Species Protection for the Zillo Beast

By

-

November 13, 2019

Image showing Zillow Beast from Star Wars: The Clone Wars

“[The beast] has no voice to defend itself. Anakin, we have to be that voice.”

-Senator Padmé Amidala

The tale of the Zillo Beast happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, but Senator Amidala’s quote perfectly captures the conservationist sentiment that prevailed here in the U.S. in 1973 when Congress passed the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). As the Star Wars saga’s answer to classic kaiju, the Zillo Beast appeared in two episodes of The Clone Wars, Season Two. While battling a Separatist invasion on the planet Malastare, Republic forces unwittingly unearthed the last known specimen of the legendary Zillo Beasts. After subduing the creature, Palpatine ordered Anakin Skywalker and Mace Windu to transport it to Coruscant for study. How might the broad protections of the ESA apply to a creature as rare as the Zillo Beast?

The Malastare Zillo Beast was an “endling”—the term for the last known individual of a species. As an endling, the beast almost certainly would qualify as an “endangered” species, the most at-risk ESA listing classification reserved for wildlife species that are “in danger of extinction.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(6). This listing category would entitle the beast to the highest level of species conservation protections under the ESA, which prohibit hunting, capturing, and transporting of specimens. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1). So technically, the removal of the beast from Malastare to Coruscant would violate the ESA and the Jedi could face civil and criminal fines and possibly even a short prison sentence.

However, the ESA provides some limited exceptions to endangered species protections. One exception allows the federal government to issue a permit for the capture and transportation of endangered species for “scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species, including . . . acts necessary for the establishment and maintenance of experimental populations.” 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(1)(A).

And in fact, after the beast escapes, rampages through Coruscant, and is ultimately destroyed, Palpatine gives a sinister order to clone the Zillo Beast for his dark, secret purposes. This order was the last time the beast was mentioned in The Clone Wars thus far, but in a series with “clone” in the title, it seems very likely that cloning is a viable option for “enhancing the survival of the species” in Star Wars. Granted, here on Earth, cloning technology is not sufficiently advanced to reliably clone animals, and the ESA does not contemplate cloning as a method of species recovery.

But perhaps Palpatine’s cloning program has come to fruition with a new experimental population of Zillo Beasts. In the Star Wars: Age of Resistance – Kylo Ren #1 comic, the new Supreme Leader battles and kills a Zillo Beast on a remote Outer Rim world. Maybe this encounter indicates that Zillo Beasts have recovered as a species thanks to Palpatine’s clone-conservation efforts. On the other hand, if that Outer Rim creature was itself an endling, perhaps Kylo has wiped Zillo Beasts from the galaxy… again? Now more than ever—both in Star Wars and on our planet—strong environmental legal protections are important to stemming the devastating loss of plant and animal species caused by habitat destruction, climate change, and the occasional rampaging Kylo Ren.

Stay in School: An Analysis of Scholastic Sanctuary in His Dark Materials

By

Gabriella Martin

-

November 10, 2019

0

The long anticipated television adaptation of Phillip Pullman’s His Dark Materials series is finally here. Like HBO’s other major fantasy drama, Game of Thrones, His Dark Materials exists in its own world, with its own laws and lexicon. The concept of scholastic sanctuary in particular is front and center in the pilot episode, “Lyra’s Jordan.”

The episode opens during the Great Flood, with Lord Asriel (James McAvoy) arriving at Jordan College in Oxford with his infant niece, Lyra Belacqua. He leaves her in the care of Dr. Carne (Clarke Peters) invoking the protection of scholastic sanctuary. In this context, scholastic sanctuary appears to have some element of infant safe haven law attached to it.

Infant Safe Haven laws are state laws which have been enacted to address infant abandonment concerns and prevent infants from being left in places that pose a threat to their health and safety. They exist in some form in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. These laws allow parents to relinquish newborn infants at certain locations without fear of prosecution within a certain time period after the infant’s birth. The statutes also discuss the liabilities and responsibilities of these safe havens–hospitals, fire stations, etc— have with regard to the relinquished newborn. Baby Lyra seems to fit within at least two states’ safe haven period as she appears to be less than a year old when Asriel carries her through the flooded Oxford campus. What is less clear, are the responsibilities and liabilities Dr. Carne and Jordan College have with regards to taking Lyra in under the veil of scholastic sanctuary.

