Ok, what are we missing? A Virginia man buys an orchid at a Peruvian roadside stand. He brings it back to the U.S., to a botanical gardens in Florida, to be examined. It turns out to be one of the rarest orchids in the world and illegal to import.

The penalty? The Virginia man is facing up to six years in prison for illegally importing and possessing the flower. He has pleaded not guilty.

The owner of the botanical gardens who identified the orchid pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of "accepting and handling the flower" and was fined $5,000.00. A horticulturist also pleaded guilty in a plea deal specifying house arrest for six months, probation for a year and a $2,000 fine.

Why the heavy penalties for one flower? It doesn't even appear that anyone was trying to sell or profit from the orchid. Why not just confiscate the flower and return it to Peru? Was criminal prosecution really necessary? We understand the principle of deterrence but this sure seems like overkill.

Hear the oppression. The Library of Congress has just placed recordings of former U.S. slaves online.

Beginning today people the world over will be able to listen to interviews with ...former slaves through the online presentation "Voices From the Days of Slavery: Former Slaves Tell Their Stories" on the Library of Congress's American Memory web site.

....The newly released digital recordings are raw and fresh, straight from wellspring. The quality is sometimes poor, and here and there words are swallowed or unintelligible. There are transcripts on the site for every recording. The beauty, Taft says, is that the recordings "are the only way you hear how they expressed themselves."

Nearly seven hours of material is available. The recordings were made between 1932 and 1975 in nine Southern states.

The Judge in the Martha Stewart case is banning the media from jury selection.

We think this is wrong. We're not talking about televising proceedings (not allowed in any federal courts) but about having the press present to report on what happens. The Judge says that she thinks jurors will be less than candid if the media is present.

There are so many ways to protect the privacy of potential jurors (e.g., give them a number, don't refer to them by name, prohibit the press from mentioning their names) that we can't agree with the Judge's ruling. We think it is important that the press be able to report on the jury selection process. It's part of the trial and trials are supposed to take place in public.

We hope the media organizations appeal this ruling before the trial starts.

A few days ago we wrote about the improper questions asked by Jeb Bush appointees on the Florida Judicial Nominating Commission when interviewing applicants for judgeships. Friday, a panel of the Florida Bar will hold a hearing on the matter:

A Florida Bar panel will consider this morning whether members of a judicial nominating commission appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush asked judicial candidates in Broward County questions that were sexually discriminatory or were political or religious litmus tests.

An additional incident has been reported that will be investigated:

...the [Miami Daily Business] Review has discovered one additional incident, involving a candidate who was asked during a Broward JNC interview to do a humorous impression of a black Broward judge.

We don't expect much to come of the investigation:

Bar president Miles A. McGrane III said that even if members of the 17th Judicial Circuit JNC behaved improperly, his organization "can do literally nothing about it," and that "the sole remedy is with the governor." McGrane said that even though the Bar conducted its own investigation of alleged misconduct by a JNC member three years ago, it "can't" order an investigation now because JNC members are constitutionally appointed officers.

The U.S. said today it has no plans to release three teenagers, ages 13 to 15, who have been detained at Guantanamo for more than a year. Even though last August, prison camp commander Brig-Gen. Geoffrey Miller said he would recommend they be sent home.

The U.S. describes their living conditions in a way that makes it sound like they are at summer camp:

The military official said the three were being kept separately from older prisoners in a refurbished house. They shared a large bedroom and there was also a dayroom, a kitchen and a facility where the teens received daily lessons.

"They are being tutored in their own language and are learning other skills. They are being taught to read and mathematics." The official said there was a large yard around the house where the teens played soccer, volleyball and other games.

But lest the picture seem too rosy, consider this: the boys have not been allowed any contact with their families. The U.S. doesn't know if their families know where they are. The boys have no idea what the future holds in store for them.

Jo Becker, advocacy director for children's rights at Human Rights Watch, voiced deep concern the children were still being held and called for their release. "They have been in detention since the early part of last year without any direct contact with their families or knowledge about what is going to happen to them," said Becker.

She appealed to the military to free the detainees so they could be re-integrated with their communities and said there was particular worry about them being separated and detained during the vulnerable teen years.

The U.S. won't discuss how many 16 to 18 year olds are at Guantanamo, but Human Rights Watch says there are some and that they are being housed with adult prisoners. To us, that alone is a human rights violation. Children, and 16 to 18 year olds are children, should never be housed with adult prisoners. Here are some stats:

Children housed in adult jails and lock-ups have been found to be eight times more likely to commit suicide, five times more likely to be sexually assaulted, two times more likely to be assaulted by staff, and 50 percent more likely to be attacked with a weapon than children in juvenile facilities.

Michael Jackson has added another lawyer to his team-- Ben Brafman of New York.

We think we know how this came about--Johnnie Cochran. Geragos acknowledged on Rivera at Large a few weeks ago that Michael had consulted Johnnie. Johnnie no longer takes criminal cases. The last major criminal case Johnnie tried was with Ben Brafman--the defendant was Sean "Puffy" Combs, who was acquitted. Ben was lead counsel. We think it's pretty clear that Johnnie recommended Ben to Michael Jackson.

