Sciencemadness Discussion Board

The Chemical Closet

 Pages:  1  2  

-jeffB - 30-3-2008 at 19:44

Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
I once heard a Texas Ranger accuse someone of making "crystal methane"

I remember thinking, this guy needs some remedial narc classes.


You're only saying that because you haven't lost a child to the clathrate scourge. :P

anotheronebitesthedust - 2-4-2008 at 21:03

Quote:
Originally posted by joeflsts
Anyone caught buying a list 1 chemical deserves exactly what they get. Good post.
Joe

Quote:
Originally posted by joeflsts
It might even be a sting operation for all I know - but no one has proven it.
Joe

Quote:
Originally posted by joeflsts
anotheronebitesthedust,
I think you're a LEO but I could be wrong.
Joe


http://www.krqe.com/Global/story.asp?S=8063943
Looks like you were supporting a DEA sting operation.
Weird.

pantone159 - 2-4-2008 at 21:40

Quote:
Originally posted by anotheronebitesthedust
http://www.krqe.com/Global/story.asp?S=8063943


That story doesn't say that TCC was the site involved, it just mentioned a sting website, without any names. There could certainly be other sites than TCC (and the IP address related to TCC was Arizona, not ABQ New Mexico), the only reason I ever heard of TCC was because of posts on this board.

S.C. Wack - 3-4-2008 at 02:11

"A Rio Rancho police officer met with a detective from the Westside Narcotics Unit on Feb. 27. The detective told the officer that he was working an Internet investigation with the Phoenix, Ariz. DEA that uses an undercover Web site, which has the appearance of being located overseas, to identify people attempting to order precursor chemicals for clandestine labs and/or explosives.

A DEA agent told the detective on Feb. 8 that a man identified as “Kevin Kirkwood” had ordered 500 grams of ephedrine hydrochloride. Kirkwood paid 153.51 British Pounds for the ephedrine and gave a delivery address at a mailbox store in the 1300 block of Rio Rancho Boulevard. Kirkwood also inquired via email about methylamine hydrochloride 40 percent and hydriodic acid, however, he did not order those items. The Westside detective then determined through police records that Kirkwood was really Vincent Barclay.

On Feb. 27, the DEA agent gave the Westside detective 500 grams of ephedrine for the purpose of making a controlled delivery at the mailbox store. With the assistance of a postal inspector, the ephedrine was packaged for delivery."

So what was the going price for 500 g. ephedrine at TCC in early February?

[Edited on 3-4-2008 by S.C. Wack]

NeonCortex - 3-4-2008 at 06:07

I got an e-mail from TCC, to one of my e-mail accounts. Which puzzled me a lot, since I've never shopped there or any other place remotely similar/connected. I sent an e-mail, asking where they found my e-mail address, but never got a reply. Kind of disturbing considering this discussion...

[Edited on 08-4-3 by NeonCortex]

pantone159 - 3-4-2008 at 06:17

Quote:
Originally posted by S.C. Wack
an undercover Web site, which has the appearance of being located overseas


The police report PDF re Jeff Scheidemantel had the police laying into him for illegally importing RP. If TCC is not actually in the UK (and the available IP evidence suggests that there is nothing UK about them) then how does ordering from TCC constitute importing?

It would be an interesting experiment to order NaCl from them and see if a) the package arrives, and b) if it really came from the UK.

I, personally, am way too chicken to do this.

microcosmicus - 3-4-2008 at 07:53

Assuming that SWIM were to order a watched chemical from TCC
and assuming, again hypothetically, that TCC were, in fact, a sting
operation located in the U.S. and not a U.K. company, SWIM
might be prosecuted and convicted of attempt to import a
controlled substance. The basis for this charge would be that
SWIM believed that the supplier was located abroad, whether or
not it actually was. As precedent for this sort of thing, consider a
case in Kansas (upheld by the appeals court) where a swimmer was
convicted of attempting to extract l-meth from an inhaler even though
the particular inhaler used happened not to contain l-meth; all that was
necessary for the conviction was to show that the would-be cook
thought he was obtaining l-meth even though he had mistakenly
bought the wrong brand and therefore could not have done so.

Overall, I get the impression that nowadays many drug convictions are for
attempt and conspiracy charges rather than for actually manufacturing
controlled substances. Along these lines, I also once saw an article in
Microgram about what would happen if some stupid cook would try
the I/P reaction with the wrong cold pills which do not contain ephedrine
and how to detect the results --- presumably useful for obtaining more
convictions along the lines of the Kansas case mentioned above.
Somehow, I am getting the feeling that, as the restrictions on
ephedrine are putting cooks out of business but drug enforcement
agencies are anxious to stay in business and keep on making drug
busts to avoid having their budgets reduced , they are turning to these
iffier areas of attempt and conspiracy. Buyng into the meth scare, the
courts are willing to put aside such niceties as the Constitution, not to
mention such frivolities as laws about unsolicited e-mails, in order to
give the police their convictions and appear hard on drugs much as
their predecessors in the McCarthy era did in order not to appear soft
on communism or their predecessors in colonial Salem did in order
not to appear soft on witchcraft.



[Edited on 3-4-2008 by microcosmicus]

joeflsts - 3-4-2008 at 13:21

Quote:
Originally posted by pantone159
Quote:
Originally posted by S.C. Wack
an undercover Web site, which has the appearance of being located overseas


The police report PDF re Jeff Scheidemantel had the police laying into him for illegally importing RP. If TCC is not actually in the UK (and the available IP evidence suggests that there is nothing UK about them) then how does ordering from TCC constitute importing?

It would be an interesting experiment to order NaCl from them and see if a) the package arrives, and b) if it really came from the UK.

I, personally, am way too chicken to do this.


http://whois.domaintools.com/thechemicalcloset.com
Whois Record
Registrant:
The Chemical Closet
3 Sawley Road
Greater Manchester, Manchester M40 8BB
United Kingdom

Domain Name: THECHEMICALCLOSET.COM
Created on: 29-Jun-07
Expires on: 29-Jun-08
Last Updated on: 29-Jun-07

Administrative Contact:
Porter, James
The Chemical Closet
3 Sawley Road
Greater Manchester, Manchester M40 8BB
United Kingdom
447742129481 Fax --

Technical Contact:
Porter, James
The Chemical Closet
3 Sawley Road
Greater Manchester, Manchester M40 8BB
United Kingdom
447742129481 Fax --

Domain servers in listed order:
NS57.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
NS58.DOMAINCONTROL.COM

They registered through GoDaddy.com which is located at:

14455 N. Hayden Rd.
Suite 219
Scottsdale, AZ 85260

I'm not so sure that TCC isn't based in the UK.

Joe

[Edited on 3-4-2008 by joeflsts]

pantone159 - 3-4-2008 at 14:09

Quote:
Originally posted by joeflsts
I'm not so sure that TCC isn't based in the UK.


Arguments against this:

1) X-Originating-IP: 148.167.148.100
from the email header than anotheronebitesthedust finally posted, that is indeed City of Phoenix AZ.
The supposed comment from TCC that they do not provide tracking information is also fishy.

2) The police report PDF for the Scheidelmantel case specifically mentioned TCC. It is true that the cops got info about buyers from KNO3, which was genuinely UK based and also not a sting (albeit somewhere which was under surveillance), however in the Scheidelmantel case, the initial package was carried to his door by the postal inspector involved in the investigation, that kind of immediate action seems hard to manage if the vendor was indeed really shipping something from the UK, although this would not be impossible. If TCC were really a UK operation, I would expect that the package would arrive first, and the police some time later after somehow discovering the transaction.

3) The S.C. Wack 'quote' (although without any link) is consistent with TCC, although no name is explicitly used.

I am not *completely* convinced myself, hence the suggestion for an experiment. :) I am more than enough convinced that I wouldn't touch TCC with a 10 parsec long pole, but that was the case the moment I looked at their site anyways.

[Edited on 3-4-2008 by pantone159]

microcosmicus - 3-4-2008 at 14:44

Quote:

, the initial package was carried to his door by the postal inspector involved in the investigation, that kind of
immediate action seems hard to manage if the vendor was indeed really shipping something from the UK,
although this would not be impossible


From what I understand, this would not be at all hard for the authorities to manage. As I mentioned in
another discussion on this topic, the DEA is likely keeping an eye on websites like TCC whether or not
they are sting operations and noting when someone in the U.S. places an order there. Even without the
expanded powers to snoop on e-mail granted by the Patriot act, the DEA might simply have handed the
USPS a list of addresses such as that of TCC which are somehow connected to drug trade and asked to
be notified whenever the post office receives a package from one of those addresses so that they could
intercept it to check for contraband. Either way, it would be easy enough for the police to discover the
transaction before the package arrives. I have also heard similar stories about how people had packages
of cannabis sent to them from the Netherlands only to have those packages be intercepted in transit and
be arrested when the postal inspector delivered them. Thus, I don't see that this fact says much for whether
TCC is a sting or a sleaze.

joeflsts - 3-4-2008 at 14:49

Quote:
Originally posted by pantone159
Quote:
Originally posted by joeflsts
I'm not so sure that TCC isn't based in the UK.


Arguments against this:

1) X-Originating-IP: 148.167.148.100
from the email header than anotheronebitesthedust finally posted, that is indeed City of Phoenix AZ.
The supposed comment from TCC that they do not provide tracking information is also fishy.

2) The police report PDF for the Scheidelmantel case specifically mentioned TCC. It is true that the cops got info about buyers from KNO3, which was genuinely UK based and also not a sting (albeit somewhere which was under surveillance), however in the Scheidelmantel case, the initial package was carried to his door by the postal inspector involved in the investigation, that kind of immediate action seems hard to manage if the vendor was indeed really shipping something from the UK, although this would not be impossible. If TCC were really a UK operation, I would expect that the package would arrive first, and the police some time later after somehow discovering the transaction.