Dr. Carne tells Asriel that Jordon College is “not suitable for a child.” However, it appears that as Asriel invoked scholastic sanctuary, the college has the responsibility of sheltering baby Lyra from whatever it is outside the college that endangers her. This privilege seems to be so absolute that Asriel feels confident leaving his niece in the hands of the Master before taking off again.

Whether this initial guarantee of protection was indefinite, or whether at some point, between the relinquishment by Asriel and the cut to present day, a guardianship agreement was drafted in which Dr. Carne became Lyra’s legal guardian, remains to be seen. We clearly see that the Master’s responsibilities and duties have expanded beyond mere protection to full-fledged guardianship.

The concept of scholastic sanctuary becomes even more complicated when it is next brought up by the Librarian. He tells Lyra that if not for scholastic sanctuary, neither of them would be there. It’s unclear whether he means alive in general or just enjoying all that Jordan College has to offer. The Librarian also hints that scholastic sanctuary was a privilege that had to be earned and one that “must not be abused.” According to the HDM wiki, scholastic sanctuary is “the idea of giving sanctuary to an individual at a scholastic place.” The traditional Latin invocation of scholastic sanctuary in the HDM series, gives us a bit more information, it speaks of “legem de refugio scholasticorum” (the laws of refuge of scholastics) and seeks the “protectionem tegimentumque huius collegii” (protection and shelter of this college). While it’s not a whole lot, it does indicate that the law of scholastic sanctuary operates as a quasi refugee and/or sensitive location law. How similar to either would depend on whether the Magisterium, which presumably governs the right of scholastic sanctuary, operates on a federal-like system or is a more international body, akin to something like the United Nations.

The 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees, and its 1967 protocol, defines who a refugee is, sets out the rights of individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum to refugees. It was initially enacted to protect the European refugees displaced as a result of WWII. The key element here being the responsibilities of those nations who accept refugees, known as “contracting states.” The convention sets out the basic treatments and protections of refugees who are granted asylum. This seems to be a bit of a broader concept than scholastic sanctuary. Although, one can assume that the privilege of scholastic sanctuary has been written down in some form of law governed by the Magisterium. This document also presumably indicates who and what may be protected by scholastic sanctuary, what the responsibilities are of the academic institution providing the sanctuary, and most importantly what goes beyond the protection of scholastic sanctuary. We see this later in the episode when Lord Carlo Boreal meets with Father MacPhail. The two discuss Asriel’s declaration that he can see a hidden city in the Dust. Father MacPhail asks whether “the Master of Jordan College risks him saying as much?” Boreal simply responds, “scholastic sanctuary.” Father MacPhail goes on to wonder whether the Master can be “so naive as to imagine that scholastic sanctuary protects him from the accusation of heresy.” This is our first indication that scholastic sanctuary is not an absolute protection.

Another possibly applicable legal doctrine is that of “sensitive locations.” Sensitive locations refers to a Department of Homeland Security policy that governs the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) and its procedures regarding arresting undocumented individuals. The policy prohibits enforcement actions at so-called sensitive locations, including places of worship, schools, and hospitals, except in “limited circumstances.” It is a policy intended to “to enhance public understanding and trust, and to ensure that people seeking to participate in the activities or utilize the services provided at any sensitive location are free to do so, without fear or hesitation.” Similarly, it appears that scholastic sanctuary prevents the Magisterium from going after those who are under the protection of the college, except when it comes to the crime of heresy.

What will be interesting to see as the series continues is whether the writers plan to take a political stance and use how the Magisterium chooses to enforce or not enforce scholastic sanctuary as a mirror to the current issues we see with ICE and the sensitive locations policy. It can be assumed that Lord Asriel’s decision to continue investigating the Dust and the hidden city will no doubt factor in any future treatment of scholastic sanctuary by the Magisterium.

Could Japanese Tourists in the U.S. and Mexico Successfully Apply For Asylum During A Kaiju Rampage in Japan?

By

Nikhil Shah

-

November 3, 2019

0

My last article dealt with U.S. refugee procedure for those Japanese citizens in Japan who were displaced. In this article I would like to discuss the situation of Japanese tourists who were visiting the U.S. or Mexico on vacation and Godzilla or another Kaiju attacked and ransacked Japan.

