Sciencemadness Discussion Board - UK ARRESTS - kno3.com - user Kerry-Ann Shanks

UK ARRESTS - kno3.com - user Kerry-Ann Shanks

boness - 31-1-2007 at 04:26

Posted today on BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/6316...

Just a matter of time

joeflsts - 31-1-2007 at 04:30

If you sell Red P and other List 1 items to buyers in the US you're going to end up in court.

Joe

pantone159 - 31-1-2007 at 10:55

A couple of other stories about this...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_cent...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_cent...

chemoleo - 31-1-2007 at 17:09

Where does it say it is KNO3.com? The website is still up...

S.C. Wack - 1-2-2007 at 02:47

Quote:

Originally posted by chemoleo
Where does it say it is KNO3.com? The website is still up...

Her relation to it was noted and (if it was indeed her that posted under her name) acknowledged in the relevant thread. The site is specifically mentioned by the DEA report on their site.

woelen - 1-2-2007 at 05:01

Taking away any doubts on this:

http://www.dea.gov/pubs/states/newsrel/phnx013007.html
http://www.dea.gov/pubs/states/newsrel/phnx013007.pdf

Apparently they really were involved in the meth-business. According to the article they did more than just selling a few chemicals, they also found recipes for making meth in the company office of kno3.com.

I have the idea that the other chems they sold were there just to make it look a little less suspicious. I have the feeling that their real business was the red P and iodine. I must, however, admit that the other chems were real. I ordered 500 grams of hydrated NaClO4 from them and they did deliver that.

According to the administration, more than 319 kilo (!!!) of red P was sold to US-based customers, and they apparently had connections with meth-labs in Arizona.

I'm quite sure that quite a few fellow chemistry hobbyists have ordered chems from kno3.com, but that was not their real business... again a case, which puts chemistry in a bad perspective

.

[Edited on 1-2-07 by woelen]

joeflsts - 1-2-2007 at 05:54

Sure - they should have just been left alone to sell all the drug material they could. In fact it is just research afterall and no one is getting hurt.

I'm sorry but we all know what is illegal and what is not. If you want to experiment with illegal substances then there is a route for you to get the required qualifications for this type of research. If you want to make meth or sell listed precursors don't be surprised if you get a knock at the door. It is that simple.

Joe

[Edited on 1-2-2007 by joeflsts]

YT2095 - 1-2-2007 at 06:03

in light of the last link Woelen provided, they deserve what`s coming to them.

I was up until reading that link somewhat against what had been done to them, Now...

Levi - 1-2-2007 at 06:26

They're not getting any sympathy from me. They deserve what they've got coming and then some if they're knowingly supplying meth labs.

unionised - 1-2-2007 at 11:52

"i take they aren't uk citizens? "
Why?
Those reports include these quotes.
"Earlier Mr Howes, originally from Middlesbrough, was taken back to his Bo'ness home by police in handcuffs while they searched the property. "
"A British couple could face 20 years in a US jail after being arrested "
Also, trust me, if the news media could have labeled these folk as "Foreign!" they would have done.

[Edited on 1-2-2007 by unionised]

Magpie - 1-2-2007 at 12:37

How can a seller be held responsible for a buyer's actions? I have a lot of trouble with that concept.

Organikum - 1-2-2007 at 14:18

I suppose its not the selling of chemicals but conspiracy to manufacture.

S.C. Wack - 1-2-2007 at 14:24

Quote:

Originally posted by woelen
Apparently they really were involved in the meth-business. According to the article they did more than just selling a few chemicals, they also found recipes for making meth in the company office of kno3.com.

... and they apparently had connections with meth-labs in Arizona.

These "connections" are nothing more than buyers of their RP using it to reduce ephedrine to methamphetamine. Who knows what this "recipe" might actually be, exactly?

Of course they were selling RP and I to the USA because of the profitability of doing so. Why shouldn't they? You really think that we in the USA should not be allowed to have them?

woelen - 1-2-2007 at 14:50

I wish there were a world without meth, and of course, every hobby chemist should have the fun of playing with I2 and red P. These are cool chems and it is a pity that they are so paranoid on these chems in the USA.