3) The S.C. Wack 'quote' (although without any link) is consistent with TCC, although no name is explicitly used.

I am not *completely* convinced myself, hence the suggestion for an experiment. :) I am more than enough convinced that I wouldn't touch TCC with a 10 parsec long pole, but that was the case the moment I looked at their site anyways.

[Edited on 3-4-2008 by pantone159][/quote

I don't believe anotheronebitesthedust.

Joe

joeflsts - 3-4-2008 at 14:52

Quote:
Originally posted by microcosmicus
Quote:

, the initial package was carried to his door by the postal inspector involved in the investigation, that kind of
immediate action seems hard to manage if the vendor was indeed really shipping something from the UK,
although this would not be impossible


From what I understand, this would not be at all hard for the authorities to manage. As I mentioned in
another discussion on this topic, the DEA is likely keeping an eye on websites like TCC whether or not
they are sting operations and noting when someone in the U.S. places an order there. Even without the
expanded powers to snoop on e-mail granted by the Patriot act, the DEA might simply have handed the
USPS a list of addresses such as that of TCC which are somehow connected to drug trade and asked to
be notified whenever the post office receives a package from one of those addresses so that they could
intercept it to check for contraband. Either way, it would be easy enough for the police to discover the
transaction before the package arrives. I have also heard similar stories about how people had packages
of cannabis sent to them from the Netherlands only to have those packages be intercepted in transit and
be arrested when the postal inspector delivered them. Thus, I don't see that this fact says much for whether
TCC is a sting or a sleaze.


I think this post makes a hell of a lot of sense. It is possible that TCC is a sting - I doubt it but then again I could be wrong.

Joe

S.C. Wack - 3-4-2008 at 16:34

Fact: Howes and Shanks are arrested and jailed for selling listed chemicals to the USA. They still face extradition and being made an example of.

Common sense: Given this fact, who would fill their shoes - if not sell even more listed chemicals for methamphetamine manufacture and less unlisted ones to the USA? Now the quote that I posted could merely be media-assisted LE disinformation, but anyone with any sense at all can see that there is a problem with TCC.

anotheronebitesthedust - 3-4-2008 at 16:39

Quote:
Originally posted by microcosmicus
Somehow, I am getting the feeling that, as the restrictions on
ephedrine are putting cooks out of business but drug enforcement agencies are anxious to stay in business and keep on making drug busts to avoid having their budgets reduced , they are turning to these iffier areas of attempt and conspiracy.

This is what is happening.
Quote:
Originally posted by joeflsts
http://whois.domaintools.com/thechemicalcloset.com
Whois Record
Registrant:
The Chemical Closet
3 Sawley Road
Greater Manchester, Manchester M40 8BB
United Kingdom

Anyone who has registered a website would know that you can type in a false name and address. The only way to find out who actually registered the site name "thechemicalcloset.com" would be to find the credit card records of who paid for the registration. And there's even ways to keep that anonymous.
Quote:
Originally posted by microcosmicus
Either way, it would be easy enough for the police to discover the transaction before the package arrives. I have also heard similar stories about how people had packages
of cannabis sent to them from the Netherlands only to have those packages be intercepted in transit and be arrested when the postal inspector delivered them.

That is the job description of Customs agents --- to find and seize illegal substance sent through the postal or courier services. If law enforcement agents feel that it is worth their time, they will perform a controlled delivery. With TCC, the DEA officially cut out the uncertainty and randomness of finding and seizing the packages through Customs.

I won all my Paypal complaints against TCC. On the last one they decided to appeal the decision. Here's a picture I took:

pantone159 - 3-4-2008 at 16:50

Quote:
Originally posted by joeflsts
I don't believe anotheronebitesthedust.

Joe


Understood. Indeed, anotheronebitesthedust has made allegations against Science Lab (I think) that were later retracted and admitted to have no basis. Plus, he has acted like a jerk. :)

OTOH, he *did* eventually post email headers from his messages and nobody else has. I do wish any who have received spam from TCC would post headers from those messages.

I really can't believe TCC is for real. The KNO3 owners are imprisoned, and to me, TCC is waaay more blatant a drug chem supplier than KNO3 was.

I still think an experiment would be interesting but no way am I performing that one myself.

joeflsts - 3-4-2008 at 16:55

Quote:
Originally posted by anotheronebitesthedust
Quote:
Originally posted by microcosmicus
Somehow, I am getting the feeling that, as the restrictions on
ephedrine are putting cooks out of business but drug enforcement agencies are anxious to stay in business and keep on making drug busts to avoid having their budgets reduced , they are turning to these iffier areas of attempt and conspiracy.

This is what is happening.
Quote:
Originally posted by joeflsts
http://whois.domaintools.com/thechemicalcloset.com
Whois Record
Registrant:
The Chemical Closet
3 Sawley Road
Greater Manchester, Manchester M40 8BB
United Kingdom

Anyone who has registered a website would know that you can type in a false name and address. The only way to find out who actually registered the site name "thechemicalcloset.com" would be to find the credit card records of who paid for the registration. And there's even ways to keep that anonymous.
Quote:
Originally posted by microcosmicus
Either way, it would be easy enough for the police to discover the transaction before the package arrives. I have also heard similar stories about how people had packages
of cannabis sent to them from the Netherlands only to have those packages be intercepted in transit and be arrested when the postal inspector delivered them.

That is the job description of Customs agents --- to find and seize illegal substance sent through the postal or courier services. If law enforcement agents feel that it is worth their time, they will perform a controlled delivery. With TCC, the DEA officially cut out the uncertainty and randomness of finding and seizing the packages through Customs.

I won all my Paypal complaints against TCC. On the last one they decided to appeal the decision. Here's a picture I took:


I am glad that you won.. why did you buy from TCC if you felt they were a sting?

Anyone could alter an email header to say whatever they wanted it to say.

Joe

[Edited on 4-4-2008 by joeflsts]

pantone159 - 3-4-2008 at 17:02

According to this:
http://whois.domaintools.com/thechemicalcloset.com
The site is hosted on a dedicated server.

According to this:
http://www.selfseo.com/find_ip_address_of_a_website.php
The IP for this server thechemicalcloset.com is 72.167.11.220.

This is a server in the US, in AZ. (It is GoDaddy.)

Would a UK operation selling stuff that is clearly problematic in the USA really have a dedicated server located in Arizona? Of course the server does not have to physically be where the store is, but that operation seems like a case where you would be picky about this.

anotheronebitesthedust - 3-4-2008 at 17:13

Quote:
Originally posted by pantone159
Indeed, anotheronebitesthedust has made allegations against Science Lab (I think) that were later retracted and admitted to have no basis.
That statement has no basis. Prove it. Post these so called "allegations".
Quote:
Originally posted by pantone159
I still think an experiment would be interesting but no way am I performing that one myself.
I've done three "experiments" with TCC so far. They were enough to convince me.

pantone159 - 3-4-2008 at 17:21

Quote:
Originally posted by anotheronebitesthedust
Quote:
Originally posted by pantone159
Indeed, anotheronebitesthedust has made allegations against Science Lab (I think) that were later retracted and admitted to have no basis.
That statement has no basis. Prove it. Post these so called "allegations".


http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=9708&a...
Quote:
Originally posted by anotheronebitesthedust
I just saw the two names together at that site. I didn't do any research and shouldn't have jumped to a conclusion.


EDIT: A more relevant post:

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=9686&a...
Quote:
Originally posted by anotheronebitesthedust
Sciencelab = Science Alliance

http://www.chemindustry.com/apps/search?category_id=11&s...


I am not (at all) trying to call you a liar, I am just trying to carefully qualify all the sources regarding the TCC question.


[Edited on 3-4-2008 by pantone159]

[Edited on 3-4-2008 by pantone159]

pantone159 - 3-4-2008 at 18:17

Quote:
Originally posted by anotheronebitesthedust

Anyone who has registered a website would know that you can type in a false name and address. The only way to find out who actually registered the site name "thechemicalcloset.com" would be to find the credit card records of who paid for the registration. And there's even ways to keep that anonymous.


And if TCC is indeed a DEA sting, surely they have contacts in the UK who could help them provide UK addresses/contacts/etc.

So I am personally not convinced at all that the supposed UK registration is legit.

MagicJigPipe - 3-4-2008 at 18:52

What did you order Freddy Mercury? Was it something like NaCl or methylamine? For instance if it were NaCl we could pretty much be sure it's a sting as there should be no reason customs would stop that unless they are looking through everything from TCC.

Notice that their ephedrine now says, "Cannot ship to the US" but their phenylpropanolamine (just as restricted in the US) doesn't. In fact, it now says "Phenylpropanolamine Hydrochloride (New Lower Price)".

It's almost as if they caught on that people were getting wary (or aware) of the ephedrine and are trying to promote phenylpropanolamine instead.

They now have phenylacetonitrile (benzyl cyanide) as well. That's a pretty damn toxic chemical to be shipping around. To me that, and the fact that they didn't even bother to take a picture of real KMnO4, tells me that they don't really have the chemicals anyway.

joeflsts - 3-4-2008 at 19:14

Quote:
Originally posted by pantone159
According to this:
http://whois.domaintools.com/thechemicalcloset.com
The site is hosted on a dedicated server.

According to this:
http://www.selfseo.com/find_ip_address_of_a_website.php
The IP for this server thechemicalcloset.com is 72.167.11.220.