Say a Japanese tourist was in Los Angeles and the events of the Godzilla movie, Godzilla, King Ghiddorah, Mothra: Monsters all-out Attack (GMK) occurred. What option would that Japanese tourist have if his or her stay was about to expire and his homeland was being destroyed by Godzilla? In the prior article, I went over the legal standard for refugee status which is also the same for asylum. Asylum is a procedure that a person applies for within the U.S. or at a U.S. port of entry. If they were in Los Angeles and they found that Godzilla was attacking Japanese people because of their nationality with the aim to destroy them and the government of Japan was unable to stop him, they could apply for asylum. The individual applying for asylum has to do so within a year of his entry into the U.S. This should not be a problem for a tourist from Japan as their stay is usually limited to three months or less. However, if a Japanese Citizen was here on another temporary non immigrant visa like an H1B and had lived in the U.S. for two years on that visa and Godzilla began his rampage during the second year, he or she can apply for an exception to the one year requirement such as changed circumstances in the home country or them possessing a valid visa to stay in the U.S. prior to filing the asylum application.[1]

The person would have to file the asylum application with supplemental information to the U.S Citizenship and Immigration office having jurisdiction over their case. In Southern California, this would be the Anaheim Asylum office. Under new regulations under the Trump administration, the individual would be interviewed for the basis of their claim within a month of submission of the claim. During the interview, the officer at the asylum office would ask the person questions for several hours to determine if they meet the standards for asylum. If their case is approved, they are granted asylee status and can apply for Legal Permanent Residency (green card) after one year. If their case is denied by the asylum office, they are referred to Immigration Court for removal proceedings, where they may renew the request for asylum and appear before an Immigration Judge. If the Immigration Judge grants their case, he or she can again apply for permanent residency within a year. If the Judge denies their case, they can appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) and if the Board denies it, to the Circuit Court within their jurisdiction.

In Immigration Court, the individual can also apply for other forms of relief that is related to asylum called Withholding of Removal and Withholding of Removal Under the Convention Against Torture.[2] Withholding of removal has fewer bars than asylum, but it has a higher standard. An applicant must show that it is more likely than not that he or she will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion upon deportation to her home country. That persecution is “more likely than not” is a substantially higher burden of proof than showing a “well-founded fear” which is the standard of asylum as discussed in the previous article. The applicant can also apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture in Immigration Court. In order to qualify for this relief, an applicant must show that it is more likely than not that he or she will be tortured upon deportation to his or her home country. The applicant is not required to show a nexus: unlike with asylum or withholding, the torture that the applicant fears does not need to be inflicted on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. The definition of torture includes both physical and mental pain and suffering such as beating, burns, electric shocks, suspension, suffocation, exposure to excessive light, sexual aggression, prolonged denial of food, hygiene, food and medical assistance, etc. The Convention’s definition of torture covers only acts “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”[3] Torture may be committed by a private actor so long as the government acquiesces to the actions. A public official’s awareness or knowledge of, or “willful blindness” toward, a private actor’s torture is sufficient to meet this requirement. Again, it would be easy to show that the Japanese Citizen would be subjected to conduct defined as torture by Godzilla with the government acquiescing to the torture because of them being overpowered by the indestructible King of Monsters. Being granted withholding of removal or withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture does not lead to Legal Permanent Residency and Citizenship but just temporary permission to stay in the U.S. and work authorization.

This is the procedure for someone physically in the U.S. who applies for asylum. What happens if a Japanese tourist is visiting Mexico and got stuck there during Godzilla’s rampage on Japan? That individual could come to a U.S. port of entry and request asylum. However, under the new Migrant Protection Protocols by the Trump administration, migrants are prevented from applying for asylum if they passed another country other than their own before arriving to the U.S.[4] That means that asylum seekers from any country but Mexico will now be ineligible for asylum if they show up at the southern border. The person would be forced to show that he or she applied for asylum in Mexico first and had their claim rejected there. The U.S. Courts have not had the same confidence in the ability of the Mexican government to protect citizens under its control as the Trump administration does. In Madrigal v. Holder, the court held that a former Mexican military member who was targeted by the drug cartels in Mexico could be eligible for relief under the Convention Against Torture. 716 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2013). The court in Madrigal found that the government of Mexico was unable to curtail the violence there because of high levels of corruption at the local and state levels. Id. 506-507. The court stated, “Voluminous evidence in the record explains that corruption of public officials in Mexico remains a problem, particularly at the state and local levels of government, with police officers and prison guards frequently working directly on behalf of drug cartels” Id. at 510. The court again reaffirmed that the Mexican government’s ineptness in protected vulnerable individuals in Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2015). Despite this, the Trump administration has deemed Mexico a safe third country. An interesting dilemma may also develop is if the kaiju, Rodan, began a rampage in Mexico as occurred in the recent movie King of the Monsters. In the movie it was very clear that Mexico was unable to contain Rodan.