But _given the current climate_ I personally think it is not very wise of those people to do what they did. Just some little math:

They sold 319 kilo of red P to the USA. Their price tag was appr. GBP 17 per 100 gram, or GBP 100 per kilo. What would be their profit per kilo? A few tens of pounds, maybe 50? Then they only could gain around GBP 15000 or so with the selling of the red P. A fraction of this money could be made from the selling of 30 kilo of iodine. So, they risked many years of prison for maybe GBP 20000 over a period of 3 years. In my opinion not very wise...

Of course, they also sold other chems, but I have the impression that the bulk of their sales was from red P and iodine, the rest was just there to make it look a little bit more legit. I frequently watched their site and they did a lot of explicit advertising for red P and iodine (still there is a moving banner for a special offer on iodine crystals). They always have been quite loud and present on the Internet, telling about the "discreet" delivery of iodine and red P all over the world, explicitly mentioning the USA. They never had such presentation of their other chemicals.

So, I have ambivalent feelings about this. It is sad that again a source of chemicals has gone (although their choice was limited, they had some interesting things), but they must certainly have known that most red P, sold to the USA, was used for meth-cooking.

Polverone - 1-2-2007 at 14:59

What I find bizarre is that they are citizens of the UK, living in the UK, apparently being extradited for selling items that are controlled only in the US. Are they accused of committing these crimes during the time they were living in Cleveland? If not, this seems as weird as (say) extraditing American gun dealers, living in America, for violating British gun laws.

S.C. Wack - 1-2-2007 at 16:08

AFAIK "Cleveland" refers to the county/area in England, not Ohio.

chemoleo - 1-2-2007 at 20:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Polverone
What I find bizarre is that they are citizens of the UK, living in the UK, apparently being extradited for selling items that are controlled only in the US. Are they accused of committing these crimes during the time they were living in Cleveland? If not, this seems as weird as (say) extraditing American gun dealers, living in America, for violating British gun laws.

Dito. That's also what struck me as odd.
What is the rationale of delivering UK citizens to US prisons even though they were resident in the UK at the time of the 'crime'? Is it, being sent to a US prison, even more of a punishment than being sent to a UK prison???? Certainly sounds to me like extradition is being used as an added threat and punishment. Disgusting.
Also, they seemingly sold lots of pyro chems, but noone batted an eyelid? Isn't it the fault of the meth producers rather than that of the sellers what is done with these chems? Isn't the sweet old argument 'it's not he gun that kills, it's the evildoer who uses it'? Or, 'guns don't kill, people do'? It is such hypocrisy it's appalling.

Why are they being scapegoated as villains, while the 'real' villains are way elsewhere?
I just dont get it.
AGain, it strikes me as rooting out the symptoms rather than the cause. And the sellers are certainly not the cause. It's the people who buy the drugs! It's human nature to try out drugs! Arrest them, and see how far this gets!

My 2 cent!

This DEA site is appalling. I am no lover of THC or anything, but 35 years of prison for a hundred hemp (sp) plants just seems *utterly* ridiculous, particularly if you consider the reasoning behind the severe punishment. Simple cigarette smoking, drinking, breathing in car exhausts, general environment/industrial chemicals, are probably equally or more toxic than THC. Read it. They make it sound like weed growers are devil's incarnation.
What is all this about?
In summary...it just shouldnt be that sale of chemicals is a criminal act. It's the people (consumers) who abuse it, and keep doing so. It's human nature. Then, punish the consumers, if society so desires, they are the true villains - if the consumers didnt want it, there'd be never a need for people synthesising it, nor people selling these nasty chems.
Punish the consumers, not the suppliers! That's the only consistent way forward!

PS looking forward to a good bit of flaming-warring

The_Davster - 1-2-2007 at 21:24

Woelen, it may say that on the DEA site, but really I bet the owners of KNO3 would have completly known about what they sold would/could be used for and would eliminate any evidence on their side that would connect them with things they are not doing. Just makes business sense if they want to keep making money while not being in jail. In other words I doubt that many of their(DEA) statements are fact.

