Who is the True Legal Owner of R2D2 & C3PO?

By

-

May 2, 2014

A Long Time Ago, in a Galaxy Far, Far, Away, was Luke Skywalker within his legal rights to offer R2D2 and C3PO as a gift to Jabba the Hutt in Return of the Jedi? In order to determine whether Luke was legally entitled to do so, we have to understand the ownership history of our favorite Droids.

R2D2 is introduced in Queen Amidala’s escape from Naboo. As such, R2D2 appears to be the state property of Naboo. Queen Amidala as the head of state exercised her control over R2D2. The Droid continued his service to Amidala while she was a Senator.

C3PO was built by Anakin Skywalker. As such, C3PO is Anakin Skywalker’s personal property. However, as a minor, Anakan’s mother may have held title, but for the fact both Skywalkers were slaves. Moreover, C3PO was left on Tatooine after Anakan left to become a Jedi. At this point, C3PO was in the possession and control of Shmi Skywalker as her personal property (assuming a slave could own property).

At the time of Shmi’s death, C3PO would have been her personal property. Moreover, Shmi’s marriage to Cliegg Lars would not transmute her personal property to community property, unless there had been a written change of ownership. As such, Lars would have had a right to one half of Shmi’s personal property by intestate succession, because Shmi had one child (Anakin). See, Cal Probate Code 6401(c)(A). As one cannot have half a Droid, Lars arguably gave up any interest in C3PO in order to have Shmi’s other remaining personal property. As such, Anakin Skywalker would have become CP3O’s legal owner upon her death (unless Shim had a will stating otherwise). Alternatively, Cliegg Lars would become the proper owner of C3PO if the Droid were community property and Shmi died without a will.

As such, by the time of Anakin and Padme’s marriage, Anakin was the owner of C3PO and Padme the owner of R2D2 (or the state of Naboo). However, the marriage does not make them co-equal owners of the Droids, because marriage does not make personal property community property, unless there is a valid transfer of ownership.

R2D2 shared many adventures with Anakin Skywalker throughout the Clone Wars. Moreover, C3PO appeared to spend a substantial amount of time with Senator Amidala. While there marriage was secret, this does tend to show them treating the Droids as community property.

Revenge of the Sith first shows Anakin being left for dead on Mustafar, soon followed by Padme giving birth to twins, followed by her death. In theory, Anakin’s personal property could have transferred to Padme at the time of Anakin’s “death.” As such, Padme would have been the legal owners of both Droids before her death. Alternatively, an argument could be made that Anakin’s attempted murder of Padme cut off his rights to any of Padme’s personal property or community property, much like Obi Wan Kenobi did to Anakin’s limbs. (See, Cal Prob Code § 250, which prohibits someone who kills a descendant from inheriting under interest succession or a will). Additionally, one could argue that Lord Vader lost his property rights to CP3O due to abandonment.

The twins would have had a right to the Droids at the time of their mother’s death through intestate intestate succession. However, given both were newborns, Bail Organa arguably became the bailee of the Droids until the Skywalker twins were of legal age. In turn, Organa entrusted the Droids to Raymus Antilles for safe keeping.

By the time of A New Hope, Leia has possession, custody and control of the Droids. While this was to the exclusion of Luke, only Bail Organa, Yoda, and Obi Wan knew of the Skywalker twins. Leia exercised her property rights over R2D2 by sending him on the mission to find Obi Wan Kenobi.

The Jawas finding R2D2 and C3PO on Tatooine and selling the Droids presents an interesting legal challenge. The Jawas could argue the Droids were abandoned or lost, claiming a right over them. However, if lost, the Jawas made no attempt to locate the right owners, but simply put them up for sale. Consider the following California law:

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

Cal Pen Code § 485.

This puts Uncle Owen into a strange position of arguably buying Droids that Luke actually had a legal right to already own.

The Jawas might have had a valid claim to lawfully owning the Droids on a “finders keepers” theory. Considering that the Droids escaped the Tantive IV in an escape pod, case law involving life boats found at sea is helpful in determining if the Droids were abandoned by Princess Leia, thus properly found by the Jawas.

Under case law, a “derelict vessel” is one that is abandoned and deserted. This can be by accident, necessity or voluntary actions, without hope of recovery. PAUL W. REISS, ET AL. v. ONE SCHAT-HARDING LIFEBOAT NO. 120776 # 1, ET AL., 2006 AMC 1401 (D.S.C. 2006), citing Rowe v. the Brig, 1 Mason 372, 20 F.Cas. 1281, 1282, No. 12,093 (C.C.Mass. 1818).