If the person applied for asylum in Mexico and was rejected, they could present themselves at the U.S. port of entry and request asylum. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials would then conduct something called a credible fear interview.[5] Credible fear of persecution or torture means that the person has proven that he or she has a “significant possibility” of establishing eligibility for asylum or other protection under the Convention Against Torture. The individual will then be referred to immigration court to proceed with the defensive asylum application process.

If the credible fear is denied, the individual is ordered removed. The individual can ask for an Immigration Judge to review the process. If the Immigration Judge overturns a negative credible fear finding, the individual is placed in further removal proceedings. If the Immigration Judge upholds the negative finding by the asylum officer, the individual will be removed from the U.S. According to the new rules of the Trump administration, the individual seeking asylum must wait in Mexico until the conclusion of his removal proceedings and will only be allowed in to the U.S. if their asylum case is approved.

Usually when a major calamity like Godzilla’s destruction occurs in a country, and residents of that country are in the U.S., the government of the U.S. starts a program for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for them. TPS offers a temporary legal status to certain immigrants in the U.S. who cannot return to their country of origin due to ongoing armed conflict, natural disaster, or other extraordinary reasons. The Secretary of Homeland Security has discretion to decide when a country merits a TPS designation and they are usually granted for anywhere from 6 months to a year and a half at a time. Individuals are given work authorization during the pendency of their TPS status. However, the Trump administration has declined to designate TPS status to Bahamians after Hurricane Dorian, Venezuelans after major political instability in their country, and has set end dates for the TPS programs for El Salvador, Honduras, Sudan and Haiti so I would not put too much hope on this effort. It seems like the best option for Japanese nationals to have is to avoid seeking the wrath of Godzilla at any cost or make arrangements to go to Canada instead.

Nikhil Shah is an Immigration Attorney based in the Los Angeles area. His areas of specialty include asylum and refugee law and federal court litigation.

[1] INA § 208(a)(2)(D), 8 CFR §§ 208.4(a)(4) and 208.4(a)(5).

[2] INA § 241(b)(3); INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30 (1984); 8 CFR § 208.16(c)(2).

[3] 8 CFR § 208.18(a)(1).

[4] The U.S. already has a safe third country agreement with Canada since 2004.

[5] 8 CFR §§ 208.30, 235.3(b)(1)(4), 1208.30 and 1235.3(b)(1)(4).

Can IG-88 Enter a Contract?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

November 1, 2019

0

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.

Batman – The Long Halloween

By

James Liu

-

October 31, 2019

0

The Jeff Loeb and Tim Sale Batman story The Long Halloween is hailed as one of the greatest Batman stories and heavily inspired Nolan’s The Dark Knight Trilogy. The Long Halloween covers Batman, Harvey Dent, and Jim Gordon’s crusade to take down Carmine “The Roman” Falcone. In the midst of combining vigilante, legal, and police justice, a mysterious serial killer appears who begins killing individuals close to Falcone on holidays. However, killing is not the only crime that goes on in The Long Halloween. The heroes and villains of the story are embroiled in schemes that result in a colorful assortment of crimes.

Halloween

On the first holiday of the tale, Batman and Harvey Dent team up to hit Falcone where it hurts. After Bruce Wayne prevents Falcone from storing his money with Gotham City Bank, Falcone is forced to store his cash in a warehouse. After a jaded legal campaign against Falcone, Dent realizes that he won’t be able to hurt Falcone as the district attorney. Instead, Dent convinces Batman to help him bring the heat to Falcone and the two of them turn Falcone’s warehouse into the inside of a Jack-o-lantern on Halloween. Unfortunately for Batman and Dent, the destruction of Falcone’s cash stores violates Title 18 United States Code § 333, i.e. the destruction of any bank bill issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System. Luckily for Batman, the punishment is only a fine or imprisonment of less than six months. Unluckily for Dent, he may be disbarred for committing a felony.

