The minute I read that the DEA and FDA said it wasn't worth prosecuting him, I knew he turned. He had to large a scale not to prosecute. I hope everyone cleans their closets. Guaranteed he turned all these big named people in. When a lawyer asks for immunity, it means snitch.
Snitched is probably the wrong term, cooperating. That's when you ask for immunity, when you cooperate. And this is usually to take down soemthing bigger then the offender. So idk, only time will tell, if we ever know.
You make some very good points. Thanks!Not sure it's really fair to say unequivocally that's the case. I know you are involved in the pep game, so know some stuff I don't. However, having been through the Fed system for 3 years on the same types of charges as listed (my case was embezzlement, but Feds use those charges VERY broadly for a wide array of offenses that they don't have a specific law for), I can say it is very likely he didn't need to cooperate in the sense you are talking about. The Feds have a 93% conviction rate, they aren't going to the push the case unless they know they can win. Also, if peps aren't a scheduled drug carrying a mandatory minimum, than sentencing would be very light for a non-violent first time offense. I know they list all those possible long terms in their releases, but those are meaningless. Feds go off a pretty simple points system that adds and subtracts for type of offense, if you have a record, etc. The other pep distributor Big Tex mentioned had basically the same charges levied against him as me, I ended up with 24 months and that was simply because of the amount of $$$ involved. Judges can also vary from the recommendations of the point system as they listen to victim impact statements (in a pep case, no one would be present to speak against him or her), family and friends support statements, life circumstances, etc. My case judge deviated down from recommendation given by AUSDA (thank God). Now where it is far more clear that someone is a snitch is when a controlled drug charge is involved and a mandatory minimum....we all knew at the camp I was in when someone was a snitch because they were doing 3 years on a 5 or 10 yr mandatory. That was the only way at that time (2011) to get around that sentencing. I didn't give a shit about anyone's stories in there as almost all of thm were innocent apparently . Plus many of them thought I was a cop since I came in at a pretty large 260# and a near flat top. My only point here is keep an open mind....there is nothing out of the realm of possibility regarding what I read about Dat's circumstance to say they simply felt it was not a good use of their resources. Go back to what the article states....
For Drug Enforcement Administration officials, the problem lies with the weak wording of the laws that currently govern peptides.
“If I catch you with heroin, it’s a controlled substance and illegal — that’s easy,” said Douglas W. Coleman, the special agent in charge of the D.E.A.’s Phoenix Division. “If I find human growth hormone, I have to build a case to show that it’s significantly outside what it can be prescribed for.
“Peptides are more difficult still. There’s really no legal foothold.”
Not sure it's really fair to say unequivocally that's the case. I know you are involved in the pep game, so know some stuff I don't. However, having been through the Fed system for 3 years on the same types of charges as listed (my case was embezzlement, but Feds use those charges VERY broadly for a wide array of offenses that they don't have a specific law for), I can say it is very likely he didn't need to cooperate in the sense you are talking about. The Feds have a 93% conviction rate, they aren't going to the push the case unless they know they can win. Also, if peps aren't a scheduled drug carrying a mandatory minimum, than sentencing would be very light for a non-violent first time offense. I know they list all those possible long terms in their releases, but those are meaningless. Feds go off a pretty simple points system that adds and subtracts for type of offense, if you have a record, etc. The other pep distributor Big Tex mentioned had basically the same charges levied against him as me, I ended up with 24 months and that was simply because of the amount of $$$ involved. Judges can also vary from the recommendations of the point system as they listen to victim impact statements (in a pep case, no one would be present to speak against him or her), family and friends support statements, life circumstances, etc. My case judge deviated down from recommendation given by AUSDA (thank God). Now where it is far more clear that someone is a snitch is when a controlled drug charge is involved and a mandatory minimum....we all knew at the camp I was in when someone was a snitch because they were doing 3 years on a 5 or 10 yr mandatory. That was the only way at that time (2011) to get around that sentencing. I didn't give a shit about anyone's stories in there as almost all of thm were innocent apparently . Plus many of them thought I was a cop since I came in at a pretty large 260# and a near flat top. My only point here is keep an open mind....there is nothing out of the realm of possibility regarding what I read about Dat's circumstance to say they simply felt it was not a good use of their resources. Go back to what the article states....
For Drug Enforcement Administration officials, the problem lies with the weak wording of the laws that currently govern peptides.
“If I catch you with heroin, it’s a controlled substance and illegal — that’s easy,” said Douglas W. Coleman, the special agent in charge of the D.E.A.’s Phoenix Division. “If I find human growth hormone, I have to build a case to show that it’s significantly outside what it can be prescribed for.
“Peptides are more difficult still. There’s really no legal foothold.”
Not sure it's really fair to say unequivocally that's the case. I know you are involved in the pep game, so know some stuff I don't. However, having been through the Fed system for 3 years on the same types of charges as listed (my case was embezzlement, but Feds use those charges VERY broadly for a wide array of offenses that they don't have a specific law for), I can say it is very likely he didn't need to cooperate in the sense you are talking about. The Feds have a 93% conviction rate, they aren't going to the push the case unless they know they can win. Also, if peps aren't a scheduled drug carrying a mandatory minimum, than sentencing would be very light for a non-violent first time offense. I know they list all those possible long terms in their releases, but those are meaningless. Feds go off a pretty simple points system that adds and subtracts for type of offense, if you have a record, etc. The other pep distributor Big Tex mentioned had basically the same charges levied against him as me, I ended up with 24 months and that was simply because of the amount of $$$ involved. Judges can also vary from the recommendations of the point system as they listen to victim impact statements (in a pep case, no one would be present to speak against him or her), family and friends support statements, life circumstances, etc. My case judge deviated down from recommendation given by AUSDA (thank God). Now where it is far more clear that someone is a snitch is when a controlled drug charge is involved and a mandatory minimum....we all knew at the camp I was in when someone was a snitch because they were doing 3 years on a 5 or 10 yr mandatory. That was the only way at that time (2011) to get around that sentencing. I didn't give a shit about anyone's stories in there as almost all of thm were innocent apparently . Plus many of them thought I was a cop since I came in at a pretty large 260# and a near flat top. My only point here is keep an open mind....there is nothing out of the realm of possibility regarding what I read about Dat's circumstance to say they simply felt it was not a good use of their resources. Go back to what the article states....
For Drug Enforcement Administration officials, the problem lies with the weak wording of the laws that currently govern peptides.
“If I catch you with heroin, it’s a controlled substance and illegal — that’s easy,” said Douglas W. Coleman, the special agent in charge of the D.E.A.’s Phoenix Division. “If I find human growth hormone, I have to build a case to show that it’s significantly outside what it can be prescribed for.
“Peptides are more difficult still. There’s really no legal foothold.”
Reading this now with the new information, I think I know what he meant to say.
"Thirteen months ago I was diagnosed with a very serious health issue. The prognosis is poor. As a consequence the forum will permanently close this week."
Meaning:
"Thirteen months ago there was an investigation. Most likely I'm fucked. As a consequence the forum will permanently close this week."
:banghead:So, peps are illegal? I'm calling BS on that. We'd all be in the pen
Like him or hate him, hard to argue he knew more about peptides than anyone
Like him or hate him, hard to argue he knew more about peptides than anyone