Hell, I have no love for drugs at all (other than the perscription that keeps my acid reflux down), but I can see this is way overboard. Just another instance of government messing where they shouldent. Really, screw the drug war and legalize it all, let Darwin sort it out

When people start flopping over dead from abuse, what better deterrent to others from trying them in the first place!

Chemoleo you are right about how in some areas the US punishes the consumer, and in others the seller. Like in the gun quote. But are you not being a little hippocritical yourself? I could have sworn you were pro gun control(correct me if I am wrong), and then you say not to punish sellers of precursors

joeflsts - 2-2-2007 at 04:49

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Davster
Woelen, it may say that on the DEA site, but really I bet the owners of KNO3 would have completly known about what they sold would/could be used for and would eliminate any evidence on their side that would connect them with things they are not doing. Just makes business sense if they want to keep making money while not being in jail. In other words I doubt that many of their(DEA) statements are fact.

Hell, I have no love for drugs at all (other than the perscription that keeps my acid reflux down), but I can see this is way overboard. Just another instance of government messing where they shouldent. Really, screw the drug war and legalize it all, let Darwin sort it out

When people start flopping over dead from abuse, what better deterrent to others from trying them in the first place!

Excellent post. Until Americans elect people that reflect our views, the "drug war" is here to stay. Every headline is necessary in order to match or increase next years budget. I am in agreement with you that the Darwin approach is the best approach.

Joe

[Edited on 2-2-2007 by joeflsts]

Chris The Great - 3-2-2007 at 03:35

Help unban red phosphorus! Bring back reductive amination!

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Davster
Really, screw the drug war and legalize it all, let Darwin sort it out

When people start flopping over dead from abuse, what better deterrent to others from trying them in the first place!

The "problem" with that is before the war on drugs, addicts where healthy, normal people, who had families, where socially responsible and basically exhibited none of the evils attributed to drug addiction these days. Somehow the Harrison Act avoided leaving when prohibition was repealed though, and now we have this whole pile of steaming shit.

jim20/20 - 3-2-2007 at 13:04

yup conspiracy laws seem to be the biggest danger here. like a whole heap of us meth labs with kno3 products and very very helpfull us-british extradition treaties. conspiracy to manufacture meth is a crime in the uk to
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=2131&a...
bottom of the thread

spooky huh

angel - 4-2-2007 at 14:08

I've been following all this in the paper - firstly they are well off in a previous blog Kerry ann states they made $500K in 12 months. secondly I hope it all blows over and I think that although she should have thought about it at the time there are 4 little girls without a mum right now and although what they have done is illegal in US they must have had to stick to guidlines in this country. however get this - In July after the bust KNO3 goes bust due to adverse publicity anderson comes in to front new company under a different name which is fine however the company address is a solicitors in glasgow
and the business is being done from a funeral parlour - If you have a company licensed to sell chemicals why not have proper permises ??

Too fucking bad!

chemrox - 4-2-2007 at 22:55

I have a hard time with people who apologize for some of the most repressive, ill-conceived legislation this country (The former US), has ever been under. This is prohibition and witch hunting all over and whether these folks were careless or making the big A or whatever, it's still a crying shame. Britain is another repressive, colonialist fucking police state. Try being Irish or owning a gun. So its hardly surprising the two most repressive governments in the English speaking universe are cooperating.

I claim that meth is more harmful than it would be mainly because the people making it are unskilled and not motivated to making a good product. I say put the shit on the shelf and let the cards fall where they may; just like booze, the most harmful drug of all. I don't use either but strenuously object to anyone mothering me about my consumptions.

Shulgin lost his license and was subjected to a Cal EPA witch hunt for publishing his procedures in a user friendly format. I like Fester's approach, let's get the list so long it's meaningless. Meanwhile chemistry outside a school or major pharmaeutical lab is damned near illegal.