This is a server in the US, in AZ. (It is GoDaddy.)

Would a UK operation selling stuff that is clearly problematic in the USA really have a dedicated server located in Arizona? Of course the server does not have to physically be where the store is, but that operation seems like a case where you would be picky about this.


GoDaddy, IpowerWeb, Network Solutions, etc. all sell services to companies all over the world.

There are some on this forum that jump to conclusions. I could care less if TCC is a sting operation or not - I won't be buying from them.

Thanks for your research.

Joe

pantone159 - 3-4-2008 at 19:25

Quote:
Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
They now have phenylacetonitrile (benzyl cyanide) as well. That's a pretty damn toxic chemical to be shipping around.


How bad is PhCN, really? (I have never worked with it so I don't know first hand.)

This
http://chemicalland21.com/specialtychem/finechem/PHENYLACETO...
says its NFPA Health hazard rating is only 2, although this
http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/BE/benzyl_cyanide.html
says it may be fatal if inhaled.

I suppose that TCC is trying to complete the set of List I chemicals in their 'inventory'. Is ergotamine tartarate next???

MagicJigPipe - 3-4-2008 at 20:33

It's BnCN. PhCN is benzonitrile (no methyl group seperating the Ph and nitrile group). A benzyl group is basically toluene.

Anyway, I believe it's extremely irritating and toxic. IMO it's the most harmful substance on their site aside from NH3.
Quote:
I suppose that TCC is trying to complete the set of List I chemicals in their 'inventory'. Is ergotamine tartarate next???


It does seem that way doesn't it? I'm not sure if they had it before but now they have phenylacetic acid as well. This is so completely rediculous. Like you said, it's like they got their stock from the US list 1 and 2 chemical lists. Obviously, their main focus is amphetamines which is why they don't seem to have anything else like ergotamine.

What I think would complete their inventory is (MD-)P2P. Well, they already have safrole, so...

EDIT
500g of KMnO4 technical grade for 26 pounds???!!! Oh my god that is horribly expensive! That's like 50 bucks!

[Edited on 3-4-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

The Chemical Closet

0U812 - 4-4-2008 at 14:55

I think what is happening is that some people are on the radar for whatever reason and their mail is being watched by big brother. Or, perhaps some of the orders are not clearing customs.

My order arrived with a U.K. customs label that was declared as "Hobby Supplies"

The R P I ordered came in a can with a sack inside, not the bottle listed on the website. Nevertheless, it did arrive and without unwanted visitors.

Attached is a photo

The Chemical Closet

0U812 - 4-4-2008 at 15:21

Customs label looks like this

Parcel1.JPG - 25kB

The Chemical Closet

0U812 - 4-4-2008 at 15:23

the RP comes in a bag in a can, not the bottle listed on the site!

RED1.JPG - 24kB

anotheronebitesthedust - 4-4-2008 at 22:05

Ha! This cop registered on January 29th 2008 and has only posted to support TCC.
Quote:
Originally posted by 0U812
www.thechemicalcloset.co.uk worked for me! order of RP&E arrived two days ago with no one watching round the corner (that i know of). Think i'll have it sent to grandmas next time just in case!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by 0U812
I think what is happening is that some people are on the radar for whatever reason and their mail is being watched by big brother. Or, perhaps some of the orders are not clearing customs.

Quote:
Originally posted by 0U812
The R P I ordered came in a can with a sack inside, not the bottle listed on the website. Nevertheless, it did arrive and without unwanted visitors.

Quote:
Originally posted by 0U812
I ordered from the company back in January, after thinking I got ripped off and sweating during the wait, my chems finally arrived. Took three weeks though, so much for "Fast Discrete Delivery"!!

Quote:
Originally posted by 0U812
that stuffs legal in the U.K. and I bet the company is making a killing. Its all about the mighty dollar.

Quote:
Originally posted by 0U812
Dont be so sure about the IP lookup
me agree with the undead_alchemist....i checked out kno3.com prior to ordering and found their IP address was in Florida. My chems for sure came from England though.

crazyboy - 4-4-2008 at 22:20

It is rather suspicous. why don't you post a pic of your red P?

woelen - 5-4-2008 at 09:52

To me this thread seems rather useless. Soooo many pages about some shit company. Is it really interesting whether it is a sting operation or not? A real home chemist, who is interested in chemistry, has no business at TCC. There are other MUCH better sources for chemicals out there. Even kno3.com was a 100 times better source for chemicals.

TCC is for cooks only. Forget it and please go back to chemistry again :P.

pantone159 - 5-4-2008 at 11:11

I would be more inclined to agree with you on this woelen, except that by
a) soliciting members of this board with spam, and
b) having their shills post on here
I feel that TCC is actively trying to trick users here (who would hopefully normally have more sense) into something that could get them a harsh prison sentence.

If they had the decency to leave the members of this board alone, I'd be a lot more inclined to leave them alone. :)

Some of their 'products' DO have legit home science uses, and are unavailable in the USA at any price. Anyone tricked by this might well be an aspiring 'cook', but they might also be a real hobbyist, albeit a gullible one. In the first case, I would much prefer the lesson to be: Don't do that, you are going to get caught, and it isn't worth it, and in the second case I am appalled that some otherwise decent persons' life may be wrecked all so some LEO can get another gold star on their record. (So TCC: Fuck off.)

Also, I am kind of fascinated by the process of trying to sleuth the truth out of this.

Nicodem - 5-4-2008 at 11:45

There is some legal aspect of these sting operations that I simply don't understand. Admittedly I'm pretty much clueless about law and related stuff, but how can somebody who was lured into committing a crime by a law officer even be incriminated? If such a customer would actually be convicted for his crime (which in this case would actually be: having been convicted because not moral enough to resist seduction into crime), then it should logically follow that the law officer is guilty of being an accomplice in crime since he actively and knowingly participated in it. After all, there would have been no such specific crime committed without the assistance of, for example the manager of TCC or similar persons. It should also logically follow that the law enforcement agents could simply just arrest the officer running this charade, since he is already actively and knowingly involved in criminal activities (a criminal by definition). Maybe this the reason the company is based/registered in the UK, since this way the officer running it can not be prosecuted in the USA while the customers from USA can get convicted? Or is there some juristic paradox that actually allows law officers to commit criminal acts without being punished?
I wish a lawyer could explain me this in simple words, as reading law gives me a headache.

(I'm not sure if such a law officer is actually an accomplice or accessory)

[Edited on 5/4/2008 by Nicodem]

microcosmicus - 5-4-2008 at 13:03

Quote:

Admittedly I'm pretty much clueless about law and related stuff,
but how can somebody who was lured into committing a crime
by a law officer even be incriminated?


A policeman luring someone into a crime constitutes entrapment
and is grounds for throwing out charges. However, if someone
was already going to commit a crime or had a record of committing
a certain type of crime then the entrapment defense no longer applies.

So, consider a case where a home chemist happens to receive
spam from a sting operation, then orders dome iodine from them,
then gets arrested for attempted drug manufacture. When the case
came to court, the prosecutor would argue that since the fellow
already had a lab which contained equipment such as the dreaded
three-holed flask and such chemicals as toluene and lithium which
are commonly associated with meth labs so clearly the defendant
had intended to cook drugs before being offered an opportunity to
buy the iodine, so this was not a case of entrapment. Quite likely,
the court would buy the prosecutions claims that possession of a lab
with precursors was evidence of intent to make drugs, the court
would ind the defendant guilty, and the local newspapers would
be filled with stories of how clever police work had discovered that
a seemingly upstanding citizen was actually a meth cook who
tried to hide his activities as a chemistry hobby.
Quote:

I wish a lawyer could explain me this in simple words, as reading law gives me a headache.


I'm a scientist, not a lawyer, but I've spent some time reading
laws and following what courts do, so here is my best guess at
answering your questions. Yes, it does give headaches, but so
does being whopped over the head by a policeman, which is
what I am trying to avoid by reading up on the law.
Quote:

If such a customer would actually be convicted for his crime (which in this case would actually be: having been convicted because not moral enough to resist seduction into crime), then it should logically follow that the law officer is guilty of being an accomplice in crime since he actively and knowingly participated in it. After all, there would have been no such specific crime committed without the assistance of, for example the manager of TCC or similar persons. It should also logically follow that the law enforcement agents could simply just arrest the officer running this charade, since he is already actively and knowingly involved in criminal activities (a criminal by definition)


Remember, we are dealing with laws passed by legislatures, not laws
of physics here, so strict logic need not apply :o (I am reminded of
how, upon obtaining U.S. citizenship, Kurt Goedel pointed out to the
judge in charge of the naturalization ceremony that the U.S law was
not logically consistent.)

Seriously, I am pretty sure that the laws contain clauses saying that
it is legal for the police to do some otherwise illegal acts like offer
contraband for sale during the course of enforcing the law. I haven't
looked at the particular law relevant here, but when reading laws, I
have come across such clauses making exceptions for law enforcement
officers performing their duties in other laws.

Quote:

Or is there some juristic paradox that actually allows law officers to commit criminal acts without being punished?


I am quite sure it is an exception written into the law, not a paradox.
Quote:

Maybe this the reason the company is based/registered in the UK, since this way the officer running it can not be prosecuted in the USA while the customers from USA can get convicted?


