Jessica Mederson and Josh Gilliland thank the ABA Journal Editors and everyone who nominated them for the Blawg 100 list.
The Legal Geeks Made the ABA Journal Blawg 100
Thank you everyone who nominated The Legal Geeks for the ABA Journal’s Blawg 100.
Jessica and I are thrilled the editors of ABA Journal announced The Legal Geeks was selected as one of the top 100 best blogs for a legal audience.
Here is how the ABA Journal Editors described us:
Jessica Mederson and Josh Gilliland— lawyers and lovers of pop culture—are perhaps the nation’s foremost experts on the legal issues that can be studied from John Cusack movies. Don’t miss their irreverent video and audio podcasts, in which you can learn about everything from Renaissance fairs and comic-cons to torts and tortes. (You may remember Gilliland from past Blawg 100s as the author of Bow Tie Law’s Blog. The bow ties still make an appearance.)
Now that the editors have made their picks, the ABA Journal is asking readers to weigh in and vote on their favorites in each of the 7th Annual Blawg 100’s 13 categories. Go to http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100 to register and vote. Voting ends at close of business on Dec. 20, 2013. The Legal Geeks is in the For Fun category. We would appreciate your vote!
Again, Jessica and I want to thank everyone who nominated The Legal Geeks. We now ask for your vote in the For Fun category.
About the ABA Journal:
The ABA Journal is the flagship magazine of the American Bar Association, and it is read by half of the nation’s 1.1 million lawyers every month. It covers the trends, people and finances of the legal profession from Wall Street to Main Street to Pennsylvania Avenue. ABAJournal.com features breaking legal news updated as it happens by staff reporters throughout every business day, a directory of more than 3,600 lawyer blogs, and the full contents of the magazine.
About the ABA:
With nearly 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is the largest voluntary professional membership organization in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law.
Gallifrey Stands! But What About the Marriages?
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.
Leave No Man Behind & Illegal Aliens on Agents of SHIELD
Agents of SHIELD episodes The Hub and The Well touched on everything from the duty to rescue, assumption of risk and illegal aliens. Let’s discuss.
Hub of Lies
You cannot trust the system that lies to you with the intent of leaving you to die.
Agents Ward and Fitz went on a mission to take out a WMD that could set off nuclear weapons with seismic events. The only problem was Agent Victoria Hand had no plans to extract them from their mission, leaving them to die in the SHIELD attack once the weapon was deactivated.
Firemen, police officers and soldiers assume the risk of their jobs, because such professions can result in injury or death. Additionally, there is generally no duty to rescue someone unless there is a “special relationship” with that individual.
The issue with Ward and Fitz was they thought there would be someone to extract them once their mission was complete. It is one thing to send soldiers (or a SWAT team) into a high-risk situation, but it is another to lie about coming to rescue them after the mission.
There is a long standing policy in the military to “leave no man behind.” It is toxic to moral to have a Battle of Stalingrad approach of using troops as a disposable resource without at least telling them the risks of the mission.
What is the legal answer to the situation? Ward and Fitz could reasonable assume the risk their mission could result in their deaths, capture or extreme physical harm. That is simply part of the job for those in the military, police, or fire departments. This under normal circumstances would preclude a cause of action against their employer.
However, there is an X-factor: Agent Hand engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation about the mission when she lied about the rescue mission. It is one thing to send someone to their death on a mission; it is another to lie about rescuing them. Even if it was within her right to issue such an order, it is destructive to unit moral to simply lie and leave comrades to die from “friendly fire.”
Ward and Fitz might not be able to sue Agent Hand, but she likely could end up in a court-martial for her misrepresentation. That, or the least respected commander for lying about sending a rescue mission and ordering a bombing with agents still in the target building.
Good Girls Gone Bad
The rest of the team engaged in acts of hacking, shooting a superior officer and launching a rogue mission to save their team mates. All these actions carry significant legal repercussions.
Skye and Simmons conspired together to breach security above their clearance to find out details about Ward and Fitz’s mission. Simmons shot a higher ranking SHIELD agent with the “night-night gun” after being caught. As a conspiracy, Skye would also be legally responsible for the Simmons shooting (though only knocking out) a SHIELD Agent. Simmons would be legally responsible Skye’s additional hacking to find out mission details. These actions were all carried out in furtherance of the conspiracy, thus both Skye and Simmons can be charged with the crimes of the other.
There is no question that Skye and Simmons violated Federal anti-hacking laws, National security and the Military Code of Justice for shooting the SHIELD Agent.
Agent May arguably codified the conduct with the her intent to lead a rescue mission. Moreover, Agent Coulson joined the conspiracy when he participated in the rescue mission.