One more thing

chemrox - 4-2-2007 at 23:04

Another thing, they were supposed to have had a recipe or book on making meth? This is incriminating? phenylisopropylamines are simple compounds whose syntheses are so basic that they contain many broadly applicable procedures. I would guess that a majority of folks here have or have had a method or two stashed away somewhere. There was even a contest one year on adc that Dan Haney coordinated.

joeflsts - 5-2-2007 at 07:16

Quote:

Originally posted by chemrox
Another thing, they were supposed to have had a recipe or book on making meth? This is incriminating? phenylisopropylamines are simple compounds whose syntheses are so basic that they contain many broadly applicable procedures. I would guess that a majority of folks here have or have had a method or two stashed away somewhere. There was even a contest one year on adc that Dan Haney coordinated.

I would say that it is incriminating. It isn't an immediate path to being guilty however. Having the instructions isn't illegal. Having the instructions with the material isn't illegal. Making the material is illegal, in some countries without proper credentials.

What is going to hurt these two is that hey knowingly sold restricted material to residents of a country that considers it an illegal practice. Had they been in North Korea or Iran I suspect they would be getting thier Country's highest honor right now.

Joe

Joe

quicksilver - 5-2-2007 at 09:18

In retrospect, no one has mentioned the Feinstein bill in the USA. In this Senate bill - distributing "Bomb Making" information in written, verbal, or electronic form to those who would use said information in a criminal context is a crime in itself. Free speech issue? No, from that context it would be crying "fire" in a theater. Something about the "war on terror" has been successful; the terrorists can claim success in our making these repressive laws.

Sauron - 5-2-2007 at 12:33

The UK couple is accused of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. So in order to obtain a conviction the US attorney in Arizona must prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the couple discussed or otherwise communicated with one or more persons in Arizons, the making of methamphetamine, and that at least one party to the conspiracy committed an overt act to complete the conspiracy.

Merely selling RP and/or I2 to a mail order customer and nothing more would not constitute a conspiracy.

Within the US, lab suppliers have legal obligations and face stiff fines and jail terms for failing to comply with those obligations. However, there is no way that vendors outside of the US who are not US citizens or residents could be held to those obligations, and anyway that is not the crime being alleged.

It may well be a US federal crime to ship RP by post or common carrier without proper declaration as a flammable solid (DOT or USPS rules) but that's not what these folks are accused of, and probably could not form the basis of an extradition.

What they are charged with is a crime in the UK as well as the US. I have not studied the bilateral extradition arrangement between the US and Great Britain but, often that is a requirement in such arrangements.

A conspiracy can't be conducted by telepathy.

Most likely DEA has a co-conspirator who will testify as to the conspiracy (probably in return for a plea bargain.) Or they may have senbt in an undercover agent to purchase RP and discuss whatever will be alleged to be the elements of the conspiracy.

Merely having books or documents that included meth preparations or having knowledge of what RP and/or I2 might be used for is not a conspiracy. There HAS to be an Arizona conspirator, who is probably now a rat. Maybe he was already a rat when he first contacted these people.

Sauron - 5-2-2007 at 12:37

Diane Feinstein, Senator from the People's Democratic Republic of California? The only state that has a red star in its flag (and a bear.)

Super liberal Ms Feinstein.

Enemy of the First Amendment.

S.C. Wack - 5-2-2007 at 15:52

"The Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996 (MCA) makes it unlawful for any person to distribute a laboratory supply to a person who uses, or attempts to use, that laboratory supply to manufacture a controlled substance or a listed chemical, with reckless disregard for the illegal uses to which such laboratory supply will be put."

There are a number of rules that are supposed to be followed for importation of list 1 chemicals. That these rules were willfully ignored by these people is a strong case for conspiracy itself.

There is plenty of precedent for charging and convicting chemical distributors. People who sell chemicals that are found at a number of sites get charged, even if they don't sell to individuals, like Science Alliance. It's about punishing those who flaunt the DEA by adhering to their rules yet still end up getting listed chemicals into the hands of the people (and a number of companies have lost their licences to distribute pseudoephedrine and ephedrine solely because they sell a lot of it to non-drugstore retailers, and I would expect this and other threats to be held over anyone with licences to sell listed chems) and having a chilling effect on those considering such trade.

I've seen many people say on various sites that sales of certain chems cannot be stopped because of profit motive or commonness. IMHO these people are morons.