My guess as to why a U.S. agent would want to set up a sting operation at
least nominally located in a foreign country is not to avoid being prosecuted,
but rather as a way to make more charges against anyone who falls into
the trap. If the sting operation were located in the same city as the purchaser,
all that the prosecution could raise were charges of attempting to purchase
a controlled substance. If the sting were located in a different state, then
one could add interstate commerce charges whilst, if it were in a foreign
country, one could add charges relating to import. The further away, the more
charges can be leveled and the more serious they will be. As a general
rule, the police want to prosecute on as many charges as possible in the
hope that at least some will stick. Thus, even if the defendant succeeded
in convincing a jury that he was a legitimate amateur scientist who had
nothing to do with the drug trade, they might still convict him for attempting
to import a controlled substance and evade laws about reporting purchases.

Nicodem - 5-4-2008 at 13:38

Thanks for the explanation. Indeed for a moment I forgot that laws don't need to follow logic nor they need to be consistent. I guess this is one of the reasons lady justice is blindfolded. :cool:
However, are there really such laws, in USA for example, that allow policemen to perform crimes unpunished? Is that only your deduction or is it a fact? I thought only national security agencies are allowed to do crimes without the possibility of being incriminated.
I can't think of any such exception written in a form of a law, except maybe in the pretest of saving someone's life or something like that, since otherwise it would make no sense. I know in most legislatures law officers have the right to skip some warrants, citizen rights or authorizations if it is for saving someone's life or prevent injury, yet that is nearly not the same as actually committing crime or being an accomplice in crime.

Contrabasso - 5-4-2008 at 13:50

|The US has run sting operations before. They (whichever agency) ran a pay porn site for two years then hit all the credit card numbers. Operation ORE it was called in the UK. It backfired a bit when they realised that the porn site was being used for identity fraud on a big scale too.

Sauron - 5-4-2008 at 14:45

As far as I am aware, the only sort of porn site that law enforcement is particularly interested in, are the child porn sites, and there they have more sympathy from me.

As to entrapment as a defense: the statement made above is not precise enough. A police officer may propose a crime to an individual who would otherwise be inclined to commit that crime anyway. This does not constute entrapment. For example, an undercover officer might propose a bank robbery to someone who is known to be a bank robber or armed robber. No entrapment in such a case. Entrapment exists where a police officer proposes a crime that an individual would NOT have been inclined to commit anyway. Naturally, the detailed theory and case law will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction even within the same country, much more so from country to country. But that is a more accurate statement of entrapment's meaning under US law as far as I remember it.

MagicJigPipe - 5-4-2008 at 16:27

"I am quite sure it is an exception written into the law, not a paradox."

These "exceptions" are everywhere from guns and explosives to drugs and precursors.

The only thing I don't like about the way the law goes around enforcing the "child porn" thing is they consider porn as being "child porn" if it has anyone under 18. Okay, that's fine and dandy but how the hell is someone supposed to tell the difference between an 18 year old and an older looking 16 year old? Technically, if you had some porn, say, on your computer that had a 17 year old in it, you could be convicted of possession of child pornography even if you didn't know they were underage and they just looked older.

I have no sympathy towards people who enjoy such sick things as REAL child porn I just fear that LE goes after these things with such tenacity that I'm sure some "innocent" people are fucked over. And they can get by with that because most people think someone who looks at porn is "sick" anyway so they don't really care about the details.

I mean, surely some guy who has a huge collection of "ametuer porn" on his computer has at least one where the girl/guy is under 18. Should he deserve to go to jail?

Do you think things like that happen or do they REALLY just bust people that are OBVIOUSLY child porn freaks?

S.C. Wack - 5-4-2008 at 16:46

Nicodem, did you follow the link that lead to
"Albuquerque narcotics detectives have arrested their first accused meth-maker caught by setting up an online sting.

The Albuquerque Police Department created its own Web site advertising ingredients to make meth.

It looked just like the thousands out there selling meth ingredients so potential meth makers didn't know who was on the other end, police said.

Vincent Barclay, 43, was the first person to fall for it, according to police who said he ordered 500 grams--about 1.1 pounds--of ephedrine hydrochloride, a common ingredient used to make meth.

However when he went to pick it up at a UPS Store in Rio Rancho, officers were waiting to arrest him"

The guy was in one of those states where you need a permit for various items unless you want to be charged with a felony. In NM it goes beyond RP and iodine, including many listed chemicals, and also includes many chemicals not on any DEA list, yet does not include many DEA listed chemicals.
http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/nmac/parts/title16/16.019.0021....

The police do whatever they want because the courts usually do not hold them accountable, and usually do not withhold evidence acquired as a result of improper police actions.

[Edited on 5-4-2008 by S.C. Wack]

MagicJigPipe - 5-4-2008 at 17:10

Or they use that trick where they present the evidence that is later stricken. The jury can't just throw there memories in the recycling bin like a computer. I always thought it was so unfair how a prosecuter/defender can ask a question or present evidence that is not allowed and just say, "Whoops!". As if striking it from the record negates the fact that it was brought up.

From what I've heard that's a common prosecution (and sometimes defense) strategy.

Is it just me or do prosecuters seem more like snakes than defense attornies even though they don't make as much money? Is it that they think they are right and everyone else is a lying, filthy criminal?

[Edited on 5-4-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

microcosmicus - 5-4-2008 at 19:16

Quote:

Is that only your deduction or is it a fact?


It is my deduction based upon, among other things, the verdict
of Fran's Lunch, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission
In that case, the police made a sting operation in which they
would send an minor to liquor stores to buy alcoholic beverages.
One of the stores which was caught and had its license revoked
sued on the grounds that the policre and the boy involved had
violated the law against minors purchasing alcohol and lost
the case. Here are some relevant quotes from the opinion of
justice Porada of the Appeals Court of Massachusetts:
Quote:

Relying on Cremins v. Clancy, 415 Mass. 289, 295, 612 N.E.2d 1183 (1993), a Superior Court judge *664 ruled that the commission had not violated the law because properly construed, G.L. c. 138, § 34A, prohibits the purchase of alcohol by minors for their consumption or the consumption of others, and here the alcohol was not purchased for consumption but for use as evidence to enforce the law.

It is a generally accepted rule of statutory construction that the word "person" when used in a statute will not ordinarily be construed to include the State or political subdivisions thereof. . . . . . . . . .
It would strain credulity to believe that the Legislature intended the commission or the municipal police force to be included in the definition of a "person" where their actions were designed to promote rather than hinder the purpose of the law.

It is generally recognized that absent entrapment or other abuses violative of fundamental fairness, government involvement in criminal activity for the purpose of investigating possible violations of law is permissible even if technical violations of law occur.

The whole opinion can be found at
http://www.sjhlawfirm.com/published-frans.htm

Based on this precedent and the ones it cites, I feel quite
confident in deducing that a drug agent who runs a
sting operation would not found guilty of violating laws
about selling listed chemicals because the reason for
doing this was to enforce the law. Even if the particular
law in question does not explicitly state an exemption
for police, the courts are likely to read such an exception
into the law as described above.

What Sauron mentioned about the bank robbers is a textbook
example. As he rightly pointed out, my description was
oversimplified, so I now provide more detailed referennces
for those interested in acquiring a better understanding of this
area of the law. Also note that merely proposing the crime may
not be enough even if one were not otherwise inclined to commit
a crime --- coercive or threatening behavior on the part of the
police or abuse of authority is required to constitute entrapment.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

http://www.slate.com/id/1003657/

http://www.grayarea.com/entrap.htm

Entrapment and the Problem of Deterring Police Misconduct
Dru Stevenson, South Texas College of Law
http://works.bepress.com/dru_stevenson/10/

In particular, some quotes from the third reference might be interesting:
Quote:

Numerous federal courts have held there is no Federal Constitutional requirement for any level of suspicion to initiate undercover operations. The courts have ruled there is no constitutional right to be free of investigation and that the fact of an undercover investigation having been initiated without suspicion does not bar the convictions of those who rise to its bait.

To claim inducement, a defendant must prove he or she was unduly persuaded, threatened, coerced, harassed or offered pleas based on sympathy or friendship by police. A defendant must demonstrate that the government conduct created a situation in which an otherwise law-abiding citizen would commit an offense.


In particular, from this, I draw the conclusion that,, if indeed TCC is
a sting operation, the entrapment defense would not be available to
a hapless home chemist who happened to make a purchase from
them in response to the e-mails they sent out.

As I said earlier, the crux of the problem is that nowadays, simply
having a home laboratory which includes apparatus and reagents
which could be used in drug manufacture is considered as evidence
of intent to produce illegal drugs (written explicitly into Texas law, but
I gather that this situation prevails less formally elsewhere). Without
this issue, there would be no problem.

If you read the law which set up the List I and List II precursors
carefully, it quite clearly states that possession of these is illegal
only when it is done with the intent to manufacture drugs. Well,
if you interpret the possession of these chemicals as proof of intent,
that produces a vicious circle.

Likewise, the issue of entrapment would become moot if it were
generally acknowledged that a private might have legitimate
uses for these chemicals, including home experimentation.
Since obtaining, owning, and using phosphorous is legal provided
it is not done with the intent to produce drugs, what would it
ultimately matter if the prosecutor could not prove intent
of the buyer?

My hope is that, in a few years, when the hysteria about meth
subsides and the restriction on ephedrine will have put the remaining
cooks out of business, the standards of proof of intent will become
more reasonable so that merely having a lab which happens to
include phosphorous and iodine will not mean much. Rather,
intent will mean that someone was clearly building a lab with
the aim of cooking drugs (say the only chemicals present were
ones to be used in cookery) and had otherwise demonstrated
preparing to do something illegal (such as being seen in the presence
of drug dealers and searching the internet for drug recipes) but
was stopped by the police before carrying out these plans. To be
sure, as Polverone said, the restrictions are unlikely to be lifted
soon, but if intent were interpreted in a stricter way, then this would
mean that legitimate home chemists in the U.S. could go about
their business at ease and let the drug cooks and the drug agents
play their cop and robber games without fear of getting mixed up in
the mess by ordering from the wrong supplier.
Quote:

I haven't looked at the particular law relevant here, but when reading
laws, I have come across such clauses making exceptions for law
enforcement officers performing their duties in other laws.