At the time of Leia’s capture, she could have believed she had no chance of escape. Moreover, she had no idea of where the Droid escape pod landed. However, she did give R2D2 orders to find Obi Wan Kenobi. These facts show that while the Tantive IV was lost without hope of recovery, Leia still exercised control over the Droids to complete her mission, even if she had no hope of recovering them.

If the escape pod could be considered a derelict vessel, and the Droids lost, the Jawas could have been within their salvage rights to find and sell the Droids. PAUL W. REISS, ET AL. v. ONE SCHAT-HARDING LIFEBOAT NO. 120776 # 1, ET AL., 2006 AMC 1401 (D.S.C. 2006). However, there could be a real legal challenge against the Jawas for not attempting to find the legal owner of C3PO and R2D2.

Assuming that the Jawas had the legal right to sell the Droids, Luke Skywalker would have become the proper owner of the Droids after the deaths of his aunt and uncle. As such, he would have had the legal right to gift the Droids to Jabba the Hutt. However, the following mutual combat and death of Jabba would either make Jabba’s estate the rightful owner of the Droids, or Luke re-covered them as lost property.

Alternatively, since Jabba did not accept Luke’s initial offer, he could claim the Droids were not a gift, but consideration for a contract for Han Solo. Since Jabba rejected the deal, he had no right to R2D2 and C3PO.

Mutiny on the Helicarrier

By

Josh Gilliland

-

April 15, 2014

0

A helicarrier is an ocean-going aircraft carrier that can fly. So, in Captain America The Winter Soldier, when HYDRA took control of the Project Insight helicarriers, was that a mutiny or a hijacking? Or some new form of air piracy?

Mutiny is defined under the Mutiny Act of 1790 as follows:

Whoever, being of the crew of a vessel of the United States, on the high seas, or on any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, endeavors to make a revolt or mutiny on board such vessel, or combines, conspires, or confederates with any other person on board to make such revolt or mutiny, or solicits, incites, or stirs up any other of the crew to disobey or resist the lawful orders of the master or other officer of such vessel, or to refuse or neglect their proper duty on board thereof, or to betray their proper trust, or assembles with others in a tumultuous and mutinous manner, or makes a riot on board thereof, or unlawfully confines the master or other commanding officer thereof, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

ALGIC (MUTINY)., 1937 AMC 1611.

Courts have held that a mutiny may occur while at dock in a harbor, either foreign or domestic, as well as at sea. Southern S.S. Co. v. NLRB, 316 U.S. 31, 41-42 (U.S. 1942).

Aircraft Piracy is defined as “seizing or exercising control of an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States by force, violence, threat of force or violence, or any form of intimidation, and with wrongful intent.” 49 USCS § 46502(A). Moreover, a party can commit air piracy even if the aircraft is not in flight, “if the aircraft would have been in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States had the aircraft piracy been completed.” 49 USCS § 46502(B).

The HYDRA Agents could likely be charged under both statutes, but neither is directly on point, because the helicarriers are flying ships that fit in both, and neither, statute simultaneously. Moreover, the Aircraft Piracy Act appears written with civilian aircraft in mind, however the plain text does not limit its application.

Breaking down the basic facts of Captain America The Winter Soldier, the HYDRA Agents took the ships by force, while other HYDRA Agents took the SHIELD Mission Control Center operating the launch. The actions taking control of the ships occurred in the underground Project Insight dry docks located under the Potomac.

A Court could find the actions of the HYDRA/SHIELD double agents was a mutiny, because the helicarriers were in dry dock, which happened to be under navigable water. Since a crew could be charged with mutiny for a ship in port, a ship in dry dock under navigable water could violate the Mutiny Act of 1790 and its following case law. The fact the aircraft carrier could fly is purely academic.

To borrow from the Wizard of Oz, just because a monkey has wings does not mean it isn’t a monkey: it’s a flying monkey. Same with a flying aircraft carrier.

This does not mean we ignore the fact the Project Insight carriers could fly. Seizing control of the helicarriers arguably was Aircraft Piracy, because the HYDRA Agents took control of the helicarriers through violence and “wrongful intent” to kill a massive amount of civilians. 49 USCS § 46502(A).