Conspiracy

MadHatter - 5-2-2007 at 19:55

That's how Strike got busted by both Arizona and the feds. As for Sauron's statement
about Feinstein, I couldn't agree more. She's the Wicked Bitch Of The West Coast.
If there was ever a politician that deserves to be hanged for treason, it's her. She was
pulling her shit on U.S. citizens long before Bush & Co. came onto the scene. As for the
couple from the U.K., if they're extradited to Arizona, they'll likely end up as permanent
guests at the government's SuperMax facility in Colorado. There's no such thing as a
fair trial on drug charges in the U.S.. It's guilt by accusation.

Sauron - 5-2-2007 at 20:17

@S.C., they are charged with conspiracy to manufacture not with selling listed chemicals.

Totally different burden of proof for the prosecution.

However to be fair, I would say that if they were charged under those CMCA requirements that the govt would have little trouble getting a jury to buy off on "reckless disregard".

I think the govt may have a tougher time with conspiracy to manufacture.

Of course if they have a "co-conspirator" who is rolling over on them to save his own skin and will say anything on the witness stand then this couple is in deep trouble.

Same old story, easy money, hard time.

S.C. Wack - 6-2-2007 at 03:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
@S.C., they are charged with conspiracy to manufacture not with selling listed chemicals.

Says who? Have you read the indictment? The word "conspiracy" does not exist on the DEA page, yet it clearly mentions "unlawful importation and distribution of regulated chemicals".

Furthermore, it would not at all surprise me that a conspiracy conviction could be obtained for the reason that I gave earlier. You might as well try to tell me that selling phenyl-2-propanone to anyone who wants it, and to people who actually did use it to make drugs, could not constitute a conspiracy to manufacture amphetamine/methamphetamine. Do they have to hold a gun to the head of the buyers and say "make meth or else" in order to be convicted of conspiracy?

Sauron - 6-2-2007 at 04:14

There's no such thing as an implied criminal conspiracy.

To meet the long established tests of criminal conspiracy law, the UK couple would have had to sit down agree to make methamphetamine with whoever the AZ end of this thing is. Or do so by some other form of communication.

A criminal conspiracy is a hard thing to prove because by its nature it's secret. That is why few prosecutors ever alledge criminal conspiracy unless they have a co-conspirator as a witness ready to testify directly as to the conspiracy and point a finger.

P2P is a controlled susbstance now isn't it? RP is not, Iodine is not. Let's keep apples and oranges segregated.

The importation is an act committed by an importer. The Brit couple were not the importer, they were the foreign seller.

And in their country the sale was not a crime.

I can assure you they won't be tried in the DEA website, they will be tried in the US district sourt in southern district of Arizona. The US Criminal Code is what applies and not the scribblings of some DEA publicist.

No I haven' read the indictent and neither have you, I'll warrant. I am proceeding entirely on the basis of what's been reported in this thread. Have you read the terms of the US/UK extradition agreement? No neither have I but normally, no one can be extradited from his own country for something not a crime in his own country. If selling RP and I2 is legal in the UK, then that is not what these people are being extradited for.

Conspiracy to manufacture an illegal drug is illegal in the UK and methamphetamine is illegal in both countries.

ilBABAUUuuu - 6-2-2007 at 06:11

So is cannabis.But here 770 plants=200 hours community service.

The concept of freedom is separated by... an Ocean?

quicksilver - 6-2-2007 at 07:04

The Feinstein Bill:
http://cryptome.org/bombmake.htm
Actually PASSED and is now law. The actual federal law is a very poorly written piece of legislation. HOWEVER, it was designed to pad the prosecution's case for a serious situation wherein the perp had picked up their info from a source that published the material to further a criminal action. A tough thing to bring to trial in-and-of-itself.
We could talk about energetic materials all day but unless we got into a situation that is WAY past the guidelines of this forum; it's not even close to the Bill's targets.
But regarding the 1st ammendment issues, it's an attempt at "screaming fire in a theater" legislation. In that people would be harmed by the said material, etc. Remember this is from the same person that carried a handgun but didn't want anyone else to be able to do so. Kalifornia: what a zoo....!

