Virtual Mobs on Almost Human

By

-

January 9, 2014

Almost Human continues to be one of my favorite new shows. The episode Simon Says touched on issues of car jacking, duress, bank robbery of bitcoin, online dating, computer and cyber forensics, plus some interesting legal twists for anyone who thinks about eDiscovery.

The plot of Simon Says involved a villain who targeted those who had wronged him by placing a bomb in a collar device on them. The victims had to perform specific tasks or else the bomb would detonate.

The villain broadcast the suffering of those with the bomb collars on the “dark net.” The torture of a ticking bomb was streamed to a chat room where viewers could viciously comment on the victim’s plight.

A District Attorney would not have a shortage of video and computer evidence to convict the villain of first degree murder for first victim, a banker. Cal Pen Code § 189 states:

All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison, lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle, intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree. All other kinds of murders are of the second degree.

Cal Pen Code § 189.

The first victim was sprayed with a chemical to be knocked out, followed by a bomb collar being placed around his neck. A bomb collar is without question a destructive device. Moreover, the villain was “lying in wait” for the victim in order to spray him with the knock-out chemical. A DA could unquestioningly prove this was a premeditated killing with a bomb.

The next two victims were not killed, thus giving two additional charges of attempted murder that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now for the interesting question: What about the 3000+ viewers on the “dark net”?

The comments ranged from “Is this real?” to encouraging the villain to detonate the bomb.

If a DA wanted to send a powerful message that online mobs will not be tolerated, the state could charge everyone in the chat room as inciting a riot under California Penal Code § 404. The code states:

Any use of force or violence, disturbing the public peace, or any threat to use force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two or more persons acting together, and without authority of law, is a riot.

Cal Pen Code § 404(a).

The identities of the viewers could be determined from IP addresses. Charges could be filled on the basis that the chat room enabled several thousand people to act together to encourage the villain to unlawfully kill others with the explosive devices. The immediate execution of power to detonate the bomb was solely in the hands of the villain by remote, but so was the encouragement to kill. The chat and immediate actions of the villain should be enough to show “two or more persons acting together.” While it is untested to have a virtual riot, a DA would test the code on the simple truth that 3,000 people encouraging the murder of another human being cannot be tolerated.

Thank You for Voting “Geek” in the ABA Journal Blawg 100

By

Josh Gilliland

-

January 3, 2014

0

Jessica and I are deeply honored for everyone who voted for us in the “For Fun” category of the ABA Journal Blawg 100. Thank you. It is great to have won the most votes in our category in our first year on the Blawg 100.

Once again, thank you for your vote and reading our blog.

2013: A Year of Bow Ties and Starships

By

Josh Gilliland

-

December 31, 2013

0

As the sun sets on 2013, Jessica and I reflect on the top “geek” moments of the passed year. There are bow ties, super heroes, Time Lords, Starships and of course, lawyers.

As 2014 dawns, we wish everyone very successful New Year.

Confessing at the Church of the Mainframe

By

Josh Gilliland

-

December 31, 2013

0

The Time of the Doctor raised a very interesting legal and religious issue: The Silence hear confessions at Mother Superious Tasha Lem’s Church of the Mainframe.

The legal issue: Can the clergy privilege work with a confessor who causes you to forget what you confessed?

Silent Confession

Clara was told by a Silence to “confess” onboard the Church of the Mainframe. A confession in the religious sense is acknowledging past wrongs. It often requires seeking forgiveness. Conversely, a confession in the legal sense is “…an acknowledgment in express words, by the accused in a criminal case, of the truth of the main fact charged or of some essential part of it.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, citing 3 John H. Wigmore,Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 821, at 308 (James H. Chadbourn ed., 4th rev. ed. 1970).

Confessing sins to a minister is protected under the law. For example, under California Evidence Code § 917, such clergy-penitent communications are “presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish that the communication was not confidential.”

The Doctor referred to The Silence on the Church of the Mainframe as Confessional Priests. Despite being the most disturbing looking priests ever, the Silence would qualify as a “member of the clergy” under California Evidence code § 1030. Granted, the faith of the Church of the Mainframe was dedicated to the Doctor’s silence from speaking his name to answer the first question, the one hiding in plain sight.