As an example of what such a clause look like, please see
section 16.19.21.17 of the New Mexico law to which S.C. Wack
provided a link above. It is entitled "EXEMPTION OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS" and pretty explicitly states that
the law in question does not apply to police doing their duty.

[Edited on 5-4-2008 by microcosmicus]

not_important - 5-4-2008 at 20:09

Ah - child porn, one of the major justifications for various LEA actions and budgets. Perhaps the most famous case is Traci Lords, who at the age of 15 obtained fake ID showing her to be 22, including I believe a US passport, and started working as a porn actress. She appeared in Penthouse, followed by roughly 100 movies.

Around the time she reached 18 the government discovered, or 'discovered', she was underage, arresting her, the owners of her movie agency, and the producers-distributors of her videos. She was not charged with a crime, everyone who had accepted her ID as valid experienced various degrees of legal hassles. There were rumors that she had tipped of the government, suspecting that she was under investigation, and other rumours that the LEA had provided her with the fake ID in the first place.

Which leads to some other cases, such as this one http://supreme.justia.com/us/503/540/index.html in which it was ruled that the Feds had used entrapment. The defendant had purchased publications that were legal at the time, but a later 1984 (yup) law made the receipt of such materials. Several government agencies used the mailing list from the bookstore that sold him the original (legal) materials, and through a half dozen dummy companies over several years sent him mail attempting to get him to buy various publications, have penpals, and so on. The guy finally did order something, at which point he was busted.

There were other cases where the target of such efforts repeatedly turned down the offers, was sent unsolicited illegal materials, returned or turned in and reported them to the Post Office, and was arrested and prosecuted. In at least one case the target had taken the materials to the post office, turned them over along with a report, and was arrested when he returned home. In another the target came home from work and was arrested before he open that day's mail, which contained the unrequested illegal materials.

Back in the days of COINTELPRO and similar, it was not uncommon for a newer member of a radical group to start pushing for more violent actions, offering to obtain arms and explosives, and in a few cases showing up with them unrequested by any other member. The group would soon be raided and the firearms and explosives used as evidence.

Given those events don't be surprised if there's not some blatant entrapment with mail order chemicals, certainly fishing expeditions are going on. Given what has been done of the child porn front, this would be expected to include mailings offering "specials", and possibly the inclusion of "extras" in orders. I'd keep well away from any outfit you have the least suspicion of.

I seriously doubt that methamphetamine production is going to fade away, there are too many routes to that fairly simple molecule. Nor are LEAs and courts likely to back off on the loose interpretation of intent; certainly not while property seizure penalties reward the LEAs for performing such arrests, in some cases providing a significant portion of their budgets. Furthermore it's pretty rare that laws put into place are removed or loosened, especially if they don't inconvenience the wealthy and politically connected. Expect paperwork requirements for solvents and such to increase to the point small businesses can't afford to keep going.

anotheronebitesthedust - 5-4-2008 at 20:27

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezmeister
The law on entrapment has not changed. Officers have always been allowed to create an opportunity for one who has the predisposition to commit a crime to commit the crime. What the law does not allow is for the officer to encourage or entice someone who lacks the propensity to commit the crime to commit the crime.

One of the classic examples arises from the prohibition era, when a cop went to get some whiskey from an old soldier, told him they were in the same unit in France, and asked him to get him some whiskey. The old soldier said he didn't drink anymore, and didn't care to violate the law. The cop, acting like a fellow soldier, began to talk about the war and the troubles they went through, and begged the old soldier to get him some whiskey, and the old soldier did. The case was dismissed on entrapment grounds. The old soldier did not have the propensity to commit the crime but was persuaded to commit it by the officer.

We have in my state the concept of sentence entrapment as well. This occurs when police persuade someone to do a bigger deal than they otherwise would be willing to do, which brings them into a more serious level of punishment. The police approach someone who will provide an eight ball of meth... the cops pressure him to bring twenty grams instead, he resists, they pressure him to do the bigger deal, he does, and is charged with trafficking.


Also, it's not like the police officers at TCC actually have stock of all these restricted chems and are selling them. (That's why some of the pics at their site are incorrect). They simply set up a website and are gathering evidence in order to get search warrants and make busts. They may ask the DEA to actually deliver Ephedrine to help make a better case, or find where the lab is, but they could probably also get a conviction by simply delivering a package full of salt and wait til the target opens it. Sometimes they'll wire the package so that as soon as it is opened they send in the storm troopers. Other times they'll follow the package to see where it ends up.

Another factor in all of this is how difficult it actually is to get these chems. I don't think many companies would supply iodine and red phosphorus together. Not to mention the other 20 or 30 suspicious chems. Ephedrine used to be legal in Canada (before 2003 anyone could buy barrels of it without a license of any kind). But that didn't mean that every company would sell it to anyone. Most companies still had morals and it would take months to find a company to sell to a small unknown company. Imagine a chem distributor took a look at the TCC website? They would laugh.

Methylamine and iodine would be easy to get, but I imagine safrole and p2p would be somewhat hard to get in bulk amounts whether you're in Europe or not.

S.C. Wack - 5-4-2008 at 21:52

I see that the word intent has come up here, and as usual another thread has been derailed into a discussion of chemical legality.

Some examples, not even mentioning RP and I, and almost not mentioning ammonia:
In MO, KY, and ND, possession of more than 24 grams of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine is evidence of intent to manufacture methamphetamine. 5 grams of ephedrine or 9 grams of pseudoephedrine in AR. It's 9 in TX, where possession of any amount of liquid ammonia or Li also shows intent. 9 grams of ephedrine/pseudoephedrine is by itself a crime in OR and GA; 12 in UT, LA, MI; 15 in WA; 24 in AZ. No intent necessary. The exemptions that come to mind are the ones in the statutes.

NM law as I linked to here does not require intent, there are no exemptions other than those given. Simple possession of the chemicals on that list without a permit is a crime. LA outright bans some chemicals unrelated to meth manufacture outside of "legitimate" areas, with no permit mechanism or intent required.

As I've said many times, "intent" will be proven if need be. They will bring in "experts" who will testify that there is no doubt as to your intent.

[Edited on 5-4-2008 by S.C. Wack]

MagicJigPipe - 5-4-2008 at 22:13

"My hope is that, in a few years, when the hysteria about meth
subsides and the restriction on ephedrine will have put the remaining
cooks out of business"

I don't see it happening. It's been proven time and time again that prohibition of ANYTHING is doomed to failure. The operations will just move or find other ways. Technically, if that was the case then other drugs should be completely gone as well. And as we all know, that is certainly not the case.

Sauron - 5-4-2008 at 22:20

With a few exceptions relating to treason and the tax code (including gun laws) the prosecutorial burden of proof includes criminal intent, mens rae (Latin) is the technical legal term. Absent proof of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt, no properly instructed jury can convict.

The federal drug laws are not exempt from this burden of proof. Conspiracy cases and RICO cases are not exempt.

That's the law. (USA). Ask any defense lawyer.

That's basic legal principle. As for motive, means and opportunity, I suppose intent speaks to motive.

MagicJigPipe - 5-4-2008 at 22:35

"Absent proof of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt, no properly instructed jury can convict."

Therein lies the problem. Jurors bring their emotions and prejudices with them to court. If they think "home chemistry" cannot be legitimate then it is likely they will convict even if intent beyond a reasonable doubt has not been proven. It really depends how the prosecutors portrayal of the activities and the current social, emotional and political climate.

I mean, we know it has happened before.

I certainly WOULD NOT trust the competency of a jury in determining whether or not I was "conspiring to make drugs". They can't help what they feel emotionally and when they hear about all those "deadly toxic" chemicals within 2.234 miles of pregnant women, handicap children, defenseless bunnies, a pre-school and a resevoir lake their emotions just might take over and force them to convict even if it defies logic and reason.

Just like what everyone asks me when I tell them I have an AK-47; "Why do you NEED that?" Apparently, if you don't NEED it, it is wrong to possess unless, of course, it has to do with some kind of current social fad (i.e. A huge SUV, alcohol, "spinnas", "ice" etc...)

[Edited on 6-4-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

microcosmicus - 5-4-2008 at 22:50

Quote:

I seriously doubt that methamphetamine production is going to fade away,
there are too many routes to that fairly simple molecule.


Sure, there are many possible syntheses, but I think the relevant question
here is how many of them are the sort of thing which could actually be pulled
off by the sort of clueless bumblers who clutter up our organic chemistry
forum with pleas to be spoonfed drug recipies. As I understand it, the
reason we have so many meth shacks going in the backcountry is not
so much because one can make it from readily available chemicals
but because the procedure is simple enough and tolerant enough of
slop that someone with no experience or knowledge of chemistry can
obtain passable results. By contrast, I think a typical organic synthesis
which might involve carefully controlling conditions, non-trivial purification
of intermediaries, or rigorously excluding contaminants would require
levels of skill, knowledge, and patience much higher than what I think the
average cook has. For instance, I somehow just don't see wet dreamers
who can't even spell a sentence properly as pulling off Grignard reactions
even though they could easily enough scrounge up the necessary reagents.