Sauron - 6-2-2007 at 07:22

Nobody said Diane isn't a hypocrite.

Anyway the problem with stupid laws like this is that they are a slippery slope.

This year, maybe the interpretation/implementation is narrow as you say.

Next year maybe someone goes to jail for giving away The Chemistry of Powder & Explosives online as an e-book. Hey. That could be us.

If you think this is far fetched, consider the way the RICO laws have been used. These were intended to go after Organized Crime (the Mafia). Now they are applied anytime a prosecutor wants to strip an accused of his constritutional rights, for example, his right to attorney of his choice. Most RICO defensants now are not traditional OCR (Mafia) figures at all.

Or the totally unconstitutional civil forfeiture bullshit. Another prime example.

Over time the intent of the lawmakers is ignored and the aggrandizement and political ambitions of self serving prosecutors is paramount.

Rudy Guliani started out os a prosecutor. So did Tom Dewy and in the same city.

Sauron - 6-2-2007 at 08:29

So you like the idea of Thought Police?

I prefer fresh free air instead of the claustrophobic stink of repression.

Those who are willing to trade some of their freedom for illusiory security will soon have neither.

Civil Fortfeiture

MadHatter - 6-2-2007 at 22:29

That's among the worst laws ever written. The burden of proof is on the owner of
whatever, usually cash, to prove that it wasn't obtained as a result of a criminal act.

As for that hypocrite bitch, Feinstein, in the move "Wayne's World", Wayne described his
psychotic, wannabe girfriend as a "mental hose beast". That describes Feinstein at least
at a minimal level don't you think ? When will people stop electing stupid people who
write stupid laws ?

Sauron - 6-2-2007 at 22:58

Not just cash. Cars, houses, boats, airplanes, land. Often the confiscating officers are local yokels and the proceeds are (legally) divided up between the local dept and a DEA slush fund that defrays the cost of the war on drugs. All this of course is long before 9/11

There's mo criminal charge required, merely the assertion by "trained narcotics investigators" that the monies or property were proceeds of drug trafficking or were going to be used for the purpose of drug trafficking.

60 Minutes did an expose on this a while back. They interviewed a charter airline owner who was hired to fly a middle aged guy from somewhere to somewhere else, the guy looked like a banker. At the destination DEA was waiting, the guy was a drug dealer. The airline owner lost his airplane!

In same episode Ed Bradlee went to the airport and bought a ticket with cash. Within a few minutes he was accosted by a pair of local cops and questioned as to what he was doing. It seems the airline counter staff are told to report anyone who pays by cash, as suspicious. Maybe they get a reward if the cops make a civil forfeiture.

In same episode a middle aged black guy who was a tree nursery owner was flying to do business, paid for ticket in cash. He had a few hundred dollars on him. The cops showed up (again he was ratted on by the airline staff) and confiscated his cash. No criminal record, no arrest, no crime committed.

It's the Sherrif of Nottingham's men robbing the people. So much for due process. So much for the Bill of Rights. That's why I prefer to live in a country that does not pretend that I have any rights, rather than one that has come to make a mockery of the spirit of the Founding Fathers. Here, your "rights" depend on who you are, who you know, and how affluent you are.

guy - 6-2-2007 at 23:35

Goddamn, meth makers ruin it for everyone. The meth labs look like my lab. If my neighbors ever saw my lab (its in the garage), theyd probably report me. If you look at the Operation Red Dragon report, they have pictures of Red Devil Lye everywhere. THis really pisses me off.

We need the soapmakers to protest the ban of Red Devil!

[Edited on 2/7/2007 by guy]

Sauron - 7-2-2007 at 06:17

And Red Devil is a long time household brand of lye. What will they go after next, Drano?

It's ridiculous.

