Comments on: Liberty and Hyperbole: Is Orchid Importer George Norris a Good Example of Rampant Criminalization of Innocent Conduct?

By: Ed

Ed — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 01:52:19 +0000

I have been familiar with George's case since the beginning. I'm an orchid grower for 35 years. I've purchased orchids which came from George (not any illegal ones). I support the CITES treaty when it comes to protecting rare animals. I support the CITES treaty when it comes to protecting rare plants which don't breed well. Orchids breed very, very well. Each seed capsule contains millions of viable seed, and horticulturalists could easily produce a million orchids for every person on the planet. The undocumented Phragmipedium orchids that George was importing are not rare. I have the very same species in my greenhouse and they grow like weeds and they are bulldozed in their native country every time a road is built or a housing development comes in. The CITES treaty uses an unreasonable broad-brush to paint every orchid as rare. Phragmipedium orchids receive special attention during imports because they all look alike and the delays during inspections often cause their deaths. The Phrags that George was importing are not rare, they are extremely common in the US orchid collections and are in relatively low demand. (I can hardly give mine away.) It was a silly mistake for George to send emails to try hide their identity in order to save them from damage and death during our Federal government's inspection process. It was a silly mistake that George paid for with prison time. He pled guilty and this was after his legal costs were 100 times the value of the orchids. His cell could have held a real criminal…like a drug dealer, a murderer, or a government official that accepted bribes. It was way out of line to give him prison time after his plea…and then to bring him back in for additional time and then solitary confinement…that in itself is a crime.

By: Craig Pittman

Craig Pittman — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 02:08:38 +0000

The feds did not charge Norris until after they had raided his house and found that whole series of messages, dating back for several years, in which Norris counseled his Peruvian supplier about how to smuggle the orchids past the inspectors in Miami.

Also, a point that most writers on this case miss is that not only did George Norris plead guilty, but so did his Peruvian co-defendant, Manuel Arias Silva — but rather than stick around for sentencing, Arias fled the country. My understanding is Norris help post his bond, which means Arias cost his friend & business associate quite a lot of money. I suspect Arias' turning fugitive helped get his friend Norris a tougher sentence, too.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:42:55 +0000

So what we're saying is the law is fine, but the punishment is too harsh.

By: Anthony Powell

Anthony Powell — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:17:05 +0000

Thank you very much to strech for clarification by the posting of the extracts from Norris's emails.
Norris has not denied them here, so I work on the assumption that they are genuine.
They do strongly suggest that he did engage in deliberate deception so deserved some punishment, although the damage he caused to happen to rare plants seems to have been between none and minimal.
The punishment does seem to have been disproprtionately harsh.

But what I want Ken to reconsider is his reliance on documents from the prosecution and courts.

Imagine that you are visiting China and are arrested on some trumped-up charge.
You are threatened with torture so you plead guilty.
You appear in court and the judge asks you to confirm that you were not tortured.
Would you really say that you were?
That would just be a route to more torture.
Then everybody says that you must be guilty because you pleaded guilty.
How would you feel?

The inclusion of the statement in American guilty pleas: "The defendant is pleading guilty because he is guilty" is a clever way to prevent appeal later, but if duress is involved it doesn't mean anything.

Texas isn't China; I'm pretty sure there is no physical torture, but there certainly is financial pressure involved in the legal process with such enormous amount of time being required from lawyers who are expensive. And being locked up in jail adds its own pressure. Once someone has agreed to make some sort of guilty plea it is invalid to deduce anything from their compliance with prosecution requirements.

You were right to delve behind the journalist's story (it being hard to believe is what prompted me and others above to come to this posting) but please do also think what happens behind court documents.

By: Imaginary Lawyer

Imaginary Lawyer — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:44:17 +0000

adamatari, you state that jail for a "first offense for a victimless crime" is ludicrous as though this is self-evident. Why is this so, particularly (as Ken points out) there were crimes, not merely a single "crime", which involved deliberately and knowingly violating the law? And WTF orchids cuts both ways; bring in your damn plants, just fill out the paperwork like you're supposed to. It's not like he was smuggling children out of a concentration camp or sneaking Bibles to political prisoners in North Korea. I get the impression that a lot of people going "WTF orchids" have their knees jerking because they are drawing mental parallels to the War On Other People's Drugs. I'm having a hard time connecting international agreements on the protection of dangerous species to the irrational prosecution of marijuana users.