Mark Geragos says he's happy about Ben's addition to the team.

"Michael and I agreed that expanding the team would best serve his interests as we work toward his acquittal on the false chargesthat have been leveled against him," Geragos said in a prepared statement.

"I felt strongly about working with Ben, someone I have long respected and admired. Ben will join me tomorrow in Santa Maria at Michael's arraignment, where Michael will enter a plea of not guilty," Geragos said.

Brafman is a top notch lawyer. He will be an asset to the team, no question about it.

In a press statement today, the lawyer for former Enron Chairman Ken Lay said Lay felt betrayed by Andrew Fastow who pleaded guilty yesterday.

Ramsey said Lay had no knowledge that any of Enron's "special-purpose entities" that Fastow created had been used to illegally bolster the company's books, or that Fastow and others were siphoning money into their own pockets.

"Absolutely Andy Fastow had the trust of Ken Lay and the board up through at least October of 2001," Ramsey said. "Lay had the right to rely on that person at the very top of the chain," he added.

Lay's lawyer said Lay will be speaking publicly in the near future. We think that will be a mistake. One of the counts in Martha Stewart's indictment is based on statements she made protesting her innocence. No matter what Ken Lay says or doesn't say, he is not going to talk himself out of an Indictment if his former cohorts at Enron tell the Government he knew what was going on and either tacitly or expressly approved it. Once the Government has you in their cross-hairs, your protestations of innocence rarely have any effect. As we've said before, the jails are filled with people who thought if they could only explain things, the cops or prosecutors would see it their way.

Our unsolicited advice to Ken Lay: You have a Fifth Amendment right to stay silent Use it.

A new Associated Press poll has been released in which the public was asked whether they thought the current crop of celebrities facing trial would get a fair trial and whether celebrities face a tougher or more lenient battle in the criminal justice system.

The celebs at issue: Kobe, Michael and Martha.

The answers: More people thought Kobe would get a fair trial. More people thought Martha would be convicted. More blacks than whites thought Kobe and Michael would not get a fair trial. And, not suprisingly, most thought that the rich and famous had a better chance at winning.

How would you have answered?

Sometimes the most satisfaction comes from reading something we agree with when it comes from someone with a usually opposite viewpoint. That's the case today with Joe Kelley of For the Sake of Argument. Today he writes about the child molester killed in his prison cell this week in Virginia. Yes, the guy was guilty. But his death in prison is unjust. Joe says:

I know it’s not popular to argue this, but Ausley was NOT given a judicial death sentence. Yet, due to the incompetence of the Virginia Department of Corrections, he got one anyway.

Understandably, few wish to vocally advocate the rights of convicted criminals. But, when you’re an inmate in a state correctional facility, the state becomes your custodian. They’re charged with feeding, clothing, rehabilitating (yeah, right), and protecting your health and safety.

Inept correctional officers marginalized the entire Constitutionally established United States judicial process. What’s the point of a state paying to prosecute (and defend in many cases), taking the time from peers to establish a jury, and paying to incarcerate if it could all so quickly be made worthless?

Via Cursor we learn that Reporters Without Borders has issued a report accusing the U.S. Army of "criminal negligence" in the April deaths of two journalists. They were killed when an M1 Abrams tank opened fire on Baghdad's Palestine Hotel. The report also charges that U.S. officials initially "lied about what happened." You can read the full report here (pdf).

Several groups are calling upon the Justice Department to initiate a criminal probe into John Ashcroft's 2000 campaign finance activities. The groups charge that Ashcroft may have committed acts of tax evasion:

Several groups Thursday urged the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Attorney General John Ashcroft's use of a political action committee mailing list during his 2000 Senate race.

The National Voting Rights Institute, Public Citizen and other groups contended in a letter that Ashcroft evaded campaign finance laws through his Senate campaign's use of a mailing list developed by his Spirit of America PAC at a cost of $1.7 million.

They also say that while Ashcroft told the Federal Election Commission he personally owned the mailing list at one point, he failed to include it on a required report to the Senate outlining his financial holdings. He may have broken tax laws by failing to report income earned from the list on his Internal Revenue Service income tax filings, they say.

You can read the groups' joint letter to to the Justice Department here. Lots more information is available at StepAsideAshcroft.

Here we go....the federal government is overhauling the way it drug tests employees. It is moving from urine tests to saliva, hair testing and sweat tests. Major corporations are expected to follow suit. Here's what's planned:

Saliva testing, done using a swab that looks much like a toothbrush but with a pad instead of bristles, is best at detecting drug use within the past one or two days.

Hair testing, in which a sample about the thickness of a shoelace is clipped at the root from the back of the head, allows detection of many drugs used as far back as 3 months.

Sweat testing, in which workers are fitted with a patch that is worn for two weeks, is used to screen people who have returned to work after drug treatment.

For more on why you should oppose invasive drug testing in the workplace, go here.