We do not have ships that fly in real life, but Captain America has highlighted a strange tale of a legal situation where the SHIELD-turned-HYDRA traitors could violate both the Mutiny Act of of 1790 and the Aircraft Piracy Act.

Traitors of SHIELD

By

Josh Gilliland

-

April 9, 2014

0

Agents of SHIELD episode “Turn, Turn, Turn,” was an action-packed tie-in to Captain America Winter Soldier. Best episode to date. As expected, a whole bunch of SHIELD Agents need to face a firing squad for being HYDRA.

Out of the Shadows And Into The Light

Every member of SHIELD who served HYDRA, from working on the Project Insight Helicarriers to killing other agents, is a traitor under the United States Constitution.

Treason is defined under the Constitution as “levying War against them [The United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” United States Constitution, Article III, Section 3.

The trial of Vice President Aaron Burr held that “levying war” against the United States includes those who “perform a part in the prosecution of the war” commit treason. In re Burr, 1807 U.S. LEXIS 406, 10 (U.S. 1807). This requires that a traitor performs a part of an overt act and be “leagued with the conspiracy.” In re Burr, at *13-14.

Judge Smalley in a Civil War opinion explained that acts of treason include a group of people conspiring to mount an insurrection by force and then carrying out their planned insurrection are guilty of treason by levying war. Charge to Grand Jury-Treason, 30 F. Cas. 1032, 1033 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1861).

It is well known that war — civil war — exists in portions of the Union; and that persons owing allegiance to the United States have confederated together, and with arms, by force and intimidation, have prevented the execution of the constitutional acts of congress, have forcibly seized upon and hold a custom-house and post-office, forts, arsenals, vessels, and other property belonging to the United States, and have actually fired upon vessels bearing the United States flag and carrying United States troops. This is a usurpation of the authority of the federal government. It is high treason, by levying war. Either one of those acts will constitute high treason. There can be doubt of it. The fact that any or all engaged in the commission of these outrageous acts under the pretended authority of the legislature, or a convention of the people, of any state, or of the officers appointed thereby, or acting thereunder does not change or affect the criminal character of the act. No man or body of men can throw off their allegiance to their government in that way. Nor can any state, or the people of any state, acting in any capacity whatever, absolve any person therefrom. Neither South Carolina nor any other state can authorize or legally protect citizens of the other states in waging war against their government, any more than can the queen of Great Britain or the emperor of France. If any such power is assumed it is without right, and the deluded individual who acts under it is none the less guilty of treason, and liable to be punished therefor.

Charge to Grand Jury-Treason, 30 F. Cas. 1032, 1033 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1861)

All of the HYDRA Agents at the Hub levied war against the United States by 1) Being part of the conspiracy to build flying aircraft carriers that target people by DNA for mass executions; 2) Killing Agents of SHIELD in their take over of the facilities in furtherance of Project Insight; 3) all other actions done in prosecution of the war against the US government.

Murder Without Consideration

Better late than never, Agent Coulson was concerned about firing on SHIELD Agents who were only following orders at the Hub, thus ordered the team to use Icers.

That would have been a good idea at the Guest House.

Any SHIELD Agents who did not know who to trust, who were unknowingly following HYDRA orders, would actually have a valid “I was just following orders” defense.

Orders must be lawful for a soldier to argue the “I was following orders” defense. A test for whether an order is unlawful is whether the “the order is so manifestly beyond the power or discretion of the commander as to admit of no rational doubt of its unlawfulness it cannot be used as a cloak of immunity to render justifiable an act which, but for such order, would be unlawful (40 CJS Homicide, sec 107, p 967; Winthrop’s reprint, pp 296, 297; MCM, 1928, par 148a).” (page 365). US v Kinder, 14 C.M.R. 742, 772-773 (A.F.C.M.R. 1954).

SHIELD Agents would have had a hard time in the opening moments of the rebellion to know whether orders were beyond the power or discretion of their commanding officers, because of the mass confusion and not knowing who was who. However, as evidence started becoming clear on who was issuing orders that would levy war against the United States, such as killing unarmed people, would be a clear sign of unlawful orders.

Legal Issues in Captain America The Winter Soldier

By

Josh Gilliland

-

April 7, 2014

0

Major Spoilers!

Jessica Mederson and Josh Gilliland discuss Captain America The Winter Soldier. The discussion focuses on treason, the necessity defense, insanity defense, how SHIELD could be organized, following unlawful orders and geeking out over Captain America.