For this reason, I think that, although methamphetamines may remain
with us for some time, the days of the small-time cook shack are numbered
now that ephedrine has been controlled in the U.S.. Rather, I expect that
most of the meth is going to be made in larger places (perhaps using alternate
synthetic routes to avoid suspicious precursors), likely outside the
country (e.g. Mexican meth) and the focus of enforcement is going to
turn towards going after traffickers and big-time producers rather than
worrying about small-time producers.
Quote:

Nor are LEAs and courts likely to back off on the loose interpretation of intent; certainly not while property seizure penalties reward the LEAs for performing such arrests, in some cases providing a significant portion of their budgets.


Sure, I don't expect this to happen too soon. Rather, the type of scenario I have in mind is
that at some time, maybe 5 or 10 years in the future, the small-time meth lab will largely
be a quaint memory and the DEA will instead be making its living by arresting the "mules"
who import the ready-made meth and confiscating their profits. At such a point, I doubt
that they will be nearly as zealous about small quantities of phosphorous or iodine in
private hands because this would no longer be relevant. By then, the only people who
would care about obtaining such things would be a few home chemists and similar oddballs.
At that point, I could see that a legitimate home chemist with no connections to the drug trade
and a decent lawyer would have a chance of convincing a jury that the uses to which
he put his phosphorous and iodine had nothing to do with trying to make drugs. This could
be rationalized on the grounds that the sort of strict enforcement which required in 2007 is
no longer appropriate now that the epidemic has passed.
Quote:

Furthermore it's pretty rare that laws put into place are removed or loosened, especially if they don't inconvenience the wealthy and politically connected. Expect paperwork requirements for solvents and such to increase to the point small businesses can't afford to keep going.


Sure, I agree with you and Polverone that the laws are likely to remain on the books
for quite a while. However, as described above, I see that possibility that nobody will
care to enforce them except in obvious cases where someone is really making and
selling drugs because the problem they were designed to address is no longer
an issue. And yes, alas, paperwork increases like entropy, making the life of
everybody except the bureaucrats whose job was created by the paperwork difficult.
Even should private possession of small quantities of listed chemicals no longer
be seen as suspicious, I expect that the annoying paperwork requirements will reamain
even when it is forgotten why or how they appeared in the first place.
Quote:

I don't see it happening. It's been proven time and time again that prohibition of ANYTHING is doomed to failure. The operations will just move or find other ways. Technically, if that was the case then other drugs should be completely gone as well. And as we all know, that is certainly not the case.


I was only making the more modest claim that the small-scale local
manufacture would go away in favor of trafficking methamphetamine
like most other drugs. With that proviso, I agree with what you said,

[Edited on 6-4-2008 by microcosmicus]

MagicJigPipe - 5-4-2008 at 22:59

Microcosmicus, I like that you are optimistic. I am not so sure but I do hope that you are right.

S.C. Wack - 6-4-2008 at 01:12

Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
mens rae (Latin) is the technical legal term. Absent proof of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt, no properly instructed jury can convict.

The federal drug laws are not exempt from this burden of proof. Conspiracy cases and RICO cases are not exempt.

That's the law. (USA). Ask any defense lawyer.

That's basic legal principle.


Does this mean that I can beat the evil neighbor kids as long as I think that a good beating will do them good?

Any defense lawyer will tell you of a basic legal principle that's the law and which you ignore, strict liability. Had the Legislatures intended mens rea to apply, they would have used intent to manufacture wording in the statutes as with other laws. By the absence of such wording in a precursor case, it may not be difficult for the Court to believe that the Legislature intended strict liability to apply. I see little difference between this and laws that say that I must license a machine gun or silencer, or dog; or that a felon cannot have a firearm regardless of his intent. Apparently one cannot live legally in most places in most cities if they are a sex offender. How is living 2 blocks from a church criminal intent?

In the specific case of the NM guy and their drug precursor laws, the statute is written that those drug precursors require permits. Let us say that mens rea does apply here, what exactly does that mean? The crime is not possession with intent to manufacture, it is possession, period. So no intent to manufacture should be necessary. What is needed then to satisfy a mens rea requirement - the person knowingly and willfully possessed indole?

[Edited on 6-4-2008 by S.C. Wack]

MagicJigPipe - 6-4-2008 at 09:43

"Does this mean that I can beat the evil neighbor kids as long as I think that a good beating will do them good?"

I don't understand what you mean by this. Please explain.

microcosmicus - 6-4-2008 at 10:56

Quote:

Does this mean that I can beat the evil neighbor kids as long as
I think that a good beating will do them good?


No, that is distorting the principle. As I understand it, the applicability
of mens rea in this case would be simply that your intent was to beat
the child whatever your reason for choosing to do so as opposed to,
say, a case where you were trying to swat a fly but whacked the kid
instead (which, at best would be negligence). There is no contradiction
here between strict liability and mens rea --- the issue here is whether
one deliberately chose to do something, not why that person made
such a choice. Likewise, in the case of the license, what is relevant
is the intent to, say, purchase a car even though one did not have
a proper license.

The distinction between actual and attempted actions is important here.
Returning to your example of hitting the child, it is quite clear after the
fact that your intent in reaching for a paddle was to whack the kid.
By contrast, if the neighbor had whisked away the kid before you got
close to him, there would be plenty of room for reasonable doubt;
For instance, maybe you were going to use the paddle to mix some
cement, but the neighbor freaked out and thought you were going after his
child. In such a case where the action is not completed, more evidence
is required to establish the intended consequence of that action. Say that,
the day before, you had threatened to whack that no-account kid
of his upside the head so hard that he would see stars for the rest of
the week should he once more dare to turn on that noisy boombox of
his while you were trying to take a rest after a hard day's work, the
story would be different. In that case, your neighbor could quite
plausibly make the case that your picking up the paddle constituted
attempted assault which did not succeed only because he took
action to protect the welfare of the child.

0U812 - 6-4-2008 at 21:01

Quote:
Originally posted by crazyboy
It is rather suspicous. why don't you post a pic of your red P?



I could post it but then you would call it chalk...what next, you want me to show you a video of it burning? How about I just give you my address so you can call the cops.

I could care less if you ordered from TCC. Im just saying that I ordered and got my stuff. :cool:

evil_lurker - 6-4-2008 at 21:13

Quote:
Originally posted by 0U812
Quote:
Originally posted by crazyboy
It is rather suspicous. why don't you post a pic of your red P?



I could post it but then you would call it chalk...what next, you want me to show you a video of it burning? How about I just give you my address so you can call the cops.

I could care less if you ordered from TCC. Im just saying that I ordered and got my stuff. :cool:


RP is rather distinguishable from any other compound. The closest thing that looks anywhere near RP is red iron oxide.

MagicJigPipe - 6-4-2008 at 21:43

I'm surprised you posted a picture. IMO that's pretty risky in itself.

pantone159 - 6-4-2008 at 21:49

Quote:
Originally posted by 0U812
I could post it but then you would call it chalk


Yeah, a pic of the RP wouldn't be any more diagnostic than a picture of the can, *OBVIOUSLY* that can is only suitable for phosphorus.
Quote:
so you can call the cops.


You mean your immediate supervisor? I'll make sure to recommend that you get a good performance evaluation next time around.

[Edited on 6-4-2008 by pantone159]

anotheronebitesthedust - 7-4-2008 at 04:07

The picture of the can looks a little too perfect (a little too staged). Just the way the can is sitting in the foamies. Who opens up a package and immediately takes a picture of their list 1 chemicals anyways? Wouldn't you have bigger concerns on your mind?

MagicJigPipe - 7-4-2008 at 05:55

Yeah, that is interesting. I also like that it's just a regular printable sticker that you can just buy anywhere. Oh yeah, the barcode. It's almost as if it's trying to look professional.

Honestly, I have never had a chemical order that came with a barcode. I'm sure some of the big guys do it but do places the size of TCC usually do that?

[Edited on 7-4-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

pantone159 - 7-4-2008 at 06:28

Quote:
Originally posted by anotheronebitesthedust
The picture of the can looks a little too perfect (a little too staged). Just the way the can is sitting in the foamies. Who opens up a package and immediately takes a picture of their list 1 chemicals anyways? Wouldn't you have bigger concerns on your mind?


Also kind of interesting that the address on the box appears to be 'Glendale AZ 85301'. It is not all visible, so impossible to be sure that is exactly right, but that is indeed where TCC seems to be genuinely based.

MagicJigPipe - 7-4-2008 at 07:06

Okay guys, this seals the deal for me. I just looked at their glassware selection for the first time. Let me just say this-- stereotypical meth glassware.

A lot of 3-neck flasks
Mantels to fit the flasks
Erlenmeyers **smallest size 1000mL**
Smallest flask size is 250mL for OVER $100!!!!!

WHAT A F**KING RIP OFF!!

Not to mention they have a HUGE 12,000mL flask. I mean, how stereotypical is that??! And none of the larger flasks are actually pictured (like many of their chemicals).

Plus, the "logo" for their glassware section is a 3-neck flask. IMO, only LE thinks that ONLY this type of glassware is used for making meth.

I know this subject is beat to death but for some reason I still find it slightly interesting. Maybe it's because I don't like operations like this as they ALSO prey on unsuspecting hobbyists.

joeflsts - 7-4-2008 at 10:59

Quote:
Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
Okay guys, this seals the deal for me. I just looked at their glassware selection for the first time. Let me just say this-- stereotypical meth glassware.

A lot of 3-neck flasks
Mantels to fit the flasks
Erlenmeyers **smallest size 1000mL**
Smallest flask size is 250mL for OVER $100!!!!!

WHAT A F**KING RIP OFF!!

Not to mention they have a HUGE 12,000mL flask. I mean, how stereotypical is that??! And none of the larger flasks are actually pictured (like many of their chemicals).

