| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| Criminalizing everyone |
| 2009-10-06 |
| "You don't need to know. You can't know." That's what Kathy Norris, a 60-year-old grandmother of eight, was told when she tried to ask court officials why, the day before, federal agents had subjected her home to a furious search. The agents who spent half a day ransacking Mrs. Norris' longtime home in Spring, Texas, answered no questions while they emptied file cabinets, pulled books off shelves, rifled through drawers and closets, and threw the contents on the floor. The six agents, wearing SWAT gear and carrying weapons, were with - get this- the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Kathy and George Norris lived under the specter of a covert government investigation for almost six months before the government unsealed a secret indictment and revealed why the Fish and Wildlife Service had treated their family home as if it were a training base for suspected terrorists. Orchids. That's right. Orchids. By March 2004, federal prosecutors were well on their way to turning 66-year-old retiree George Norris into an inmate in a federal penitentiary - based on his home-based business of cultivating, importing and selling orchids. Mrs. Norris testified before the House Judiciary subcommittee on crime this summer. The hearing's topic: the rapid and dangerous expansion of federal criminal law, an expansion that is often unprincipled and highly partisan. Chairman Robert C. Scott, Virginia Democrat, and ranking member Louie Gohmert, Texas Republican, conducted a truly bipartisan hearing (a D.C. rarity this year). These two leaders have begun giving voice to the increasing number of experts who worry about "overcriminalization." Astronomical numbers of federal criminal laws lack specifics, can apply to almost anyone and fail to protect innocents by requiring substantial proof that an accused person acted with actual criminal intent. Mr. Norris ended up spending almost two years in prison because he didn't have the proper paperwork for some of the many orchids he imported. The orchids were all legal - but Mr. Norris and the overseas shippers who had packaged the flowers had failed to properly navigate the many, often irrational, paperwork requirements the U.S. imposed when it implemented an arcane international treaty's new restrictions on trade in flowers and other flora. The judge who sentenced Mr. Norris had some advice for him and his wife: "Life sometimes presents us with lemons." Their job was, yes, to "turn lemons into lemonade." The judge apparently failed to appreciate how difficult it is to run a successful lemonade stand when you're an elderly diabetic with coronary complications, arthritis and Parkinson's disease serving time in a federal penitentiary. If only Mr. Norris had been a Libyan terrorist, maybe some European official at least would have weighed in on his behalf to secure a health-based mercy release. Krister Evertson, another victim of overcriminalization, told Congress, "What I have experienced in these past years is something that should scare you and all Americans." He's right. Evertson, a small-time entrepreneur and inventor, faced two separate federal prosecutions stemming from his work trying to develop clean-energy fuel cells. The feds prosecuted Mr. Evertson the first time for failing to put a federally mandated sticker on an otherwise lawful UPS package in which he shipped some of his supplies. A jury acquitted him, so the feds brought new charges. This time they claimed he technically had "abandoned" his fuel-cell materials - something he had no intention of doing - while defending himself against the first charges. Mr. Evertson, too, spent almost two years in federal prison. As George Washington University law professor Stephen Saltzburg testified at the House hearing, cases like these "illustrate about as well as you can illustrate the overreach of federal criminal law." The Cato Institute's Timothy Lynch, an expert on overcriminalization, called for "a clean line between lawful conduct and unlawful conduct." A person should not be deemed a criminal unless that person "crossed over that line knowing what he or she was doing." Seems like common sense, but apparently it isn't to some federal officials. Former U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh's testimony captured the essence of the problems that worry so many criminal-law experts. "Those of us concerned about this subject," he testified, "share a common goal - to have criminal statutes that punish actual criminal acts and [that] do not seek to criminalize conduct that is better dealt with by the seeking of regulatory and civil remedies." Only when the conduct is sufficiently wrongful and severe, Mr. Thornburgh said, does it warrant the "stigma, public condemnation and potential deprivation of liberty