Can IG-88 Enter a Contract?

By

-

November 1, 2019

The Mandalorian will feature IG-11, an assassin droid, who is seen in a gunfight in the first two previews. This is not the first time we have seen an IG Droid. The first was IG-88, who appeared in The Empire Strikes Back. These autonomous killing machines have appeared in multiple animated series as well. This raises the question; can an IG Droid enter a contract? Bounty hunting is a complicated profession, especially if a bounty hunter does not meet the legal definition of “person.”

Who Can Enter a Contract?

The law states “all persons are capable of contracting, except minors, persons of unsound mind, and persons deprived of civil rights.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1556, emphases added. There are multiple definitions of “person.” Consider these two examples:

“Person” means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.

Cal. Com. Code § 1201(b)(27)

“Person” includes a natural person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation, limited liability company, or public entity.

Cal. Evid. Code § 175

The legal definition of “person” includes those who are nature born human beings or legal entities that conduct business or services. Moreover, every “person” within a state such as California, is subject to its jurisdiction and entitled to its protection. Cal. Gov’t Code § 270. Furthermore, it is universal language in Constitutions to state that “all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” Cal Const, Art. I § 1, emphasis added.

The law does not address artificial intelligence, however the law does address “artificial persons” such as corporations. This raises the question; can a computer enter a contract? In the 1996 law review article Harvard Journal of Law & Technology that addressed whether computers could enter trading contracts, the essential question was whether the behavior manifested by the computer is roughly approximate to the behavior manifested by a person who understands that his or her actions may lead to the creation of a contract. Tom Allen and Robin Widdison, Can Computers Make Contracts? 9 Harv. J. Law & Tec 25, *39-40 (Winter, 1996).

Does any IG Droid understand that its actions can create a contract? This raises the issue of capacity.

Do IG Droids Have the Mental Capacity to Enter a Contract?

The law defines “capacity” to enter a contract as “a person’s ability to understand the nature and consequences of a decision and to make and communicate a decision, and includes in the case of proposed health care, the ability to understand its significant benefits, risks, and alternatives.” Cal. Prob. Code § 4609.

Case law goes further into describing contract formation requires that parties must have a “mutual understanding of what is being done.” Estate of Ginsberg 11 Cal.App.2d 210, 216 (1936).

IG-88 clearly understood that Darth Vader’s bounty was to capture the Millennium Falcon with the crew alive by any means necessary and no disintegrations. The terms were clear. While we never heard IG-88 speak in a film, the bounty hunter either understood the terms of the contract, and failed to capture the Millennium Falcon, or rejected the terms, and did not attempt to capture the Millennium Falcon.

What Will We See in The Mandalorian?

The ability for IG-88 or IG-11 to be able to enter into a contract will turn on whether they have the same behavior manifested by a person who understands that his or her actions may lead to the creation of a contract. While the law does not define artificial intelligence as a “person,” the law does recognize artificial persons such as corporations. If a IG droid can manifest an understanding that they have a contract, the law could recognize their ability to enter into agreements.

Can You Defend the Invisible Man for Breaking Out of Prison?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 29, 2019

0

The 1940 Invisible Man Returns features Vincent Price as Sir Geoffrey Radcliffe, an owner of a coalmine who is falsely convicted for the death of his brother and sentenced to death. The legal system having failed him, Radcliffe’s friend Dr. Frank Griffin, brother to the deceased original Invisible Man, used the invisibly formula on Radcliffe so he could escape execution. Imagine the Fugitive, but the hero is invisible and slowly going insane while looking for the real killer.

It should be clear as day that prison breaks are frowned upon. The punishment for a prison break for a felony is a fine or five years in prison. 18 U.S.C.S. § 751(a). Moreover, those who aide in a prison break can also be subject to imprisonment for up to five years. 18 U.S.C.S. § 752.

