiet when matters concerning the law are discussed.

 

[stickfigure]

I wrote out a really long post giving numerous examples of why the end user of a product would never be prosecuted under a theory of conspirator liability. And I wrote a lot of other stuff, too. But I deleted it. 🙂 The US Attorney for a certain jurisdiction (the one in which I practice) is a friend of mine. I’ll probably talk to him about some of these issues when I get a chance!

One interesting thing to ask would be the impact of the size of the stash, if there's a search warrant and the stash is found. Could the size be used as evidence of intent to distribute if a normal person cannot possibly consume the whole stash in reasonable amount of time - provided there is no other evidence of distribution.

 

[mopo89]

Honestly? Same. I'd much rather spend my time reading @chmuse pontificating about Taylor Swift. But when I see just patently wrong statements about the law from lay people that make an entire community unnecessarily anxious, I can't help myself.

I’m so at the point (especially after the last 3 exhausting months at work - I’m in government! I shouldn’t have to work this much!!) where I read incorrect legal things and I’m like… cool, I hope that works out for you. Because I’m too exhausted! And my brain is mush and if I try to form sentences it comes out like msjzjsiskaoapwnwixksixixox.

Please.

Boys only want love if it's torture.

You like her, admit it.

P.S. I'd also just like to point out, I'm not even the one who went to her concert.

It’s me, hi, I’m the problem it’s me.

 

[YoYoFat]

One interesting thing to ask would be the impact of the size of the stash, if there's a search warrant and the stash is found. Could the size be used as evidence of intent to distribute if a normal person cannot possibly consume the whole stash in reasonable amount of time - provided there is no other evidence of distribution.

Get an attorney if you’re that concerned. Because we aren’t.

 

[stickfigure]

I am not concerned a bit. It's just a mental exercise. You know, stuff that keeps Alzheimer's at bay.
Doctors are saying it's good for you.
I am not paying for some attorney's Alzheimer's prophylaxis 🤣. They better pay for their healthcare themselves.

 

[BenevolentMrTang]

One interesting thing to ask would be the impact of the size of the stash, if there's a search warrant and the stash is found. Could the size be used as evidence of intent to distribute if a normal person cannot possibly consume the whole stash in reasonable amount of time - provided there is no other evidence of distribution.

Theoretically, I suppose that could be true, as it is with controlled substances, although peptides are obviously not at all the same and there's no statute establishing graduated penalties for the amount at issue or classifying that amount as intent to distribute or trafficking. If you have 300 kits in your home, it would be hard to argue convincingly that those kits are for personal use. But there would obviously be a ton of other evidence, also, in almost every case. A simple look at the person's phone or computer would reveal that.

 

[keangkong]

One interesting thing to ask would be the impact of the size of the stash, if there's a search warrant and the stash is found. Could the size be used as evidence of intent to distribute if a normal person cannot possibly consume the whole stash in reasonable amount of time - provided there is no other evidence of distribution.

You win. You don't have to use grey peptides. Just buy from Eli Lilly. Meanwhile other attorneys like myself will continue to buy grey.

 

[AndyPanda]

One interesting thing to ask would be the impact of the size of the stash, if there's a search warrant and the stash is found. Could the size be used as evidence of intent to distribute if a normal person cannot possibly consume the whole stash in reasonable amount of time - provided there is no other evidence of distribution.

Here is 2 cents nobody asked for… I am retired Law Enforcement (circa 2021). I don’t know about small agencies that have little to do, but I cannot fathom a busy agency wasting resources to come after people like us. I can already hear a prosecutor asking “why are you bringing me this?” I assure you places like Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Atlanta have more pressing matters.

 

[stickfigure]

You win. You don't have to use grey peptides. Just buy from Eli Lilly. Meanwhile other attorneys like myself will continue to buy grey.

I am not an attorney, relax, I never claimed to be one and these days I tend to get by without bothering attorneys - paid o1 ChatGPT model is good enough for my mental exercises, easily providing references to both statutory and case law without bothering busy guys and gals like you

 

[BenevolentMrTang]

Be careful relying on ChatGPT for legal advice or guidance. It’s ok some of the time, but wildly wrong some of the time, too. Some of the attorneys in my office and I have experimented with it by researching things to which we already know the answer. Sometimes it’s mostly correct, but I’ve also found that it can simply make things up or flat out misstate the law. And I know this because I am literally the person who wrote the law!

 

[stickfigure]

I've been asked to serve as a character reference for a couple of friends for NCBE. So, I do have friends who are real attorneys that I can consult when needed. I usually don't bother them though. With ChatGPT, besides using a more advanced model, the trick is to request specific references to statutory or case law and then verify that they actually exist. This minimizes the risk of hallucinations. To be honest, the o1 model has not produced any significant hallucinations for me so far.

 

[penewbie]

Be careful relying on ChatGPT for legal advice or guidance. It’s ok some of the time, but wildly wrong some of the time, too. Some of the attorneys in my office and I have experimented with it by researching things to which we already know the answer. Sometimes it’s mostly correct, but I’ve also found that it can simply make things up or flat out misstate the law. And I know this because I am literally the person who wrote the law!

Sounds like that person is doing mostly mental masturbation, and for that ChatGPT is the best thing since sliced bread.