that go along with [the criminal] sanction." The Norrises' nightmare began with the search in October 2003. It didn't end until Mr. Norris was released from federal supervision in December 2008. His wife testified, however, that even after he came home, the man she had married was still gone. He was by then 71 years old. Unsurprisingly, serving two years as a federal convict - in addition to the years it took to defend unsuccessfully against the charges - had taken a severe toll on him mentally, emotionally and physically. These are repressive consequences for an elderly man who made mistakes in a small business. The feds should be ashamed, and Mr. Evertson is right that everyone else should be scared. Far too many federal laws are far too broad. Mr. Scott and Mr. Gohmert have set the stage for more hearings on why this places far too many Americans at risk of unjust punishment. Members of both parties in Congress should follow their lead. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #9 If everyone is a criminal, everyone is controllable. Straight outta Moscow. |
| Posted by: mojo 2009-10-06 14:16 |
| #8 It will come to bullets sooner or later if this does not change. People will not submit forever to such injustices. The government officials, judges and police and legislators, who perpetrate such thuggery may find themselves against the wall for things like these, after a fair and quick trial. Some would call it justice. |
| Posted by: M Defarge 2009-10-06 14:06 |
| #7 "unsealed a secret indictment" A very bad thing, with very bad precedents. [From wikipedia] In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, star chambers. |
| Posted by: flash91 2009-10-06 11:58 |
| #6 Over the years there has been a proliferation of federal agencies, bureaus, etc. Many of these have their own police or enforcement arm. Washington being what it is, there is a tendency to increase budgets each year to hire more enforcers to "solve the problem" whatever it is. Of course the problem never gets solved. For example the war on drugs has been going on for a long time and it seems to be getting worse. Solution; hire more law enforcement. Immigration a problem; hire more border patrol agents or immigration enforcement officers. Environment a problem; hire more EPA inspectors/officers. Prison overcrowding a problem; build more prisons and hire more corrections officers. Jobs a problem; hire more government workers....and on and on. Who pays for all this? Hmmmnnn. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2009-10-06 08:08 |
| #5 Being in the orchid biz I see what his problem is. He imported plants that were highly protected as another less protected species.USDA inspectors aren't skilled enough to tell what they are looking at. I found it interesting that he said he didn't get the CITES documents from the USDA. USDA keeps the the originals but you get the copies stamped released by USDA. This is your proof you legally imported the plants. The real irony is that he didn't import the orchid they were looking for. Some background at http://offpollen.typepad.com/pollenatrix/2004/03/online_orchid_d.html |
| Posted by: Don Vito Anginegum8261 2009-10-06 07:31 |
| #4 Wrong, gromky. Anything that threatens the job security of a public sector employee - particularly a unionized one - is the ultimate crime, and must be dealt with in the harshest terms possible. Not filling out all the paperwork? Finding some way of doing business that doesn't require some public sector hack's services? You're taking away a profit center from some guy and his work buddies in the Bureau of the Commission of the Agency of Something or Other. If everyone did that, they'd have to get real jobs in the private sector. And that just won't do. You are a threat to those who worship at the altar of bulletproof job security. How dare you? That's the greatest felony of all. /sarc |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2009-10-06 06:17 |
| #3 Hm, something about this isn't right. Typically you can't get the feds out of bed for anything less than murder. Imprisoned for paperwork problems? This article sounds like one of those one-sided bash stories. |
| Posted by: gromky 2009-10-06 05:12 |
| #2 New technologies like the Web, he concludes, "scare legislators because they don't understand them and want to control them, even as they become a normal part of life." Our present crop of legislators are not so much fearful control freaks as time-servers, milking their positions for all their worth. Heaven forbid they learn anything new in order to apply it to legislation. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2009-10-06 02:13 |
| #1 You Commit Three Felonies a Day Interesting when you consider the 'three felonies your out' laws which many states have on the books. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-10-06 00:24 |