Here is the thing for Sir Geoffrey Radcliffe: he was to be executed the day of the escape. Legally speaking, Radcliffe had nothing to lose. Dr. Griffin on the other hand had a lot to lose with imprisonment for aiding in the escape of a felon. Lucky for both, there is a defense for them: Necessity Defense based on Radcliffe’s actual innocence. The necessity defense has a three-part test:

(1) There is no legal alternative to violating the law;

(2) The harm to be prevented is imminent; and

(3) A direct, causal relationship is reasonably anticipated to exist between defendant’s action and the avoidance of harm.

United States v. Benally, 233 F. App’x 864, 868 (10th Cir. 2007).

Sir Radcliffe had no legal alternative to violating the law, as he was going to be executed for a crime he did not commit; his execution was imminent; and Radcliffe escaped prison to avoid being executed for his brother’s death. As society does not want death row prisoners escaping, we have to address the fact that Radcliffe was innocent and that the legal system failed him. Even after escaping, Radcliffe would still need to prove his actual innocence, which would require:

(1) The new evidence will probably change the result if a new trial is granted;

(2) It must have been discovered since the trial;

(3) It must be such as could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise of due diligence;

(4) It must be material to the issue;

(5) It must not be cumulative; and

(6) It must not be merely impeaching or contradictory to the former evidence.

See People v Marino, 99 AD3d 726, 730; People v Tankleff, 49 AD3d at 179.

Radcliffe was successful in learning about the conspiracy to kill his brother and the identity of the killer. The ultimate confessions by two individuals would be “new evidence” that would have changed the result of the trial, that was material, and there was no way to know it. Because if due diligence could have discovered the evidence, both the prosecutor and defense attorney would wish they were invisible before the ethics board.

Obstruction of Justice in Son of Frankenstein

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 25, 2019

0

Baron Wolf von Frankenstein failed to disclose to Inspector Krogh that he had treated the injured Frankenstein’s Creature. Does that failure (or cover-up) amount to obstruction of justice?

The Federal definition of obstruction of justice is:

Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

18 USCS. app. § 1510.

The elements to prove obstruction are the 1) willful endeavor by means of certain actions to prevent communication of information relative to violation of any criminal statute of United States and 2) criminal investigator must be individual authorized by department or agency of United States to conduct or engage in investigations of all prosecutions for violation of criminal law of United States. United States v. Williams, 470 F.2d 1339 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 936, 93 S. Ct. 1912, 36 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1973).

Inspector Krogh confronted Dr. Frankenstein after the murder of Ewald Neumüller, who was the 7^th victim to have a burst heart. Neumüller was one of the last two surviving jurors who had convicted Igor to hang. The other jurors were the other victims of burst hearts. Krogh did not outright ask Frankenstein if he had created a new Monster or knew the identity of the killer. However, Krogh did ask Frankenstein if there was any reason the Frankenstein family would not be safe on their estate.

Dr. Frankenstein did not openly incriminate himself with the Inspector’s questions. However, when asked about the whereabouts of the butler Thomas Benson, Frankenstein stated that Benson had been prone to go out drinking because of his war service. This apparently was a lie, which was contradicted by Elsa von Frankenstein’s discussion of Benson’s character.

Inspector Krogh’s second attempt at questioning Dr. Frankenstein was over the death of Emil Lang, who also had a burst heart. The inspector directly stated he believed the doctor who the identity of the killer. While not technically lying, an agitated Frankenstein said the monster was the killer. Upon further questioning, the doctor named Igor. The inspector countered that Igor was publically seen playing music at the time of the murders. Dr. Frankenstein failed to disclose that he had confront the Creature and Igor after the first round of questioning where Igor admitted to the murders.

Did these actions by Dr. Frankenstein amount to a willful endeavor by means of certain actions to prevent communication of information relative to violation of any criminal statute? The answer is clearly yes.

Dr. Frankenstein had direct knowledge that the Creature was alive. He did not have direct evidence of the Creature’s involvement in the killings during the first round of questioning, but the doctor did have suspicions. Moreover, Dr. Frankenstein was not truthful about his butler Benson. While the doctor did not know Benson had been killed, the doctor did know Benson was missing. Furthermore, Dr. Frankenstein had confronted Igor and had an admission of guilt, which the doctor failed to disclose to Inspector Krogh.