It's like arguing "All the clandestine labs have running water and electricity so the public utilities must be in cahoots with the"

It's the same illogic.

quicksilver - 7-2-2007 at 07:09

Your preaching to the chior with the "slippery slope" concept. Personally I believe that it will be either a long time OR some significant event that will push the US in an even more severly repressive direction. Some would say that we are there now but I think they can't enforce the depth of the constaints enacted with the limited law enforment elements available so they are forced to be more rational.
This however creates a problem in arbitrary enforcement. - I have often said that I am quite Libertairian in my views so personally I don't care for these laws at all but they do exist...what gauls me is the arbitrary and capriecious nature of the enforcement - - One guy get slammed for 3 lbs of red P, another guy can sell a whole tableting machine with no problem....all because they have limited manpower. The shit will hit the fan if they start in with mass deputization of National Guard troops to expand the work of law enforcement. but that would take a terror strike to accomplish. And at that point I doubt the target would be meth labs.

woelen - 7-2-2007 at 07:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
And Red Devil is a long time household brand of lye. What will they go after next, Drano?

It's ridiculous.

It's like arguing "All the clandestine labs have running water and electricity so the public utilities must be in cahoots with the"

It's the same illogic.

What they are doing here is not taking products from the shelves, but modifying existing products, such that they still serve the purpose they are made for, but are not (or at least less) suitable for other (mis)uses.

So, if this would happen a lot over here, then the lye products would remain, but they would mix in lots of other toxic crap, such that it is not suitable anymore for meth-cooking.

An example of this is the hydrochloric acid we have over here. The main use of hydrochloric acid is cleaning of walls, bricks and that kind of things. Since a short time, the acid is loaded with colored stuff, before that it was perfectly colorless. It still serves the purpose of cleaning, chalk-removing, but it cannot be used anymore for misuse like making AP. But the bad side effect is that it also is useless for chemistry experimenting

guy - 7-2-2007 at 07:36

The way I see it, if you get rid of the Red P and I2, why else would you need to get rid of NaOH??!! Its ridiculous.

quicksilver - 7-2-2007 at 07:51

Quote:

Originally posted by guy
The way I see it, if you get rid of the Red P and I2, why else would you need to get rid of NaOH??!! Its ridiculous.

In carpentry:
When framing a structure, why only square one wall? Make all the walls square and you have less to concern yourself with when adding a roof.

In point of fact one of the biggest companies in this agenda of "ridding our shelves of horrible chemicals" had been a company known as Home Depot. The story there is an interesting one. If it is true or not it still makes a certain sense.
What I was told was that someone on the board of directors had a relative who told them of searching the internet and reading of that company's name connected with availability of certain items. This board member then took steps to remove some items and contacted other companies who produced some items directly and told them of the "bad press". This is exactly why it never a good idea to mention sources directly when discussing anything that may be mis-construed in a negitive context.

[Edited on 8-2-2007 by quicksilver]

garage chemist - 8-2-2007 at 09:27

What is this:
http://www.thechemicalshop.com/index.asp?function=DISPLAYCAT...

Look at the description on Phosphorus! Ripped straight from Bromics page.

woelen - 8-2-2007 at 13:58

Is this chemicalshop the same as kno3.com?
The website of kno3.com is taken offline, it is no more

.

I have severe doubts that ordering from chemicalshop will lead to anything useful. It may even lead to additional attential from certain agencies.

tupence_hapeny - 31-3-2007 at 06:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
The UK couple is accused of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. So in order to obtain a conviction the US attorney in Arizona must prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the couple discussed or otherwise communicated with one or more persons in Arizons, the making of methamphetamine, and that at least one party to the conspiracy committed an overt act to complete the conspiracy.

Merely selling RP and/or I2 to a mail order customer and nothing more would not constitute a conspiracy.

Within the US, lab suppliers have legal obligations and face stiff fines and jail terms for failing to comply with those obligations. However, there is no way that vendors outside of the US who are not US citizens or residents could be held to those obligations, and anyway that is not the crime being alleged.

It may well be a US federal crime to ship RP by post or common carrier without proper declaration as a flammable solid (DOT or USPS rules) but that's not what these folks are accused of, and probably could not form the basis of an extradition.

What they are charged with is a crime in the UK as well as the US. I have not studied the bilateral extradition arrangement between the US and Great Britain but, often that is a requirement in such arrangements.

A conspiracy can't be conducted by telepathy.