Plus, the "logo" for their glassware section is a 3-neck flask. IMO, only LE thinks that ONLY this type of glassware is used for making meth.

I know this subject is beat to death but for some reason I still find it slightly interesting. Maybe it's because I don't like operations like this as they ALSO prey on unsuspecting hobbyists.


Agreed - I would never buy anything from this group. The pictures pushed me over the edge. I think this thread is dead and that TCC is a leo front.

Joe

joeflsts - 7-4-2008 at 11:05

Quote:
Originally posted by evil_lurker
Quote:
Originally posted by 0U812
Quote:
Originally posted by crazyboy
It is rather suspicous. why don't you post a pic of your red P?



I could post it but then you would call it chalk...what next, you want me to show you a video of it burning? How about I just give you my address so you can call the cops.

I could care less if you ordered from TCC. Im just saying that I ordered and got my stuff. :cool:


RP is rather distinguishable from any other compound. The closest thing that looks anywhere near RP is red iron oxide.


Not his.. his looks like chalk.

Joe

Sauron - 9-4-2008 at 10:47

Looks like chalk?

That's the rare alabaster modification of P, chalky-white amorphous. It has the formula CaCO3.

woelen - 9-4-2008 at 12:46

No, it is not white, it is red/brown. Its formula is CaCO3++ or even CaCO3# :P

chemoleo - 9-4-2008 at 17:14

Can anyone concisely tell me why this thread should remain open??

MagicJigPipe - 9-4-2008 at 18:37

The point of this thread (the determination of whether or not TCC is a LE operation) has not been completed 100%.

Also, it serves to continue discussion if TCC tries to seduce anyone else into buying from them.

I mean, why close it if it's not causing any trouble? I just don't see the point in that. I mean, yes the last two posts were slightly OT but other than that it seems to be okay.

Companies that attempt to prey on home chemists is an important issue to us.

Sauron - 9-4-2008 at 20:13

The thread ought to be closed because it is a train wreck. It has seen two members seriously insulted (joefista and MJP) for no good reason. Its raison d'etre is already accomplished. I do not know whether TCC is a scam or a sting, but it is one or the other. It is NOT a supplier for anyone in their right mind to do business with. That was established approximately on page 1. So why are we on page 7? It's like rubbernecking drivers at the scene of an accident. Move on!

MagicJigPipe - 9-4-2008 at 22:57

Hmmmmm... Perhaps us science nuts need some kind of "conspiracy theory" type stuff to keep our imagination switches in the "1" position.

I would still like to see it stay open as long as it doesn't get out of control. I don't know why but I would find it interesting to see "news" updates on what's going on with this site. Morbid curiosity? Probably, but I can't help it.

I mean, if anything else happens someone is likely to create a new topic. We certainly don't want a bunch of topics on one thing. So perhaps we should keep it if only for being organized and uncluttered. You know, have a place for everything.

EDIT
IIRC the kno3 thread was kind of heated but it just pops up from time to time causing no problems but at the same time keeping the possibility of updating the information/situation. I think this thread will do that, too. In time.

Sauron, page 7? My settings must be different from yours because I'm only on page 2! Interesting.

Mine is on 150 posts per page. Is that normal? I never have any loading issues (even with lots of large pictures) so I guess it doesn't matter.

[Edited on 4-10-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

Sauron - 10-4-2008 at 01:20

150 posts per page?

That would explain it.

Here's the short version of this thread:

"Wow! Red P for sale!"

"Wait. Didn't those folks in Scotland just get jacked up by the DEA for same thing? Might be a scam or a sting."

"Yeah, right. Better stay away." Nose pressed against shop window in cyberspace.

"Wow! Red P for sale!"

It's like watching moths dance around a flame. Or roaches debate about whether or not to check into that attractive roach motel. Or rodents sniffing at that nice bit of cheese on the plateful of sticky glue. Or (fill in your own trap metaphor).

Like, everyone now KNOWS it's too hot to handle, but, many just can't help but gaze and drool.

It's Pavlovian.

I'd love to have red P. But I can'T. So I for one am not a good candidate to be victimized by these folks, whoever they are.

YT2095 - 10-4-2008 at 05:46

Quote:
Originally posted by MagicJigPipe

Not to mention they have a HUGE 12,000mL flask. I mean, how stereotypical is that??! And none of the larger flasks are actually pictured (like many of their chemicals).


Oh I dunno, a 12L flask, I think I would buy something like that if I had the cash just for the Novelty value, and I`m about as far removed from drugy stuff as you get.
I just like strange Lab Glassware, and the Older, Weirder, Rarer.. the better :)

pantone159 - 10-4-2008 at 07:05

Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
Here's the short version of this thread:
"Wow! Red P for sale!"
"Wait. Didn't those folks in Scotland just get jacked up by the DEA for same thing? Might be a scam or a sting."
"Yeah, right. Better stay away." Nose pressed against shop window in cyberspace.
"Wow! Red P for sale!"


There is more to this thread than that... A number of news articles related to busts (at least one mentioned TCC by name, and another probably involved them but no names) as well as some IP sleuthing and tracking of a package from them... Which does constitute an actual attempt to analyze what the truth behind TCC is, and not just (all) blabber. Plus their shill posted here, and deserves (IMO) to be called out for what he/she really is.

I don't care if this thread gets closed, but it should continue to exist (and be indexed by google etc. [which means no detritus?]) so it will be available for all who hear about TCC and decide to do their homework.

YT2095 - 14-4-2008 at 22:55

here`s an interesting email I got today from some junky coward too afraid to post in here:


""you wouldn't know what to do with a 12000ml flask besides make a jack ass comment like that you dumbfuck! i could care a less about how it could be used for a meth lab but it sucks bad that if i did want one along with ANY chemical i dam want! but cause of people like you that have nothing better to do than to copy and paste some oneelses post you fucking reject! so boo fucking hoo let me guess your daddys a redneck dumbfuck cop and he said so! Wake up this country has gone to SHIT!!! Land of the Free ya FUCKING RIGHT! everything is illegal now! Making Meth WTF! your such a brainless DIPSHIT!!!! im done wasting my time on a WASTE of TIME!""

Received: from badalamentom@aol.com

soxhlet - 14-4-2008 at 23:10

“it sucks bad that if i did want one along with ANY chemical i dam want!”

Even worse is when one demonstrates such amazing intellect as to misspell “damn”. Is this a joke?

YT2095 - 14-4-2008 at 23:48

no joke!

Return-Path: <badalamentom@aol.com>
Received: from imo-d22.mx.aol.com (205.188.144.208) by mail-9.uk.tiscali.com (7.3.122)
id 47C583E718A3BAFD for yt2095@tiscali.co.uk; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:47:32 +0200
Received: from badalamentom@aol.com
by imo-d22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.3.) id a.be5.2c145b31 (32913)
for <yt2095@tiscali.co.uk>; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:47:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: badalamentom@aol.com
Message-ID: <be5.2c145b31.35350ed0@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:47:28 EDT
Subject: (no subject)
To: yt2095@tiscali.co.uk
X-Mailer: Unknown sub 36
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 7.5.519 [269.22.13/1376]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=======AVGMAIL-48044DAF2FCA======="

Sauron - 15-4-2008 at 00:27

Sounds like a troll to me.

The only time DEA made a (fortunately brief) list of suspicious equipment, it wasn't 12 liter flasks they singled out as being commonly encountered in many clandestine labs they knocked over. It was 22 L flasks. But apparently they figured out that chasing glassware made no sense so they refocused on chemicals.

MagicJigPipe - 15-4-2008 at 19:53

Because we all know that you can only make meth in a 22L flask! Wow.... And these people are supposed to be "experts".

Damnit! I was trying to make some meth the other day and realized I only had an 18L flask! Arggggg... My plans to become rich selling meth and rule the world have been foiled! I would have gotten away with, too, it if it weren't for those meddling DEA agents!

(reference to Scooby Doo)

jigpipenotsomagic - 16-4-2008 at 17:28

Hey jigpipe....You still want to buy that red p? It's second generation now!

Sauron - 16-4-2008 at 18:06

No, you miss the point.

Some green check sucking SOB gets paid to analyze "intelligence" from clandestine lab busts. So he turns in reports that say "In 82% of the (clandestine) labs closed in last 5 years we found 22 liter round bottom flasks."

And at some point some other sucker at the withered federal tit decided that possession of, or ordering of, 22 L RB flasks might be an indicator of clandestine-lab activity.

However, as they have dropped all attention to hardware as far as I can tell, some OTHER bureaucrat finally figured out that this datum was an indicator of approximately nothing, since all it means is that someone wanted a largish round pyrex sphere with one or more openings on top.

This is more or less a rerun of the Red Devil lye episode. You remember, when someone "analyzed" that 76.4% of meth labs busted contained Red Devil brand drain cleaner (lye) and so the word went out that henceforth acquisition or possession of Red Devil lye would be prima facia evidence of criminal activity. Yeah, right. Felonious plumbing with intent to roto-root.

MagicJigPipe - 16-4-2008 at 18:11

I always wondered about the specifics as to why Red Devil Lye just vanished from store shelves about a year ago.

Magpie - 16-4-2008 at 19:06

Yes, the Red Devil Lye has disappeared no doubt due to DEA propaganda and intimidation. It was, however, promptly replaced by an equivalent container of another brand. But we are all safer now because the label does not say "Red Devil" on it.

Sauron - 16-4-2008 at 19:23

I think this amply demonstrates that the scourge of methamphetamine is and always was a Satanist conspiracy.

Possibly with Communist connections as well. After all, a RED devil. Pesky Bolshies!