The lesson here is clear: Don’t play mad scientist and don’t lie to law enforcement investigating murders from the Creature you reanimated.

Was There a Duty to Treat Frankenstein’s Creature in Son of Frankenstein?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 20, 2019

0

In the film Son of Frankenstein, Igor took Dr. Wolf von Frankenstein to find a comatose Creature in the crypt where Frankenstein’s ancestors had been buried. Did Dr. Frankenstein have a duty to treat the comatose Creature?

There is a duty for hospitals to provide emergency care to those present at the hospital. 42 U.S.C.S. § 1395dd(a). If an emergency medical condition exists, the hospital must either treat the medical condition to stabilize the emergency or transfer the patient to another medical facility. 42 U.S.C.S. § 1395dd(b)(1)(A) and (B). However, in the Creature’s case, he had been in a coma for an extended period of time after being struck by lightning. The test to determine whether there is a medical emergency under “Good Samaritan” laws is “whether the undisputed facts establish the existence of an exigency of so pressing a character that some kind of action must be taken.” Bryant v. Bakshandeh 226 Cal. App. 3d 1241 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Jan. 15, 1991). Under the facts of a Creature given life by reanimated body parts being in a coma, there arguably is not a situation requiring immediate action to be taken. Moreover, a crypt under a laboratory is not an emergency room, so it is doubtful such a legal duty would apply.

Dr. Frankenstein did not have a duty to treat the Creature, but did he create a duty? The test is whether a physician had rendered professional services that had been accepted by another for medical or surgical treatment. See, Hanrahan v. Good Samaritan Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2013 NY Slip Op 33418(U), ¶ 3 (Sup. Ct.). This is a factual issue for a jury. Quirk v. Zuckerman, 765 N.Y.S.2d 440, 442-43 (Sup. Ct. 2003) citing Wienk-Evans v North Shore Univ. Hosp. at Glen Cove, 702 N.Y.S.2d 917 [2000].

The Creature was in a coma and could not personally consent. There was no apparent power of attorney giving Igor the right to seek medical care on the Creature’s behalf. Such acceptance would have to be implied, because few individuals would want to refuse medical care in order to stay in a coma. Given the actions taken by Dr. Frankenstein, he did create a doctor-patient relationship with the Creature. This raises the issue that once the Doctor learned the Creature was a danger to others, did Dr. Frankenstein have a duty to tell Inspector Krogh of the danger? While there is an exception for psychotherapists to warn of a patient’s specific threats to law enforcement, Dr. Frankenstein is not a psychotherapist. Cal Civ Code § 43.92. Dr. Frankenstein would have a duty of confidentiality to the Creature for his medical treatment, but not to Igor. If Dr. Frankenstein suspected Igor was nefariously using the Creature to cause harm, reporting Igor’s conduct does not violate the doctor-patient privilege. Moreover, suspecting Igor was using the Creature should be reported to law enforcement.

Can the Invisible Man be Prosecuted for Indecent Exposure?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 9, 2019

0

The Invisible Man does not have invisible clothes. This requires that he remove his clothes to be fully invisible, opposed to clothes filled by an empty void (done brilliantly in the 1940 The Invisible Man Returns). If the Invisible Man goes out in public, can he be prosecuted for indecent exposure?

Indecent exposure in California is when a person either willfully or lewdly “exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby.” Cal. Penal Code § 314(1).

The Invisible Man did willfully go in public places where other persons were present while naked. The issue is whether he “exposed” himself. While he technically was naked, and if someone interacting with him knew he was naked, would that meet the statute? Alternatively, does the fact the Invisible Man cannot be seen mean he cannot “expose” himself? Would “expose” be a subjective standard in simply knowing a translucent person is naked in public? Or is it a strict liability for simply being naked in public, regardless of whether the Invisible Man is visible?

Case law does add some illumination to these questions. There must be a specific intent to expose one’s genitals as a necessary element for the offense of indecent exposure. People v. Massicot, 97 Cal. App. 4th 920 (Apr. 17, 2002). Specific intent to commit indecent exposure was found in a case where the defendant broke into a home naked, but the victim was unable to see the defendant’s genitals because he was behind a dresser. People v. Rehmeyer, 19 Cal App 4th 1758 (1993). Moreover, the gravamen of indecent exposure is the exposure and not the number of observers. People v. Smith, 209 Cal. App. 4th 910 (Oct. 1, 2012).