What is Hydra’s Legal Status?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

April 1, 2014

0

Captain America The First Avenger features Hydra under the leadership of the Red Skull as the principal World War II villains. Hydra begins as Nazi Germany’s advanced weapons division/cult, which then commits mutiny and declares war on the world.

What is Hydra’s Legal Status? Is it a nation-state? A terrorist organization? Is Germany responsible for any post-war activities of Hydra?

There is no question that [fictional] World War II Era Germany was responsible for all actions done under the direction of Hitler and the 3rd Reich. The Nazis built the first bases, funded the research and provided the troops to support Hydra’s operations. All of these actions could be the subject of a war crimes trial.

Things become legally cloudy after the Red Skull murdered the visiting 3rd Reich officers. Hydra made a total break with the Reich, including plans to destroy Berlin, and their own creepy “Hail Hydra” salute.

There is a strong argument that Hydra post-mutiny would be a terrorist organization, because it was no longer sponsored by a nation (in this case, Germany).

Applying the current law to the World War II Era, the Secretary of State could designate Hydra as a terrorist organization because:

1) Hydra is a foreign organization (formerly German);

2) Hydra engaged in terrorist activity 22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2)) in that it conducted premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets (though not completed thanks to Captain America);

3) Hydra’s activities threatened the security of the United States.

8 USCS § 1189(a)(1)(A) to(C).

Hydra’s actions included building advanced weapons in secret bases across war torn European countries with the intent to destroy the world, starting with the United States. Hydra’s flying wing bomber mother ship was launched with the purpose of destroying the eastern United States within an hour. These actions would violate US law and would constitute terrorist activity to “affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction” 22 U.S.C. 2331(A)(1).

Germany and the United States had mutual declarations of war against each other. Hydra no doubt would have been included under the US declaration of war as a German military unit. However, after Hydra went rogue from Germany, Hydra legally was a terrorist organization, because it was no longer sponsored by Germany and enacted their own political agenda.

Hydra’s post mutiny actions would subject it to legally be treated under anti-terrorism laws, especially if they continued terrorist activity after World War II. Germany would be responsible for any war crimes Hydra committed before the mutiny, but unless attacking the United States was part of Germany’s plan, Hydra was no longer part of the German military and a terrorist organization.

Can You Torture a Droid?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

February 24, 2014

1

Jabba the Hutt likes to have Droids torture other Droids. However, is that even torture?

The law defines “torture” as follows:

Every person who, with the intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose, inflicts great bodily injury as defined in Section 12022.7 upon the person of another, is guilty of torture.

The crime of torture does not require any proof that the victim suffered pain.

Cal Pen Code § 206.

“Great bodily injury” means a significant or substantial physical injury. Cal Pen Code § 12022.7(f).

In Return of the Jedi, Jabba’s Palace included a Droid duty assignment office, which doubled as a Droid torture chamber. A Power Droid was hung by his shaking little feet while a hot brand was applied to his feet. The Power Droid screamed “NNNNNOOOO, NNNNOOOO” during the procedure as a guard laughed.

R2D2 was made to watch these events, serving as a form of torture to ensure compliance with the orders of Jabba’s Droid.

The issue whether Jabba unlawfully had Droids tortured in an inhuman house of horrors must overcome an ugly legal issue: Does a Droid have “human rights”? Can a Droid be responsible for torturing another Droid even though the law requires a “person” to commit the act?

Droids are considered property, as evident from Uncle Owen purchasing C3PO and R2D2 from the Jawas in A New Hope (the legality of the purchase is problematic, based on whether the Droids were lost or abandoned property after Princess Leia was captured by Darth Vader). Assuming the purchase was valid, Luke would have been the legal owner of the Droids after his aunt and uncle were killed. Alternatively, the ownership of the Droids could be established as inheritance from his parents, however that is problematic from the passage of time between Revenge of the Sith to A New Hope, unless Captain Antilles was serving as a bailee until the twin Skywalkers were of proper age.

Regardless, Luke Skywalker offered C3PO and R2D2 as a legal gift to Jabba the Hutt. This is further evidence that Droids are merely considered property and do not have “human rights,” because a basic human right is not to be exploited for slavery.