Thanksgiving

After Falcone orders some hitmen to detonate an explosive in Dent’s home on Halloween, Batman, Dent, and Gordon hatch a plot to catch Falcone. The Crusading Trio capture the criminal outfit, dubbed “The Irish,” responsible for the bombing and Dent impersonates their leader Mickey “The Mink” Sullivan in hopes of obtaining some incriminating information from them when they are stuck in jail for the night. Hopefully Dent paid attention in his Criminal Procedure class because depending on how he approached the other members of “The Irish,” whatever information he obtained could have been suppressed. Under United States v. Henry, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment prohibits use of government informants to “deliberately elicit” confessions or other incriminating statements from defendants after the right to counsel has attached. 447 U.S. 264, 274 (1980). However, no formal indictment had been filed against “The Irish” yet so anything Dent heard while impersonating Mickey may still be admissible. Unfortunately for Dent, “The Irish” had their statements rehearsed and none of their statements could connect Falcone to “The Irish’s” fowl play.

Christmas

The Joker becomes infuriated with the so-called “Holiday” serial killer taking away his limelight and begins his hunt for whoever the killer is. In order to determine the killer’s identity, the Joker pays a visit to Carmine Falcone’s residence. While there, the Joker attacks Falcone with his joker playing cards. While the offensive touching of Falcone will certainly constitute assault and battery, can the Joker be convicted for assault with a deadly weapon? In People v. Lochtefeld, the California Court of Appeal cited to California Penal Code § 245 which defines a deadly weapon as “any object, instrument, or weapon which is used in such a manner as to be capable of producing, and likely to produce, death or great bodily injury.” While California’s definition of deadly weapon is quite giving, it’s unlikely a court would be so generous as to find regular playing cards a deadly weapon. Joker uses the cards to achieve a theatrical effect rather than a practical one.

New Year’s Eve

After having no luck with Falcone, the Joker makes a resolution to find the “Holiday” killer with any means possible. In turn, the Joker hijacks a plane and attempts to drop his signature laughing gas on a giant crowd of Gothamites welcoming in the New Year. Here, the Joker is violating two major U.S. codes: 49 U.S.C. § 46502 and 18 U.S.C. § 2332a. Under 49 U.S.C. § 46502, “aircraft piracy” constitutes the seizing and exercise of control of an aircraft by means of force, violence, threat of force or violence, or any form of intimidation, and with wrongful intent. Considering the Joker sent the aircraft ground crew to a merry death, the Joker will definitely be violating this federal statute. But the Joker rarely ends at just a hijacking; 18 U.S.C. § 2332a criminalizes the use of a weapon of mass destruction against any person or property within the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 2332a(c)(2)(C) defines a weapon of mass destruction as any weapon involving a biological agent or toxin. Considering Joker’s laughing gas leaves its victims with a wide grin and no heartbeat, it is likely to fall within this definition.

Valentine’s Day

Falcone’s failed attempts to reason with Bruce Wayne lead Falcone to target Wayne’s heart rather than continue negotiating with him. Falcone hires Poison Ivy to use her powers to mind control Bruce Wayne into approving the deal between Falcone and Gotham City Bank. While there are no laws on point in regards to meta-human powers, there are laws on the use of poison on individuals. Poison Ivy’s powers are derived from her control of plants and pheromones which are essentially poisons or naturally created drugs. The application of drugs or poisons against someone is likely to be considered some form of battery or assault depending on the jurisdiction. The California legislature enacted a specific statute to address the issue. California Penal Code § 222 criminalizes the act of administering a drug or other controlled substance against another individual in order to enable themselves to commit a felony. Poison Ivy intentionally pricks Bruce Wayne with a poisoned rose thorn which introduces a chemical substance into Wayne’s bloodstream that causes him to obey Ivy’s every command. Ivy could find herself behind bars from sixteen months to three years on top of any other felony she commits while Wayne is under her influence. In addition, Ivy’s actions would probably land her on Gotham’s sex offender registry.