Most likely DEA has a co-conspirator who will testify as to the conspiracy (probably in return for a plea bargain.) Or they may have senbt in an undercover agent to purchase RP and discuss whatever will be alleged to be the elements of the conspiracy.

Merely having books or documents that included meth preparations or having knowledge of what RP and/or I2 might be used for is not a conspiracy. There HAS to be an Arizona conspirator, who is probably now a rat. Maybe he was already a rat when he first contacted these people.

You are right Sauron, insofar as telepathy is not a valid basis from which to infer an unlawful agreement to commit an act, however, an actual contract to supply a combination of items (being a combination of items from the mere possession or purchase of which intent to manufacture can be inferred - such as RP & I2) to a person in the relevant location (being a location to which such laws apply or pertain) is more than capable of providing the factual scenario necessary to support such an inference (after all, a completed contract is in fact an agreement per se, is it not?).

As ignorance of the law excuses nobody, it is truly irrelevant whether they are citizens of the area in which their actions constituted an offence or an agreement to commit an offence - provided they are amenable to justice in that jurisdiction (ie. provided they are able to be tried or extradited so they can be).

Believe it or not, they are fucked. In fact, their very best chance lies in the fact that the DEA, like most investigative bodies around the planet, tends to collect it's evidence for major prosecutions by running 'stings' based upon intelligence (NB the term is used advisedly) gained from deals struck with other individuals as captured, especially during interrogation. The flaw in which is that it is possible (and plausible - just) to argue that your client (hopefully not yourself) entered into the illegal contract only at the insistence of another, being the DEA agent fronting the sting, and not at their own volition. The leading Australian case on this is Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 129 ALR 41. In this case it was held that evidence of a conspiracy to import multiple hundreds of kilograms of heroin could not be used, as the conspiracy was entered into solely at the urging of a member of the executive. But simply, the ends do not justify the means, members of the executive (such as the DEA) have no business breaking the law, and cannot use any evidence from such acts to prosecute their co-conspirators.

quicksilver - 31-3-2007 at 07:35

Where is the dividing line from agent provocateurs and investigative questioning? This seems the essence of the issue. To determine if someone (example) is a terrorist, they may be asked if they are willing to engage in terroristic activities. However the modality of that questioning is critical to getting at the truth.
"As a member of Law Enforcement I was wondering if you would like to place a Nerve Agent in a local tube...?"
-=OR=-
"These British Imperialists have corrupted all that is Good. We must strike a blow at their black hearts. What ideas have you?"

tupence_hapeny - 1-4-2007 at 04:44

Not a line that will ever be successfully or even totally clearly drawn or defined. The basic principle comes down to 'who instigated the act' and whether the actions taken pursuant to that instigation were sufficiently 'voluntary' to satisfy the legal requirements of 'intent'.

The reason why the line will never be successfully drawn or defined is because, like so many lines in law, it shifts. For instance, if I suddenly from penury somehow come into several million dollars, which good fortune cannot be explained except by reference to my 'INDUSTRIAL' size glassware - a police officer can probably use the evidence collected as a result of asking me to manufacture an illicit substance (although, on the flip-side, I will have a raft of barristers and legal experts working as a team - so the likelihood of this surviving appeal is low - classic case, the brother in law of the Qld Attorney-General was indicted in a sting regarding the importation of TONS of Cocaine & attempting to bribe a Cth Police Officer - the finding of guilt was overturned on the basis that police did not have a warrant to STEAL the $2 worth of electricity used by their bugs: Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427).

On the other hand, if a person can demonstrate that they sold RP to another person - in the form of flares which they had no reason to know they were not entitled to sell - only at the suggestion of that person and it turns out that person was a police officer - there is little chance the evidence will be admissable, particularly if the charge is a serious one.

However, I offer a major caveat to this, legislatures around the world continue to appoint judges which lean further and further to the right. In fact, from a jaundiced veiwpoint - it may even be suggested that judicial independence is a facade and judges that don't make decisions which accord with the wishes of the legislature have a correspondingly short curial career. I would like to dispell this suggestion, yet I cannot.