What does this mean for the Invisible Man? He intended to expose himself in order to not be seen. One can argue being invisible was like being behind a dresser, thus blocking the view of his entire naked body. Alternatively, the fact he is invisible and naked shows there is intent to not expose himself. This paradox illustrates the law is not designed for invisible people to be prosecuted under indecent exposure, because it creates legal impossibilities that can simultaneously meet and fail to meet legal standards of a crime.

Defending the Invisible Man

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 3, 2019

0

The 1933 Invisible Man is the story of Dr. Jack Griffin who had been turned invisible by an experiment involving a rare drug named monocane. Unbeknownst to Dr. Griffin, monocane had a side effect of turning subjects mad. When the audience first is introduced to Dr. Griffen, he is invisible, wrapped in bandages, curt, rude, and clearly under stress. He rents a room with a sitting room for a makeshift laboratory at a tavern and inn named the Lion’s Head. Life goes downhill from there.

Griffin eventually is evicted for being a week late in rent. He slammed the door on one of the owners of the inn, followed by assaulting the other by pushing him down the stairs. At that point, Griffin goes full super villain. His rampage included:

Straggling a police inspector to death;

Taking his colleague Dr. Kemp as a hostage for assistance;

Forcing Dr. Kemp to assist in recovering Dr. Griffin’s notebooks;

Assaults a room full of people by throwing beer steins;

Threatens to kill Dr. Kemp the next night at 10:00pm;

Causes a train derailment that resulted in 100 deaths;

Kills two volunteers searching for him;

Kills Dr. Kemp; and

Trespasses in a barn

Dr. Jack Griffin did A LOT of harm. He had a death toll over 100, plus a long list of people he assaulted. Defending him would not be easy, but he does have one defense: insanity.

The insanity defense requires the defense to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Griffin was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his actions because of a severe mental disease or defect. 18 U.S.C.S. § 17. This requires expert testimony and evidence that Dr. Griffin suffered from a mental illness and did not understand murdering people was wrong. The defense could actually be successful with testimony from Dr. Cranley (played by Henry Travers, who would later play the guardian angel Clarence Odbody in It’s a Wonderful Life). Dr. Cranley knew the dangers of monocane from published German research. Additional evidence could be offered from the German publication on the dangers of the drug and Dr. Griffin’s notes to show he had treated himself with the drug.

It is worth noting that Dr. Griffin not knowing the harmful effects of the drug should be entered into evidence. While there is no doubt risk from trying to turn oneself invisible, the fact the research he had was prior to the publication of the German research, shows he did not knowing take a drug that could drive him mad.

The Invisible Man has one of the largest body counts of any of the Universal Monsters. He also has a legitimate claim to the insanity defense. Does that excuse the deaths? No, but it would be unjust to simply call him a monster without giving him a fair trial.

False Impersonation, Larceny, and Data Breaches in The Clone Wars

By

Josh Gilliland

-

September 25, 2019

0

You don’t need a holocron to see all of the legal issues in The Clone Wars arch Holocron Heist, Cargo of Doom, and Children of the Force. In this season two story, Cad Bane was retained by Darth Sidious to steal a Jedi Holocron from the Jedi Temple in order to access a kyber crystal with all of the personal information of children strong in the Force, and then to go kidnap children. There is a lot to unpack in these episodes.

Holocron Heist

Cad Bane retained the shape shifter Cato Parasitti to assume the identify (and shape) of Jedi Ord Enisence, who was murdered by Bane. Cad Bane and Cato Parasitti both committed trespassing in the Jedi Temple, which is entering property without the owner’s consent, which is why Parasitti’s shape shifting abilities were needed for the heist. Cal. Penal Code § 602(m). Once inside the Jedi Temple, Parasitti assumed the identify of Jocasta Nu. Parasitti assisted Bane by providing operational support from inside the Jedi Temple by accessing the Jedi computer system. The unauthorized computer access would be a computer crime under California law, because Bane and Parasitti were in a conspiracy to use the Jedi computer system both deceive through impersonating a Jedi and to wrongful control Jedi property by stealing a Holocron. Cal. Penal Code § 502(c)(1).