Given the multiple crimes committed to save their team mates who were unknowingly sent on a suicide mission, Agent Coulson only losing his Level 8 clearance seemed pretty reasonable. Everyone involved should have had a court-martial for doing the right thing.
1,000-Year-Old-Alien Hitting on Co-eds
There is no nice way to say it: Dr. Elliot Randolph is an alien. Literally AND legally. Under the law, an “alien” means “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.” 8 USCS § 1101(3). Randolph was not born in the US, thus not a citizen under the 14th Amendment. It is unknown if he ever was naturalized as a citizen, but that literally could have been 200 years in the past (assuming an alien could become a US citizen).
Randolph was an Asgardian who had been on Earth for at least 1,000 years. He appeared to be spending his time in Seville, Spain as a college professor hitting on college girls. No, he did not spend a century working on a cure for cancer, but at least he was teaching mythology/history. To his credit, Randolph also made his dinner-date student re-write her paper.
Adding to the complexity of Randolph’s immigration status, Asgardians live for thousands of years. The question remains, how was a stonemason from Asgard able to create fake identities every 50 or 60 years?
Randolph could have followed the Highlander model of fake identities. He could have had some other methodology as well for identity theft.
Regardless, Coulson’s offer to set up Randolph in Portland, Oregon would require some creative paperwork to set-up Randolph in the Pacific Northwest.
Which brings us to the final issue: Agent May left her hotel door open for Agent Ward. Not a crime, but generally a bad idea to to have a relationship with a coworker. This could also violate HR rules. Moreover, the military has rules against fraternization between officers and enlisted personnel. While May and Ward were the same clearance level, thus probably close in rank, this probably would only be a bad judgment call.
Not the First Doctor to Break the Promise
The Name of the Doctor ends with the 11th Doctor confronting a prior version of himself that “broke the promise.”
John Hurt’s “War Doctor” is not the first Doctor to break the promise of doing no harm. The Sixth Doctor did so on two major occasions.
Killer Plants from Outer Space
In Trial of a Time Lord, the Sixth Doctor was forced to commit genocide on the Vervoids in order to save others. The species was artificially created and plant-like. Given the fact the Vervoids were intent on killing humans, the Sixth Doctor’s action were justifiable under the self-defense doctrine.
That still does not change the fact the Sixth Doctor had to kill all of them.
The Butterfly Effect
The Two Doctors might the only time the Doctor killed someone with his bare hands.
The Sixth Doctor killed the Androgum Shockeye with cyanide-soaked cotton wool used to kill butterflies (which belonged to an actor that Shockeye killed). This was done after the Doctor was injured and pursued by Shockeye with knife. While the Sixth Doctor killing Shockeye would be justified as self-defense against someone trying to use lethal force, it is possibly the only time the Doctor personally killed someone.
He usually just leaves a bad guy to die.
How Not to Play Doctor
The Two Doctors also addresses medical experimentation.
Dastari from the Chimera space station performed medical experiments Androgum to “improve” them. Dastari also infused the Second Doctor with Androgum to change him into an Androgum/Time Lord hybrid against the Second Doctor’s will.
Medical experimentation on human beings requires informed consent of the patient. See, Cal Health & Saf Code § 24175.
California’s legislative intent for regulating medical experimentation on human beings is to “protect the rights of the human subjects involved.”
Moreover, the statute is to make the Nuremberg Code of Ethics in Medical Research developed after the trial of Nazi war criminals for unethical use of persons in medical experiments and the Declaration of Helsinki established recommendations guiding doctors in experimentation involving human subjects actually enforceable. Cal Health & Saf Code § 24171 (2013).
Dastari ignored these principles in his experiments on the Second Doctor, Shockeye and likely other Androgum victims who did not offer their informed consent. While none of them were human beings, they were sentient life forms that would fall under the intent of the law’s purpose to protect life.
He’s The One Who Broke the Promise
We will learn exactly how the War Doctor broke the promise on The Day of the Doctor. However, given the fact there was a universal war with both sides committing atrocities, the War Doctor’s actions likely were justified.
Too bad the War Doctor’s actions only successfully killed off every Time Lord, leaving the Daleks to return.
Day of the Doctor Who Fans
Have a jelly baby, reverse the polarity of the neutron flow, get out your recorder, power up your sonic screwdriver and pick out your best bow tie. It is time for the 50th Anniversary of Doctor Who.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino and I sat down to talk about Doctor Who. The good judge dutifully started watching Doctor Who, beginning with the 2005 series to present day. He also watched many of the classic episodes, including the Three Doctors, Trial of a Time Lord, plus others from the early years.