(Sauron foams at the mouth and falls over backwards.)

soxhlet - 16-4-2008 at 19:38

I was thinking about filling a 22L RB flask with H2O and tossing in a couple of gold fish.

TCC is most likely the doings of a rouge task force out of Arizona. While the group may have participation of one or two low ranking DEA agents, it is not a well-conceived operation. Looks like something slung together by a small group of hacks,, and most likely is.

Think maybe a jiggy person here has been taunting TCC as well. That’d likely explain OU812’s fraudulent appearance.

[Edited on 16-4-2008 by soxhlet]

Sauron - 16-4-2008 at 21:45

I concur. Or,not even DEA but some local/state badges with delusions of grandeur. Beating the grass to startle the snakes.

DEA AKA The Chemical Closet AKA TRACY MC BRIDE

BustedByTheChemicalCloset - 26-4-2008 at 20:08

:(This posting serves as a warning!:mad:


After placing an order with the chemical closet.

A swatt team Busted in my door and arrested me!

"MAKE NO MISTAKE" THE FEDS AND THE DEA AND TRACY MCBRIDE ARE USEING KNO3'S SAME IDEA, YOU WILL NOT RECIVE YOUR ORDER JUST A DUMMY PACKAGE WITH DUMMY OVERSEAS LABELS. WHEN THE PACKAGE IS OPENED, A DEVICE GOES OFF LETTING THE SWATT TEAM KNOW YOU OPENED THE PAKAGE THEN THE BUST IN.

PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE, IF YOU ORDER FROM
"THE CHEMICAL CLOSET" "YOU WILL BE BUSTED."

EVERYTHING THEY ARE SELLING IS ILLEAGAL!

Attachment: TheTruth!.rtf (1kB)
This file has been downloaded 777 times

BustedByTheChemicalCloset - 26-4-2008 at 20:29

:obuy for the chemical closet and get busted:(

they have an alarm that goes off after you open there package and then the feds com in wanting to kill you!:mad:

BustedByTheChemicalCloset - 26-4-2008 at 20:31

:oWARNING:o

:(YOU WILL GO TO JAIL IF YOU ORDER FROM THE CHEMICAL CLOSET:(

S.C. Wack - 26-4-2008 at 20:39

Quote:
Originally posted by BustedByTheChemicalCloset
:(This posting serves as a warning!:mad:


After placing an order with the chemical closet.

A swatt team Busted in my door and arrested me!

"MAKE NO MISTAKE" THE FEDS AND THE DEA AND TRACY MCBRIDE ARE USEING KNO3'S SAME IDEA, YOU WILL NOT RECIVE YOUR ORDER JUST A DUMMY PACKAGE WITH DUMMY OVERSEAS LABELS. WHEN THE PACKAGE IS OPENED, A DEVICE GOES OFF LETTING THE SWATT TEAM KNOW YOU OPENED THE PAKAGE THEN THE BUST IN.


bullshitdetector.gif - 57kB

soxhlet - 28-4-2008 at 19:31

Its no BS there SCWack. I was the recipient of a controlled delivery. DEA rigs up a package with a device that sends a signal when package is opened. Then, all hell comes through the door.


Thechemicalcloset is a disguisting LE fraud. Its not too unreasonable to expect that law enforcement would stop illegal sales on the internet. But no, in the bullshit USA, law enforcement are the ones advertising illegal sales. Its a disgrace. Sort of tempts one to reconsider if maybe Tim McVeigh was really all that wrong.

if you
buy red phosphorus
buy iodine
buy ephedrine

from thechemicalcloset website

you will be raided in a controlled delivery

(the chemical names are added to this post so that anyone doing a google search for I2 will have this thread turn up)

[Edited on 28-4-2008 by soxhlet]

S.C. Wack - 29-4-2008 at 01:14

So where is the police report? Where is the search warrant?

len1 - 29-4-2008 at 01:46

Quote:
DEA rigs up a package with a device that sends a signal when package is opened. Then, all hell comes through the door.


Its easy, get your package, drive into the desert, open it up, get your ill gotten goods, while LE will be breaking the door in somewhere else. Whats more they wont have any proof as to who opened your package - if its the opening thats so important to them. I think that meter is right.

PS An even better idea is to open it up inside a sealed metal container - EM waves can not penetrate metal - that way you can enjoy your goods without going anywhere.

[Edited on 29-4-2008 by len1]

Sauron - 29-4-2008 at 01:47

I suppose that makes these members "chemical closet cases" eh?

It matters not at all whether package is open or not. The feds will be camped outside your place in a spook van. They have to be, in a controlled delivery scenario, because the package is contraband and therefore evidence and they need to retain a chain of custody. So if you try to leave to "go into the desert" to open the package they will intercept you. That was the lamest piece of unadvice I have heard for a coon's age.

The offense was the ordering of the RP, causing it to be illegally imported into the US, that is a Customs violation and Customs not DEA will be lead agency in the matter. DEA will be in on it too. They have a lot of practice at these controlled delivery stings, they are nothing new.

They would like you to open the package prior to making the bust so you can't claim that you didn't know what was inside. But make no mistake: they aren't going to let you mosey on down the road with said package. They have to keep control of it, that is why it is a CONTROLLED delivery.

Remember the Islamic types in Canada who ordered 3 tons of AN? That was a classic controlled delivery, only it was domestic, and not importation.

In the case of TCC, they will have proof you ordered it, proof you paid for it, the entire chain of transport and finally proof of delivery all under their CONTROL. Every email you sent to TCC, every phone call, every detail will be on record. How did you pay? Credit card? Paper trail. Western Union? Paper trail. Intl postal MO? Paper trail.

[Edited on 29-4-2008 by Sauron]

joeflsts - 29-4-2008 at 05:47

Quote:
Originally posted by S.C. Wack
So where is the police report? Where is the search warrant?


Next he will call you names...

Joe

MagicJigPipe - 29-4-2008 at 07:16

Quote:
So if you try to leave to "go into the desert" to open the package they will intercept you. That was the lamest piece of unadvice I have heard for a coon's age.


Surely he was joking. I agree that the poster is full of shit because opening the package HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. The chemistry teacher who was busted still had the package unopened and sitting on the kitchen table (IIRC).

My guess is that the poster is someone from WetDreams. For some reason they have this undying need to convince everyone that it is a LE operation, and it seems they will acheive that end by any means (even by stooping to the LEOs level by lying and manipulating).

Of course, that is just speculation and not fact. Who knows...?

solo - 29-4-2008 at 07:37

Quote:

My guess is that the poster is someone from WetDreams. For some reason they have this undying need to convince everyone that it is a LE operation, and it seems they will acheive that end by any means (even by stooping to the LEOs level by lying and manipulating).


.............you are always putting down WD, are you upset they banned you for being an unruly member there..............solo/java


Spelling: achive...wrong, its achieve!

Sauron - 29-4-2008 at 08:05

I've never been a member of WD and never even looked at their site. But, MJP is onto something, in the sense that a couple of these newbies here, seem to really really want to have us believe, for whatever reason, that TCC is a LE sting, and I can't help wondering what their agenda is.

It may or may not be a sting; as the little polyhedron in the 8-ball full of ink says "Answer hazy, ask again later"

Their tales of woe, certainly, fail to ring true, are utterly without support ing evidence, hollow and artificial. Not one single member with any credibility or track record on this forum has had such an experience.

I am not advising anyone to order from TCC.

Pulverulescent - 29-4-2008 at 09:50

Quote:

Spelling: achive...wrong, its achieve!

(Jeez! Such pedantry!)

I'd order from TCC if their prices weren't so fucking high!

No other reason!

What a paranoid thread!

I'm not in the US, though!

P

Pulverulescent - 29-4-2008 at 11:04

Busted's raison d'etre seem to be, "they wouldn't sell to me, so I'll see if I can put others off buying from them"!

'Sad really!

P

Pulverulescent - 29-4-2008 at 12:51

Their mantles all seem rated at 115v; they're selling from the UK and they don't even know the UK uses 220v.

They're just assholes out to make a quick buck!

They may be legit, but they're plain stupid!

Fuck politics anyway--- particularly American politics!

P

brew - 29-4-2008 at 16:13

Yeah sure I'm going to take the risk with TCC. What have I got to loose other than. My freedom and liberty,
being disgraced by society, stuffing up my current academic year, my friends and family thinking my chem
hobby is indeed a front for my meth production, my residance, my part-time job, my dog who no-one would
want to love and look after I am sure, my girlfriend also, my future career in Biomedical science and of course
my reputation and self asteem. Sounds bloody wonderful and at the same time I get to assist in helping
these thoughtess money grabbing assholes into making a bit more money. Sure why not, I can contribute to
the meth prob in my local area. Gives more work for the local dentist, Dr, phyc unit and make some ready cash
at the same time. Hooray for TCC.

soxhlet - 29-4-2008 at 17:27

SciMad is not running short on stubborn skeptics eh?

Here is a link to the indictment of Brian Howes and Kerry Shanks. Read down a few pages and you will see that James Porter is Tracy McBride:
http://www.kno3.com/PDF/FULL-_INDITEMENT-FROM-ARIZONA-FULL-O...

Combine this with the arrest of Baskerfield teacher, arrest in Albuquerque, half dozen of IP addresses pointing to Phoenix and DUH.

I would like to see a scan of the search warrant handed to “Bustedby”. Not that I have any doubts. Just like to see as much clear and convincing posting as possible.

MagicJigPipe - 29-4-2008 at 17:56

We have heard and seen all this same shit over and over. This thread is now pointless, IMO.

EDITED
Did not want to perpetuate this immaturity and decadence.

[Edited on 4-29-2008 by MagicJigPipe]
 Pages:  1  2