St. Patrick’s Day

Carla Vitti, Carmine Falcone’s sister, “forg[e]ts” to give Gotham police the gun used to kill her nephew, Alberto Carmine. After Carla’s own son is killed on Halloween with the same model gun, a .22, Carla conceals the gun from police investigation in hopes of using the gun to kill “Holiday.” Under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, the concealment of any tangible object with the intent to impede the investigation of any matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States can be punishable by up to twenty years. Carla’s purposeful concealment and intention to use the gun against the “Holiday” killer will likely land her with up to twenty years in prison. Unfortunately for Carla, luck was not on her side as she would not survive her next encounter with the “Holiday” killer.

Mother’s Day

Jonathan Crane, AKA the Scarecrow, douses Batman with some of his signature fear gas while escaping from Arkham Asylum. While under the effects of Crane’s fear gas, Batman, now under the guise of Bruce Wayne, visits Crime Alley, the site where his parents were murdered. Simultaneously, Commissioner Gordon and Harvey Dent agree to initiate a momumental manhunt for Bruce Wayne, believing he has ties with Carmine Falcone. Gordon and his police force spot Wayne in Crime Alley and attempt to arrest him but he flees from them and retreats to his mother’s gravestone. Under California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) any person who “willfully resists, delays or obstructs” any police officer in the fulfillment of his or her duty can be fined up to one thousand dollars to imprisoned in a county jail up to one year. Because Wayne flees from the police at Crime Alley, he could be guilty of this law; however, because Wayne was under the effects of Scarecrow’s fear gas, he may have a defense. Under California law, involuntary intoxication is considered an absolute defense for crimes that require intent or a mental state. Wayne could argue that he was unable to form the intent to “willfully” resist arrest because he was involuntarily sprayed with the fear gas. However, some anti-Batman critics may say that Bruce Wayne’s nocturnal hobbies constitute a voluntary exposure to such side effects and that a reasonable vigilante should expect to be sprayed with a fear toxin here and there.

Father’s Day

On Father’s Day, Falcone realizes that he can no longer depend on ordinary thugs to carry out his plans. While hiring two members of The Rogues Gallery might get things done, Falcone could not see father than the end of his nose. By inviting two a man dressed in a scarecrow costume that uses fear gas and a man dressed as the Hatter, Falcone broke his crime family’s cardinal rule of not hiring “freaks.” Under 18 U.S.C. § 373, any person who attempts to solicit another person to engage in conduct that constitutes a felony that involves the use or threatened use of physical force against another person can be punished by either a life imprisonment or death. Here, Falcone attempts to hire Scarecrow and Mad Hatter to help him take care of Batman. Since Falcone is soliciting the two villains to dispose of Batman, Dent would probably be able to convict Falcone of solicitation. Regrettably, Falcone is likely to have every judge and their father on his payroll.

Independence Day

On Independence Day, Scarecrow and Mad Hatter lace fireworks with Scarecrow’s fear gas use it to help them break into Gotham City Bank. The two villains could be prosecuted for violating both 18 U.S.C. § 2332a and 18 U.S.C. § 2113. Like the Joker’s plot on New Year’s Eve, the use of fireworks as a vehicle to disperse poisonous fear gas across the surrounding area of Gotham City Bank will likely constitute the use of a weapon of mass destruction. 18 U.S.C. § 2113 is the federal statute that criminalizes bank robberies. By the time Batman arrives, Scarecrow and Mad Hatter are already in the process of carrying away sacks of cash after blowing their way into the bank. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2113, anyone who, by force and violence, takes money from the possession of a bank will be guilty of bank robbery. Considering the trail of bodies left behind by the villainous duo, it would be easy to prosecute them for the crime. Despite their best efforts, Batman’s timely arrival will ensure that the two spend the night of Independence Day behind the bars of Arkham Asylum without the freedom to cause mayhem throughout the city.

