I am not an attorney, but something sort of bothers me and I would like a little input on it.
A lot has been said about Phrag. kovachii, the man who brought it in and
Selby Gardens. However, when we get right down to it, was it illegal, in regard
to CITES? What plant was brought into the country? A plant that was not
identified as a Phragmipedium nor was it identified as an orchid - it was not like
any known orchid. Mr. Kovach may have smuggled it in (I don't know the
particulars of how it got into this country), but what he brought in was an unknown,
unidentified plant species. Until Selby keyed it to being an orchid and to
being a Phragmipedium, and then gave it a name, it did not exist as an orchid or
as a Phragmipedium. Once keyed out and named, it then came under CITES. But, it was not illegally brought into this country as a subject to CITES since
it literaly did not exist until Selby identified it. To then prosecute Mr.
Kovach for illegally bringing in a plant covered by CITES Appendix I was "ex post
facto." To say one "should have known" is not apprpriate. In court, a
layman is not accepted, generally, as an expert, so why should they "expect" Kovach
to know it was a Phragmipedium or even an orchid? Once Selby had keyed it
out and described it, then for them to return it to Peru was in violation of
CITES since, it is assumed, that the proepr Appendix I paperwork was not filed.
Their best bet was not to return it, but to have kept it.
Comments?
Carson E. Whitlow
Adel, IA 50003
Carson,
Some months ago I put forward this same hypothesis and all I got was ridicule from dear Guido. I still think it might stand up in court, who knows?
I wish you better.
Fred Paget
--
From Fred Paget, Marin County, California, USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
