Archive for Roman Empire
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.
Police officers have become increasingly brutal in recent years.
As this video shows, Law Enforcement Agencies around the country have stooped to new lows in order to intimidate the public at Large.
Issuing Corporal Punishment and using their badges to subdue the public into submission, with a lack of any criminal culpability, will only enhance their belief that the Authority vested in them is in fact a license to become Judge, Jury and Executioner at their whim.
None of the bystanders seemed afraid or in fear of this Senior Citizen, they seem to be more concerned about her welfare and safety than that of their own.
I’m sure that she had no ill intent toward anyone, and it’s evident that she was disoriented and confused.
However, once Law Enforcement is on the scene, no matter what the facts, or obvious situation, the Police go into combat mode. They have no time, or tolerance for the people they swear to serve. It’s obey my order, or “Else”.
The “Else” is usually followed by some type of brutality, resulting in the injury and in some instances Death of the perceived violator.
This Female Officer
in the video is obviously Larger, Younger and Healthier than the 84 yr old Perpetrator that she is performing her newest WWE move on.
I wonder if the Officer’s Grandma, or Mother taught her this tactic? I wonder if this Officer would approve of her own Grandma, or Mother being treated this way?
I think not !!!!!
Cops are being trained to use Military style tactics on American Citizens.
Just Look at your local Sheriff’s Deputy and his daily uniform, he is better armed than any of our troops overseas, and instead of being a Peace Officer, He/She has been trained to be a Warrior.
Not a warrior and defender of our borders, our Constitutional Bill of Rights, our freedoms, but as a warrior against citizens that abhor the police state.
The fact that this happened to an elderly woman should promote absolute outrage at this Officer, her Police Dept. and her City.
This was an obvious abuse of power, a Draconian form of Law Enforcement not unlike the Roman Vigiles a Police Force
coupled with Fire Fighters in ancient Rome. They were Privately Owned Slaves that did the owner’s bidding and were trained privately to enforce the wishes of whatever the Owner wanted.
Police and Security Firms are often well Unionized, which means they are privately owned.
They sell their services to localities and in turn police the citizenry.
Therefore I submit to you that their allegiance is to those that pay their salaries, and not to the People at Large.
This Video proves that Law Enforcement is at war with the U S Citizen, because Law Enforcement has an agenda.
That Agenda is Money and the Corporate takeover of Law Enforcement.
We have allowed Banks to regulate our money, they are corrupt, we have allowed Insurance Co. to regulate our health, if we allow Law Enforcement to regulate our Humanity, God forbid, It is already corrupt and Bankrupt.
Write this Police Officer’s City Counsel, tell them to fire this Neanderthal, and to restore public confidence in Law Enforcement.