By: adamatari

adamatari — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:22:26 +0000

Well, it's obvious that Mr.Norris is no angel (even more obvious from this exchange). However, I think the larger point still holds - it's frankly absurd to send someone to jail for a first offense in a victimless crime, especially in a case where it's not even clear that any of the orchids were illegally taken from the wild (only that that they were illegally shipped without proper paperwork). Certainly sending him BACK to jail after release, and into solitary at that, is a bit much. No doubt he made as great an impression on the DA, the fish and wildlife service, and the judge as he did here, but that still doesn't change the fact that putting him in jail is extreme. The question of whether Mr.Norris is a good example hinges more on your opinion of the justice of his punishment that it does on the matter of his guilt, or of his character. It's similar to attempts to decriminalize drugs, or lower penalties for crack - if you think the law is just, then you won't be convinced. Also, Ken, to state that "no competent federal practitioner" would accept such a bad deal may be true, but there are many incompetent lawyers. There are people who are falsely convicted in the US who had lawyers that fell asleep in court, etc. You're going too far to assume that George's lawyer was competent.

By: will nott

will nott — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:57:05 +0000

Just read part of the article in the Economist….it was so unbelievable I immediately googled George Norris half way through the article….thanks for the additional information.

By: andy

andy — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 02:56:35 +0000

Dear Mr. Popehat :
I appreciate you spent the time to check this out, but your research does not make what the Gov did seem any more rational.
I too am a former prosecutor. People lie in court every day and never get charged much less sent to federal prison. Unless there is something you have not yet discovered this still seems like an extraordinarily disproportionate action by an ever expanding Government.
Plus : I am with the guy who said " a federal law on orchids ? " I mean WTFO .

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 17 May 2010 14:03:31 +0000

"…the value of the shipment was what I was selling the plants for.." The nerve!

By: George Norris

George Norris — Sat, 15 May 2010 22:28:51 +0000

Ken, you are not only a coward but an asshole! You are too stupid to try to explain anything to so I am just gonna leave this line alone…….Bye

By: Ken

Ken — Sat, 15 May 2010 16:56:54 +0000

By "cut me some fucking slack", you seem to mean "take all of my self-pitying, self-justifying, self-promoting statements at face value without criticism or skepticism." No can do. People interested in evaluating the honesty and sincerity of your constantly shifting explanations for your guilty plea, and your underlying conduct, should review the primary documents linked above, particularly your own sentencing papers. It's a free country. Nothing stops you from continuing to try to seduce gullible agenda-driven writers and politicians. But that doesn't mean anyone has to buy what you're selling.

By: George Norris

George Norris — Sat, 15 May 2010 16:08:59 +0000

My position is that I never even saw the Customs forms. They were prepared by the government in Peru, taken by the U.S. Customs when the shipment arrived in the U.S., a copy was never given to my broker in Miami and I never saw a copy. The Feds could not produce a copy at the hearings stating that"such evidence is beyond our jurisdiction". This can only mean 3 things. This Custom document was either lost, destroyed, or never existed. This is probably why they pushed so hard for a plea because they had no evidence.
I can not say what that document said as I have never seen it.
Secondly, my sentence was based on the total value of the shipment. There were at most 75 questionable plants. The government contended that the rest of the shipment was also illegal and that the value of the shipment was what I was selling the plants for and not what I paid for them. This increased the value of my crime to a point that would make my crime elligible for prison time and not just fine and probation.
No consideration was taken of my 67 years of crime free life, that this was a first time offence, age, health or that there was no victim in this crime.
My position is that the punishment did not fit the crime and that I, personally, did not lie on any Customs form. Also the whole affair is based ultimately on a very flimsy CITES regulation.
And besides, I have served my 553 days, 71 days of it in solitary confinement, and done my 2 years probations, so cut me some f–king slack.

By: Ken

Ken — Sat, 15 May 2010 03:25:19 +0000

Is it your position that you did not knowingly lie on any customs forms?

Or is it your position that ought not be a crime, because you disagree with the customs limitations reflected in those forms?

By: George Norris

George Norris — Sat, 15 May 2010 03:00:24 +0000

I would really like to know who you pair of cowards really are. I guess you both must really be afraid of this crippled-up, 72 year old felon. I might be a lot of things but I am not a coward.
Get a copy of the new book "One Nation, Under Arrest". I am chapter #7. Maybe you'll learn something reading it. There will also be an article in a near issue of The Economist magazine. I have gotten an apology from a U.S. Congressman for what happened and he is looking into a presidential pardon to exponge my record. Manuel and I have a document from the Peruvian government stating there was no crime in what we did. If I had it to do over again, I would never plead guilty again. That was my big mistake. That and protecting friends who I never heard from again.

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 14 May 2010 22:10:06 +0000

George, George, George. The manners you learned in the Big House aren't suitable here, George. You're not tough enough to make anyone here your bitch.