What can lawyers learn from Doctor Who?
Trial Presentation
For starters, Trial of a Time Lord has an interesting spin on trial presentation technology. Jurors today watch crime shows and documentaries where a conflict is neatly resolved in 45 minutes. Those same jurors expect attorneys to educate them with visual technology, whether it is an iPad App with exhibits or CGI recreations of events.
Right to Self-Defense
Davros in The Stolen Earth took a rather “how dare you be so violent” tone after the Doctor’s companions decided to fight back against the Daleks. This always struck me as odd, because the Daleks and Davros planned to use a “Reality Bomb” to exterminate all life in the universe.
Those who attempt genocide have no right to claim to be victims against those who fight back.
It is well-established in common law self-defense to use lethal force against those attempting to use lethal force on you. Moreover, it is codified in the UN Charter that countries have the right to self-defense.
As such, Davros should not be surprised that human beings would rise up instead of line up to be slaughtered.
Do People “Upgraded” To Cybermen Still Have Civil Rights?
Cybermen were assimilating people long before the Borg on Star Trek. For those poor souls who have their brain cut out, placed in a robot body, and emotions blocked, do they still retain any civil rights?
I will go with no, on the simple fact their bodies have been destroyed and they are no longer legally alive.
Who Owns the Earth?
Do the Silurians and Sea Devils have superior claim of ownership over the Earth than human beings? Or did they abandon the Earth?
Most abandonment laws require the owner clearly demonstrates surrendering property rights and a demonstration the owner knowingly gave up control over the property. See, Abandonment.
Silurians outright leaving the Earth for another planet clearly shows abandonment of the Earth. It gets a little more complicated with those who went into suspended animation. However, since the Silurians and Sea Devils went into suspended animation in excess of 65 million years, they really have no valid claim to the entire planet.
This does not mean the inhabitants could not share the planet. There are tons of places where humans would not survive that reptiles and sea creatures would thrive.
Wills & Weeping Angels
Weeping Angels can make estate planning strange, because someone who is a victim of a Weeping Angel could will themselves property in the future (which could create a paradox or a pre-destination loop). The victim could also leave property for another. This could get into the Rule Against Perpetuities, depending on how far back in time the victim is sent.
Adipose Paternity Rights
Do the victims who had Adipose created from their body fat have any paternity rights?
Might likely no, because paternity rights cases address children being conceived by human beings. As the Adipose are not human, but made from human body fat, they are not human beings, thus not subject to our paternity laws. See, Cal Fam Code § 7611.
The Day of the Lawyer
Doctor Who has 50 years of legal issues. While few tune in to watch for possible causes of action or crimes to discuss, there is no question Doctor Who has been a great adventure in time and space loved across the planet.
Almost Legal on Almost Human
Almost Human is a great ride in Constitutional criminal procedure. Could a robot be a police officer? Could a robot police officer arrest a human being? How about testify in court? What possible issues could arise from robotic law enforcement?
The most legally helpful comparisons we have are red light cameras and police dogs.
I blogged on hearsay issues over red light cameras on Bow Tie Law with PhotoCop & The Red Light of Admissibility. The California Supreme Court has held that that “our courts have refused to require, as a prerequisite to admission of computer records, testimony on the ‘acceptability, accuracy, maintenance, and reliability of … computer hardware and software.’ ” People v. Goldsmith, 203 Cal. App. 4th 1515, 1523 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2012).
What would that mean for a robot? Would any “testimony” from a robot be testimony or merely computer records?
If we are treating robots like “people,” they would be testifying in court. If we are merely processing data from a robot police officer, then the robot police officer could not technically make a statement, because the robot is not a person under the California Evidence Code section 175.
There is a large number of cases focused on police dogs. In one case, the failure to give a verbal warning by police before using a dog trained to bite and hold was sufficient to state a Fourth Amendment claim. Kuha v City of Minnetonka, 328 F.3d 427 (8th Cir., 2003). Other cases address excessive force with untrained police dogs. Campbell v the City of Springboro, 788 F.Supp.2nd 637 (S.D. Ohio, 2011). States also have punishments for harming police dogs. State v. Kisor, 844 P.2d 1038 (Wash.App.Div. 2, 1993), Utah Code Ann. 76-9-306.
The precedents for police dogs ranging from class three felony for intentionally harming a dog to excessive force lawsuits give a preview of how robotic police officers could be viewed by the law. A robot police officer that acts human, works with humans and protects humans, would likely be viewed as a “police officer” under the law. This would include enhanced punishments for destroying a robot police officer and even civil rights violations.
Will we see these issues unfold on Almost Human? I do not know, but would be happy to brainstorm with the writers.