The Roman’s Birthday

Carmine Falcone’s wish finally comes true on his birthday. Sal Maroni turns himself to Gotham PD and agrees to testify against Falcone after Maroni’s own father is gunned down. In one of the most iconic scenes in the Batman mythos, Maroni begins to cough and complain of an ulcer while he is on the stand being questioned by Dent. Dent, impatient to get Maroni’s testimony, approaches Maroni while Maroni is caught in a coughing fit. As Dent leans in to reiterate his question to Maroni, Maroni grabs a vial of acid and splashes it across Dent’s face. Maroni’s actions could be prosecuted under a number of legal theories. While Maroni’s lawyer may argue that Maroni’s actions were just an assault with a deadly weapon, the District Attorney’s office would likely pursue attempted murder, since Dent survives the ordeal. In California, codified as 16 California Penal Code § 664, attempted murder requires that a person take a “direct but ineffectual act” toward killing another person and that the attacker have the intent to unlawfully kill that other person. Maroni takes multiple steps including the procuring of the acid and the actual act of splashing the acid on Dent’s face. Maroni’s lawyer may argue that there was no intent to kill Dent, but Maroni’s own words suggest otherwise. After Maroni throws the acid he yells: “You’re dead, Dent! That stuff’ll eat through cement!” Maroni’s outburst shows that he intended to kill Dent with the acid. Maroni could also be convicted under 8 California Penal Code § 203, a law that criminalizes “mayhem.” Mayhem is defined as the unlawful and malicious deprivation, disabling, or disfigurement of a human being’s body part. Mayhem can also include putting out an eye or slitting a nose, ear or lip. Maroni’s horribly disfiguring attack on Dent would easily qualify Maroni to be prosecuted under this statute.

Labor Day

While Maroni is being transferred from his prison cell, it is revealed that Carmine Falcone’s son, Alberto is still alive and faked his own death. Alberto then confesses to being the “Holiday” killer. While faking your own death, or pseudocide, is not a crime on its own, faking your own death usually involves a number of fraud-related crimes.

Halloween

One year after the first crime is committed, the identity of the “Holiday” killer is finally revealed. With Alberto behind bars, the real “Holiday” killer is able to trick the police and ultimately evades arrest. The last panels of the story depict the “Holiday” killer burning the costume they used to commit the various holiday related murders. The “Holiday” killer’s actions allow us to revisit 18 U.S.C. § 1519. The “Holiday” killer is knowingly destroying tangible evidence in order to ensure that the police never discover their identity. This is a clear violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519 as the “Holiday” killer is attempting to destroy evidence. Just as Falcone’s cash goes up in flames during the last Halloween, all evidence of the “Holiday” killer’s identity is reduced to a pile of ash.

Toil & [Legal] Trouble: The Sanderson Sisters’ Legal Consequences in Hocus Pocus

By

Jordan Yakowenko

-

October 31, 2019

0

In 1993, Max Dennison moved to Salem, Massachusetts from Los Angeles, California. Along with his sister, Dani, his classmate, Allison, and a talking cat named Binx, he experienced a Halloween unlike any other. A skeptic of the spooky, Max lit the Black Flame Candle to try to prove the inexistence of witches and instead resurrected three unruly witch sisters: Winifred, Mary, and Sarah Sanderson. Though the witches wreaked havoc on Salem with various potions and spells, they also broke a few laws along the way. If their fates had ended differently- not in bursts of dust- these sisters just might have found themselves in front of a jury.

Winifred Would Be Convicted of the First-Degree Murder of Billy Butcherson

As Binx explains, “Billy Butcherson was Winifred’s lover, but she found him sporting with her sister Sarah, so she poisoned him and sewed his mouth shut with a dull needle. So, he couldn’t tell her secrets, even in death.” Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing, is murder in the first degree. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1111. Though Winifred was envious of Billy’s fondness of her sister Sarah, she has absolutely no defense to killing the man. Also, her jealousy-fueled and deliberate mutilation is evidence of malice aforethought. Therefore, had it not been for her demise by the rising sun, Winifred probably have found herself with a significant sentence for the first-degree murder of Billy Butcherson.

The Sanderson Sisters Kidnapped Dani Dennison (and Emily, Jay and ICE)

Per 18 U.S.C.A. § 1201, whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent thereof, when any such act against the person is done within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment. Not only do the Sanderson Sisters capture and suck the life out of young Emily Binx in 1693, they also kidnap both Jay and ICE (Max’s school bullies) after Jay calls the witches ugly. In addition, Winifred carries Dani off on her broom, in the hopes of making Dani drink a potion. Accordingly, in an alternate ending, the Sandersons would have inevitably faced hefty kidnapping sentences as well.