A “Penitent” is a person who made penitential communication to a member of the clergy. Cal Evid Code § 1031. A “penitential communication” is a communication made in confidence, in the presence of no third person so far as the penitent is aware, to a member of the clergy who, in the course of the discipline or practice of the clergy member’s church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications and, under the discipline or tenets of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret. Cal Evid Code § 1032.

Both the Penitent and the Member of the Clergy have a privilege to refuse to disclose penitential communications. Cal Evid Code §§ 1033 and 1034. A Penitent has the additional right to prevent another from disclosing a penitential communication. Cal Evid Code § 1033.

What Do You Have to Confess?

The Silence had only one thing to say to Clara: Confess. Human ministers generally have a less threatening confession-side manner.

A confession to the Silence likely would be protected, if the following conditions are met: 1) The Silence are legally viewed as members of the clergy; 2) the statement is made in confidence without any third parties; 3) the statement is intended to be in confidence; 4) the Church of the Mainframe has authorized the Silence to hear communications and has imposed a duty of secrecy for such communications. Doe 2 v. Superior Court, 132 Cal. App. 4th 1504, 1518 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2005).

Provided all of the conditions are met, communications made to the Silence would be protected by a court. The last element of imposing a duty of secrecy is self-evidence, because the very nature of the Silence is to hide their existence from humans. If you can only remember someone while looking at them, that is the most extreme way to maintain confidential communications.

Silence Will Fall

The Silence who are Confessional Priests would be bound by law not to discuss confessions made to them. However, they have a powerful tool, because if they did disclose a penitential communication, the third party would have no memory of it. The only exception to the memory loss would be other members of The Silence.

A Penitent in the Church of the Mainframe would have no memory of their confession. This would be problematic from a religious and legal point of view. Generally speaking, asking for forgiveness requires accepting responsibility for one’s sins. If you have no memory of doing so, it is difficult to seek absolution. The only way around this would be the Silence giving a hypnotic suggestion like, “You should kill all of us on sight,” that embeds absolution within the Penitent’s subconscious (Note, the hypnotic suggestion should not be from Day of the Moon).

Religious scholars can offer greater analysis on the subject, which could be very interesting discussion in a Confirmation class.

I Will Remember Every Line

A Penitent would have a difficult time exercising their right to protect any penitential communication if they cannot even remember the communications. Worse yet, they might disclose their own communication to a third party, not knowing they even made the communication to a Confessional Priest, thus waiving their own privilege. As such, the Church of the Mainframe should reconsider the practice of the Silence hearing confessions.

Working at Lambeau Field: Is It Just Too Cold?

By

Jessica_alegalgeek

-

December 29, 2013

0

Wisconsin is a wintery wonderland. I love that about Wisconsin. But as much as I love winter, it can still get too cold for me sometimes. A month ago I took my kids to the Packers-Vikings Game at Lambeau Field (fulfilling my obligations as a Wisconsin parent). That game turned out to be the coldest November game there in over thirty years. My kids and I were bundled up with multiple layers, heater packs, and blankets, and we still only made it through three quarters (yes, we left right before the Packers made a big comeback and fought the Vikings to a tie in overtime).

So how to the guys on the field stand it? Some of them play in short sleeves, although many Packers will admit that they don’t like playing in the cold and they have lots of tricks to deal with Green Bay’s frigid weather. But at least the football players get time on the sidelines, with bench and foot warmers and those huge overcoats. What about the other guys on the field – the refs? Just last weekend, during a snowstorm, one of the refs for the Packers game was only wearing a baseball cap and no gloves. And the refs are out on the field for the entire playing time!

That’s a pretty tough job in the cold, which led me to wonder…can the refs claim that working games at Lambeau Field or some of the other cold climate stadiums constitutes working under hazardous conditions? [This same rationale applies to the players as well, of course. But NFL football players already have other hazardous conditions that are more serious. So dealing with the cold is probably less pressing for them.]

Under Wisconsin law, employers owe a duty to their employees to furnish and maintain a place of employment as safe as the nature of its business would reasonably permit. See Wis. Stat. § 101.11. OSHA states that working in extremely cold conditions can be dangerous. The CDC lists extreme cold as a physical hazard. And workers’ compensation insurance funds recognize that working in extremely cold conditions can be dangerous.