Droids have an odd quality for being property: they have a range of personalities and emotions, including fear or being grumpy. Why build machines that serve as property that experience fear and pain? Such programming begs to introduce a wide range of legal issues on the ethical treatment of Droids.

The law has over a century of statutes and cases protecting animals from cruelty (See, Cal Pen Code § 597 and Yielding v. Ball, 205 Ala. 376, 377 (Ala. 1921)). Moreover, animals such as dogs and cats are considered personal property. Just like a Droid.

Hanging a Power Droid by his feet and burning him would be actions consistent within the protections of Cal Pen Code § 597, which prevents the maliciously and intentionally torture of an animal and Cal Pen Code § 206 as sadistically causing great bodily harm. While a Droid is neither a “person” or an “animal,” a Droid is property like an animal, with a wide range of emotions that both animals and human beings experience. While the law does not specifically include Droids, the great body of law prohibiting torture of humans and animals shows the intent to prohibit the torture of Droids based upon our human values to prevent harm to others.

The fact a Droid carried out Jabba’s torture does not free the Droid or Jabba from prosecution. The “I was just following” orders defense would fall on deaf ears, as Jabba’s Droid knew its actions were causing pain upon the Power Droid and serving as a threat to R2D2. Jabba would be responsible as both the Droid’s owner and as the business owner.

Gallifrey Stands! But What About the Marriages?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

November 25, 2013

0

Gallifrey Stands! The Day of the Doctor was a magnificent tribute to 50 years of Doctor Who. There was action, heroics, and 50 years of geek homages.

And of course, the question hiding in plain sight: Could the Tenth Doctor have a valid marriage to Queen Elizabeth I? Does this marriage make the Doctor a bigamist, given the Eleventh Doctor’s marriages to Marilyn Monroe in 1952 and and River Song in 2011?

As a preliminary matter, bigamy is the act of marrying one person while still legally married to another. Westlaw Black’s Law 9th Dictionary App. The law only allows a person to have one spouse at a time. See, Antony T. v Rosemarie B.T., 41 Misc. 3d 1208(A), 1208A (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013), citing 11 NY Prac, New York Law of Domestic Relations § 9:5.

The Tenth Doctor’s marriage to Queen Elizabeth I in the 1564 is the earliest known marriage to a human. The Eleventh Doctor marriage to Marilyn Monroe was on Christmas Eve 1952 and to River Song on April 22, 2011 in an alternate timeline.

Focusing on California law, since the second marriage to Marilyn Monroe was in California, states the following on marriage:

(a) A subsequent marriage contracted by a person during the life of a former husband or wife of the person, with a person other than the former husband or wife, is illegal and void from the beginning, unless:

(1) The former marriage has been dissolved or adjudged a nullity before the date of the subsequent marriage.

(2) The former husband or wife (i) is absent, and not known to the person to be living for the period of five successive years immediately preceding the subsequent marriage, or (ii) is generally reputed or believed by the person to be dead at the time the subsequent marriage was contracted.

Cal Fam Code § 2201.

The Eleventh Doctor’s marriage to Marilyn Monroe was 349 years after the death of Queen Elizabeth I in 1603. Pursuant to Cal Fam Code § 2201(a)(2)(ii), the Doctor had a valid marriage to Marilyn Monroe, because Queen Elizabeth I was dead at the time the Doctor-Monroe marriage was contracted in 1952. In arguendo, the Tenth Doctor abandoned his marriage to Elizabeth I, which explained her anger in The Shakespeare Code that was never again addressed in the series.

The Doctor-Monroe marriage had to be annulled sometime shortly after the marriage, because Monroe married Joe DiMaggio in 1954 and then Arthur Miller in 1956. However, if not annulled, the Doctor-Monroe marriage would void the subsequent marriages to DiMaggio and Miller.

The Doctor’s marriage to River Song appears to not have a prior marriage that would nullify it, because it was 408 years after the death of Elizabeth I (however, all of time was collapsing on itself) and the dissolution of the Monroe marriage or Monroe’s death in 1962 (assuming the marriage was never annulled). This also assumed a marriage in Egypt in an alternate reality bound only by a bow tie without a marriage license is valid.

What we do not know about the Doctor is his first wife and children. What happened to them? More importantly, will we ever see Susan again? Her husband only had one life to live, while she had another twelve. Or how about the Doctor’s daughter? For those who want to follow the adventures of a female Time Lord, either Time Lady would be the natural choice for a spin-off series to kick-off the next 50 years.