Post by blackcrowheart on Jun 5, 2006 11:15:25 GMT -5
Jeweler paying for inept meddling by U.S. Congress
Jeweler paying for inept meddling by U.S. Congress
www.thespectrum.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060602/OPINION02\
/606020331/1014
A Southern Utah jeweler is in trouble with the American Indians. He has
spent much of his work life employing Navajo and Hopi artisans and
buying their jewelry. In fact, he estimates that about 100 Native
American families earn their living through the work he supplies. But
now some members of the Ho-Chunk Indian tribe of Wisconsin are suing him
in federal court in Chicago, invoking a law known as the Indian Arts and
Crafts Act.
His offense? He is accused (falsely) to have advertised a doll on the
Internet whose manufacturers in China made the mistake of calling it an
Indian doll. He is also falsely accused of selling inauthentic Navajo,
Hopi and Zuni products but which, in fact, were actually made by members
of these tribes.
Under IACA, any Indian may sue anybody who advertises products in a
manner that falsely suggests they are made by Indians. IACA imposes a
$1,000 penalty per offense. Every day of advertising is a separate
offense even if the retailer truly believes the product is genuine
Indian. Thus, the liability exposure is $365,000 per year for every
product advertised.
After the Ho-Chunks bought a product over the Internet, their lawyer lay
in wait for three years before suing so that they could maximize their
profits. Therefore, the one product, named Indian Doll but clearly
labeled "made in China," gives rise to a claim of more than $1 million.
This law and its severe penalties have been upheld as Constitutional by
the federal courts in Illinois.
The records indicate that only one lawyer and his one client, this group
of Ho-Chunks, have sued under this law. How is it that these Ho-Chunks
are so offended by a little Southern Utah jeweler? The Ho-Chunks have
suffered no loss of business from competition with Southern Utah.
The answer is greed and legislative myopia. This law was first passed in
the depression years to protect Indians' livelihood. But it did not
become profitable for litigation until Congress passed the $1,000 a day
penalties. With millions of dollars to be made for the mere cost to file
a lawsuit, who can blame these Ho-Chunk Indians for taking advantage?
Actual damage is not necessary to sue. Any Indian anywhere could have
sued irrespective of any real damage to his or her own business. So far,
only these few Indians in Chicago have succumbed to the temptation.
Admirably, other Indians have been more restrained.
When the dust settles after this legal battle, the Southern Utah jeweler
is unlikely to suffer anything other than stress because of this
outrageous claim. State Farm has stepped up to defend this case.
Nevertheless, IACA has yielded some serious and unintended consequences
to all Indian artisans. Retail jewelers cannot now take the risk of
advertising jewelry as authentic Indian made. Even if a retailer buys a
product from an apparent Native American, he can never really be sure of
its origin. Even for an innocent mistake he is still liable. With the
Ho-Chunks' lawyer circling overhead, the risk is too great.
The consequence is that a law enacted to protect the value of Indian
products has the opposite impact. The jeweler dare not tout any jewelry
as authentic Indian. Thus, it is senseless for a jeweler to pay the
artisan for any added value that might once have been connected to
Indian authenticity. Everybody loses but the Ho-Chunks and their lawyer.
And nobody in Congress cares about how their inept meddling backfired.
What Congress mucks up, they should clean up.
Jeweler paying for inept meddling by U.S. Congress
www.thespectrum.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060602/OPINION02\
/606020331/1014
A Southern Utah jeweler is in trouble with the American Indians. He has
spent much of his work life employing Navajo and Hopi artisans and
buying their jewelry. In fact, he estimates that about 100 Native
American families earn their living through the work he supplies. But
now some members of the Ho-Chunk Indian tribe of Wisconsin are suing him
in federal court in Chicago, invoking a law known as the Indian Arts and
Crafts Act.
His offense? He is accused (falsely) to have advertised a doll on the
Internet whose manufacturers in China made the mistake of calling it an
Indian doll. He is also falsely accused of selling inauthentic Navajo,
Hopi and Zuni products but which, in fact, were actually made by members
of these tribes.
Under IACA, any Indian may sue anybody who advertises products in a
manner that falsely suggests they are made by Indians. IACA imposes a
$1,000 penalty per offense. Every day of advertising is a separate
offense even if the retailer truly believes the product is genuine
Indian. Thus, the liability exposure is $365,000 per year for every
product advertised.
After the Ho-Chunks bought a product over the Internet, their lawyer lay
in wait for three years before suing so that they could maximize their
profits. Therefore, the one product, named Indian Doll but clearly
labeled "made in China," gives rise to a claim of more than $1 million.
This law and its severe penalties have been upheld as Constitutional by
the federal courts in Illinois.
The records indicate that only one lawyer and his one client, this group
of Ho-Chunks, have sued under this law. How is it that these Ho-Chunks
are so offended by a little Southern Utah jeweler? The Ho-Chunks have
suffered no loss of business from competition with Southern Utah.
The answer is greed and legislative myopia. This law was first passed in
the depression years to protect Indians' livelihood. But it did not
become profitable for litigation until Congress passed the $1,000 a day
penalties. With millions of dollars to be made for the mere cost to file
a lawsuit, who can blame these Ho-Chunk Indians for taking advantage?
Actual damage is not necessary to sue. Any Indian anywhere could have
sued irrespective of any real damage to his or her own business. So far,
only these few Indians in Chicago have succumbed to the temptation.
Admirably, other Indians have been more restrained.
When the dust settles after this legal battle, the Southern Utah jeweler
is unlikely to suffer anything other than stress because of this
outrageous claim. State Farm has stepped up to defend this case.
Nevertheless, IACA has yielded some serious and unintended consequences
to all Indian artisans. Retail jewelers cannot now take the risk of
advertising jewelry as authentic Indian made. Even if a retailer buys a
product from an apparent Native American, he can never really be sure of
its origin. Even for an innocent mistake he is still liable. With the
Ho-Chunks' lawyer circling overhead, the risk is too great.
The consequence is that a law enacted to protect the value of Indian
products has the opposite impact. The jeweler dare not tout any jewelry
as authentic Indian. Thus, it is senseless for a jeweler to pay the
artisan for any added value that might once have been connected to
Indian authenticity. Everybody loses but the Ho-Chunks and their lawyer.
And nobody in Congress cares about how their inept meddling backfired.
What Congress mucks up, they should clean up.