The issue then is whether working in the cold at Lambeau Field (or Soldier Field – but you don’t need to be as tough there!) is reasonably safe, given the nature of the business. Presumably (given my inability to find any cases addressing this issue), so long as the NFL and the team owners provide enough warm gear and heating equipment, it is safe enough. Unless or until there’s a requirement that all cold weather teams play in domes (which doesn’t seem likely – and the Vikings are playing their last game at the Metrodome right now), football employees will just need to dress warmly (ref, please put on a winter hat!), stay hydrated, and brace themselves for the cold.

So, as the Packers prepare to take on the Bears for the title of the NFC North Division Champion this afternoon, I have just four words to say. STAY WARM. And…GO PACKERS!

A Bow Tie Requiem for the 11th Doctor

By

Josh Gilliland

-

December 28, 2013

0

Matt Smith was the first Doctor since Jon Pertwee in 1974 to wear a bow tie on Doctor Who. One only needs to look on social media to see the number of people wearing bow ties in the last three years. Matt Smith’s popularity as the 11th Doctor was undoubtedly part of this bow tie Renaissance.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino and I sat down to review The Time of the Doctor. We discussed Matt Smith’s tenure as the 11th Doctor, hopes for Peter Capaldi and the future of bow ties.

I am confident Mother Superious Tasha Lem is River Song. Lem screamed River from the following facts:

The [well armed] Church of the Mainframe was probably the Library of River’s future;

Lem’s constant sexual innuendos with the Doctor;

The fact the Doctor kissed Lem;

Lem was determined to protect the Doctor from being attacked by every enemy he ever had;

Lem knew how to fly the TARDIS;

“LEM” was the name of the Lunar Lander in the Apollo program, which was heavily tied to the plots of The Impossible Astronaut, The Day of the Moon and The Wedding of Rivier Song;

Lem narrated the story; and

The big giveaway: the Doctor told Lem she had been fighting the psychopath within herself her entire life.

All of these facts point to Tasha Lem being River Song.

Regardless, Matt Smith, thank you for your time on Doctor Who. Job well done.

Elf, the holiday spirit, and probate law

By

Jessica_alegalgeek

-

December 21, 2013

0

As Anchorman 2 opens this weekend it’s time remember another Will Ferrell movie I watch every year with the kids…Elf, the modern-day Christmas classic (the only other holiday movie I watch every year is Love Actually, but the kids only get to watch part of that!). Bob Newhart’s in it so it’s got to be good!

In Elf, Buddy learns that he’s an elf by adoption and so he sets out to meet his biological family. And this raises a potential legal issue – how does probate law deal with adopted children when there isn’t a will in place. A will usually is the final word on who gets what after a death, although there are a variety of ways a will can be contested. But all states have intestate laws, which provide standard rules on how a deceased person’s estate will be distributed if he or she died without a will in place.

One of the issues states address in dealing with intestacy is how to treat children (kids born after a will is written, step-parents, etc.). And one question is what happens with children given up for adoption. Can adopted children inherit from their biological and adoptive parents? Can biological and/or adoptive parents inherit from children who are adopted (I can’t even think about what that question actually means).

As a general rule, once an adoption is finalized, the biological parent no longer has a legal relationship with the child. Instead, after the final adoption decree, the adopted child is viewed by the law as if he or she had been born to the adopting parents. So the child can inherit from the adoptive parents and the parents’ relatives (e.g., the adoptive grandparents, siblings, etc.) and vice versa.

While the general rule is therefore that adoption cuts off inheritance rights between biological parents and children who have been adopted by another family, there are exceptions to this rule. For example, some states (from Maine to Alaska) allow inheritance rights to continue if it’s stated in the adoption decree. Other states, big (Texas) and little (Rhode Island), say that an adoption will cut off the biological parents rights to inherit from an adopted child, but the child can still inherit from his biological parents. The Child Welfare Information Gateway covers all of the exceptions to the general rule here.

Buddy bonded with both families in Elf and hopefully both families had proper estate planning advice. So watch the movie this holiday season (and lobby for a Love Actually sequel – it could be awesome) and don’t worry about Buddy’s future. Happy holidays!