The law does not specifically address shapeshifters, but it does address false impersonation of another person:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense punishable pursuant to subdivision (d).

Cal. Penal Code § 528.5(a).

Parasitti impersonated both Ord Enisence and Jocasta Nu using electronic means (the computers in the Jedi Library) for the purpose of defrauding the Jedi of property (the aforementioned holocron). Without impersonating a Jedi, Parasitti would not have had access to the Jedi’s computer system.

If this was simply a case of taking library property, the fine for taking the holocron would be a fine of at least $50 but not more than $1,000. Cal. Penal Code § 490.5. However, this case is not one of simply taking a library book. The holocrons were kept in a vault with limited access only to the Jedi Counsel. The value of the holocron should exceed $950, making the criminal action grand theft. Cal. Penal Code § 487(a).

Cad Bane gained entrance to the Jedi Temple using stolen codes to get past a security shield. At a minimum, this is a trespass. However, since the Jedi Temple is inhabited by the Jedi (many live there), the elements for burglary are met, because the Cad Bane entered the Temple with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny. Cal. Penal Code § 459.

Cargo of Doom

The second episode in this three-part story opens with Jedi Bolla Ropal being held onboard a Separatist warship in energy bonds. Bane ordered Droids to inflict pain upon Ropal to compel him to open the kyber crystal containing personal identifiable information of Force sensitive children. This would meet the legal definition of torture, which is when a person (Bane) caused extreme pain for the purpose of persuasion of Ropal. Cal. Penal Code § 206. Bolla Ropal died from being tortured which would be first-degree murder. Cal. Penal Code § 189.

Cad Bane ultimately gained access to the kyber crystal, which allowed him to access an untold number of Force-sensitive children. If the Republic, or planet within the Republic had a data breach law like California’s, things would get messy fast. The fact Bane was able to access encrypted personal identifiable information, means that an unauthorized person accessed the data, which would require the Jedi to inform those whose data was breached. Cal Civ Code § 1798.29.

There was just one problem: the Jedi did not have the list of the Force-sensitive children within their control. They literally had to use the Force to figure out children who were potentially at risk.

Children of the Force

Darth Sidious is really bad with Younglings. Cad Bane’s scope of work was expanded to taking Force-sensitive children from their parents. Bane posed as a Jedi and took two children from their families. This is kidnapping, which is when any person who takes another person into another country, state, or county. Cal. Penal Code § 207.

Mustafar would be high on the list of where NOT to take a child under any circumstance.

The children were kidnapped in order for Darth Sidious to conduct medical experiments upon them (foreshadowing what ultimately would be Inquisitors in Star Wars Rebels). There is no way these experiments would have been legal. In order for any medical experiments to be authorized, the parents would have needed to give their informed consent, which would have needed to include the a) nature and purpose of the experiment; b) an explanation of the medical procedures; c) a description of the risks reasonably expected from the experiment; d) explanation of the benefits of the experiment; e) explanation of alternative procedures; f) be informed of the avenues of medical treatment, if any, available to the subject after the experiment if complications should arise; g) Be given an opportunity to ask any questions concerning the experiment or the procedures involved; h) be instructed that consent to participate in the medical experiment may be withdrawn at any time and the subject may discontinue participation in the medical experiment without prejudice; i) Be given a copy of the signed and dated written consent form; and j) be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 24172.

The parents of the Force-sensitive children had no such opportunities, because their children were KIDNAPPED! Moreover, Darth Sidious took the position that if the children died, he lost nothing.

That is not the sort of guy you want as a babysitter.

The entire story arch of Darth Sidious retaining Cad Bane to murder, steal personal identifiable information, and kidnap children for medical experimentation, shows how “dark” the Dark Side is for achieving universal domination at any cost. These are great episodes and worthy of re-watching.