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
_______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
