Sourcing - Something to consider

[Juice Authority]

Taken from Elite Fitness:

"The remailer busted thread brings me to something i want to point out about sourcing. Over the past years and especially the past few months i have been doing alot of research of steroid caselaw.

Anyways, Passing on the name or information about someone who distributes scheduled substances falls under "distribution" itself. Meaning under law it is just as bad to source as it is to actually distribute.

I'm bringing this up so everyone is extra careful with who they source to and what kind of records they keep".

[gearedup]

Anyone who sources will get busted it is just when that is the only difference!

[Juice Authority]

This basically means that the Feds can, will, and have prosecuted for providing the source info. By pointing a Bro in the right direction you're just as guilty as if you made the sale yourself. That just doesn't sound right but if it's the case then I'll definitely think twice before I help someone out.

[Barbell]

Did not know that. Good info.

[Blackfoot]

Originally posted by Juice Authority
This basically means that the Feds can, will, and have prosecuted for providing the source info. By pointing a Bro in the right direction you're just as guilty as if you made the sale yourself. That just doesn't sound right but if it's the case then I'll definitely think twice before I help someone out.

I'm not trying to get into a verbal war here but that really does not sound right. What case law and statutes do you have to back this up? Also, the burden of proof in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "preponderance of evidence" as is the case in civil matters. Thus, the amount of time and effort to successfully pursue and actually win this type of prosecution would be just an all out cluster f*ck. I think its a little overboard to say that "pointing someone in the right direction makes you just as guilty as making the sale yourself."

And, if I'm wrong, give me the case law (the correct Westlaw and/or Lexus cites please) and statutes. I'd like to read it over. Thanks. Peace.

[Juice Authority]

Originally posted by Blackfoot
I'm not trying to get into a verbal war here but that really does not sound right. What case law and statutes do you have to back this up? Also, the burden of proof in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "preponderance of evidence" as is the case in civil matters. Thus, the amount of time and effort to successfully pursue and actually win this type of prosecution would be just an all out cluster f*ck. I think its a little overboard to say that "pointing someone in the right direction makes you just as guilty as making the sale yourself."

And, if I'm wrong, give me the case law (the correct Westlaw and/or Lexus cites please) and statutes. I'd like to read it over. Thanks. Peace.

Bro, as I said in the beginning of the thread, this was taken word from word off a thread at Elite Fitness. No, it doesn't sound right but when you have vets and mods responding to the thread agreeing that this is true then it's cause for concern. As far as case law and statutes are concerned you'd have to address that with the initiator of this thread over at EF. He goes by the handle " corvettedudeman". Ok?? The reason I posted it here was for feedback.

[Massive1]

Loose lips sink ships.

[Juice Authority]

Fro example, this is a quote from Sofageorge - long time vet at EF.

"It gets even more rediculous. All you have to do is pick up the telephone or use a computer to supply the info... and you have a new charge.

Since most people here supply source info via PM or email... they can count on at least one enhancement.

What people don't understand about the process is that it is often selective. They will prosecute some people if they want to make a point in the media. (This is like when the chainsaw juggler on Venice Beach got hit by the IRS for not declaring his tips. The IRS didn't give jack diddly about the money... they just wanted the story in the paper because they knew the media value would scare the shit out of people and get them to pay their taxes.) Secondarily, they come after you if they have a reason to nail you (real or imagined) or they want to put great preassure on you to get you to rat out your source(s).

One famous pro introduced two guys. He did not participate in a sale... he just provided the introduction. He served three years for it".

[Josh]

I think thats alot of bs - not to flame but i garuntee a weak ass charge like that would not stick as long as you have a great attorney. If you have the best attorney in town you can usually get out of just about anything or get off with minimal charges.

[Juice Authority]

Originally posted by Josh
I think thats alot of bs - not to flame but i garuntee a weak ass charge like that would not stick as long as you have a great attorney. If you have the best attorney in town you can usually get out of just about anything or get off with minimal charges.

I don't know for sure, which was why I posted the thread. It very well could be.

[AnotherUser]

Originally posted by Juice Authority
Bro, as I said in the beginning of the thread, this was taken word from word off a thread at Elite Fitness. No, it doesn't sound right but when you have vets and mods responding to the thread agreeing that this is true then it's cause for concern. As far as case law and statutes are concerned you'd have to address that with the initiator of this thread over at EF. He goes by the handle " corvettedudeman". Ok?? The reason I posted it here was for feedback.

Not saying that you are wrong, but sometimes people get the notion that vets and mods are gods and whatever they say is true. While they are more credible than most people, not everything they say is correct. Especially when conversing about things such as law, which really does require a formal education to thoroughly understand.

[gearedup]

i HAD SAID THAT MODS COULD GTE INM TROUBLE FOR THIS A LONG TIME AGO ANDF EVERYONE JUMPED DOWN MY THROAT! FUCKERS! LOL!

[Blackfoot]

I am willing to bet that it has to do with the amount of "pointing" and also how close the pointer is to the source. If you've got a guy who is blatenly (sp) pointing a ton of people in the right direction and he's buds with the source, then yeah, I could see where there would be a potential problem. Otherwise, I wouldn't think it would make it past the grand jury (i.e. no indictment). I want to know more myself so I am going to do some research and ask my girlfriend, she's a lawyer I'll keep us posted. But, I'm not a lawyer, so don't take my advice.

[Gladiator]

If people didn't help others out then how do people get gear!! LOL. I'm not asking for a source, I'm just kidding.

[gearedup]

I dont refre anyone anymore unless its a friend and a good one!