71 Year Old Man, Locked Up for Two Years for ORCHIDS
tdny
that even after he came home,
the man she had married was still gone.
He was by then 71 years old.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/05/criminalizing-everyone/
Criminalizing everyone
By Brian W. Walsh
"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.
Brian W. Walsh is senior legal research fellow
in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
at the Heritage Foundation.