Good to know! Sort of similar here. They pretty much never went anywhere but I guess, at least here, someone could throw spaghetti at the wall and try a private prosecution related to glp1s (and likely fail lol).
Literally the worst. And I went up against pro se individuals all the time and I just absolutely dreaded it. So painful.
That’s pretty embarrassing for the lawyer!
Good job. A friend of mine, a nonlawyer, defended himself in a civil case. He "lost" in that the plaintiff, represented by the biggest and most expensive law firm in town, managed to secure a verdict for a small amount in damages but a large amount in attorney fees. My friend then represented himself on appeal and managed to have the attorneys fees award overturned. It's rather embarrassing when the biggest law firm in town loses on appeal. In defense of the law firm that lost, I'll acknowledge that my friend was an unusually bright person in a great number of areas including law.
Pro se inmates are a PITA to litigate against, not because their claims have merit, but because they bring pure chaos by throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks -- and you still have to respond to it.
A lawyer representing themselves has a fool for a client, as they say.
The laws prohibiting the sales, distribution, and importing of unapproved drugs are designed to protect the users. Even Eli Lilly will acknowledge that the law against use of unapproved drugs is for the purpose of protecting the users, not Eli Lilly. It is frequently the case that victims of crimes have done something to encourage it. Nonetheless, they generally cannot be prosecuted for the crime even under a conspiracy theory. A victim of statutory rape, even if the initiator, cannot be prosecuted based upon conspiracy law. See In re Meagan R. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 17, 19; People v. Buffum (1953) 40 Cal.2d 709, 722-723. Nor may a person who pays a ransom to secure the return of a family member be prosecuted for conspiracy. The Mann Act punished the transportation of women for purposes of prostitution. Could a woman who was transported, with her consent and knowledge of what she was expected to do, be punished a conspirator to the crime? The United States Supreme Court said no. "[C]riminal transportation under the Mann Act may be effected without the woman's consent as in cases of intimidation or force (with which we are not now concerned). We assume, therefore, for present purposes . . . that the decisions last mentioned do not in all strictness apply.[Fn.] We do not rest our decision upon the theory of those cases, nor upon the related one that the attempt is to prosecute as conspiracy acts identical with the substantive offense. [Citation.] We place it rather upon the ground that we perceive in the failure of the Mann Act to condemn the woman's participation in those transportations which are effected with her mere consent, evidence of an affirmative legislative policy to leave her acquiescence unpunished. We think it a necessary implication of that policy that when the Mann Act and the conspiracy statute came to be construed together, as they necessarily would be, the same participation which the former contemplates an an inseparable incident of all cases in which the woman is a voluntary agent at all, but does not punish, was not automatically to be made punishable under the latter." Gebardi v. United States (1932) 287 U.S. 112, 122–123.
I've seen many cases involving imported and adulterated foreign pharma products; those matters are not pursued by the "legit" pharma companies but by regulators in some other context.
I agree with this. I certainly wouldn't advise any client to run a GB, for example.
Yes.
Please.
Never!!! lol
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).
You need to calm down. 😉
Every parent I work with whose kid was gifted a pet this year has already messaged me
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.
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.
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.
I'll wait for T Swift's death metal era to give her a spin.
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.
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.
It’s me, hi, I’m the problem it’s me.
Get an attorney if you’re that concerned. Because we aren’t.
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.
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.
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.
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
Sounds like that person is doing mostly mental masturbation, and for that ChatGPT is the best thing since sliced bread.
That's a brave admission, I applaud you for you candor.