The Sisters Participate in Fare Evasion When They Ride the Bus for Free

When the Sanderson Sisters find themselves in front of a bus, they tell the driver they desire children and he welcomes them aboard, assuming they are dressed up for Halloween. Though the driver granted his permission, the witches did not pay for the ride. In some jurisdictions, fare evasion is considered a misdemeanor, and in others it is still subject to fines. Despite being the least of these criminal witches’ legal concerns, they might find themselves faced with a fare evasion fine as well. Or, in other words, they put the spell on us, but now they’re fined!

It is uncontested that the Sanderson Sisters were up to no good. Their goal was quite literally to suck the lives out of children to become young and beautiful themselves. It is comforting to know, that even if their plan played out in their favor and the witches found themselves young once again, they would most likely be spending those regained years behind bars. At the end of the day, it was not “just a bunch of hocus pocus,” it was a bunch of criminal activity!

Betelgeuse Said “Ghost Rights!”: The Property Law of Haunted Houses

By

Gaby Schneider

-

October 30, 2019

0

It’s Halloween, and you know what that means: haunted houses! In fiction and myth, ghosts are frequently depicted haunting a specific location — commonly either the deceased person’s former dwelling or the place where they died. But can disembodied spirits ever assert a property interest in the places they haunt? Can the haunted house belong to the ghost?

Although there is not much case law on point, at least one state court has contemplated the potential existence of a poltergeist and its legal repercussions. In Stambovsky v. Ackley, 169 A.D.2d 254 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991), the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division held that a homeowner who had publicly declared their house to be haunted was forbidden to change their story when they sold the house: “Whether the source of the spectral apparitions seen by defendant seller are parapsychic or psychogenic, having reported their presence in both a national publication (Readers’ Digest) and the local press (in 1977 and 1982, respectively), defendant is estopped to deny their existence and, as a matter of law, the house is haunted.” Stambovsky at 256.

So it is clear that a house can be legally haunted. But Stambovsky only addresses the responsibilities of a living owner. What about the possessory rights of the ghostly occupants in the houses that they haunt?

Case Study: Beetlejuice

The 1988 film Beetlejuice provides a perfect example of ghosts who object to the presence of new occupants in a house which they had owned during their lives. Early in the movie, a young couple, Barbara and Adam Maitland, discover that they have died and are now stuck haunting their house as ghosts. To their dismay, the house is soon sold and a new family, the Deetzes, moves in.

For the purposes of this analysis, let’s assume that the Maitlands owned their home with no restrictions (no mortgages, no joint-tenants, etc.) and they died intestate (with no will and no heirs). Under the normal mechanisms of estate law, their property would escheat to the government when they died. Assuming that the ghosts of Barbara and Adam maintain the same legal personhood after the deaths of their bodies, would Barbara and Adam retain their possessory rights upon their death?

As a matter of legal fiction, yes. Without a will assigning future possessory interests to potential heirs, the Maitlands retained a fee simple absolute interest in their home. This interest is the strongest type of present possessory interest: it entails outright and full ownership of property, including land and all immovable attached structures, for an indefinite amount of time. Fee simple absolute interests do not end with the owner’s death – they simply get transferred (by sale, will, or gift) to a determined successor. This means, as a matter of pure legal fiction, the Maitlands can own their home indefinitely, since their interest in their home is indefinite. The subsequent sale of their home to the Deetz family, done without the Maitlands’ permission, would be rendered invalid.

In practice, no. If the home had not yet been gifted or sold, transfer of a property interest in fee simple absolute would take place upon the owner’s death. Unless the Maitlands can prove that their continued ghostly existence does not constitute “death” within the meaning of Connecticut state law, the escheat of their property interest to the government and the later conveyance of that interest to the Deetzes would be valid, thus making the Deetzes the new “true” owners of the house.

Spooky Squatters: Adverse Possession By Ghosts

Assuming that they lose their possessory interest in their house when they die, the Maitlands could regain it through adverse possession. Adverse possession law varies by state, so for the purposes of this case study we will apply the state law of Connecticut, which is where the Maitlands’ house is located.

In Connecticut, the elements of adverse possession are actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous and exclusive possession for 15 years. See Mulle v. McCauley, 927 A.2d 921, 925 (Conn. App. 2007).

Many hauntings are actually very straightforward examples of adverse possession.

To prove actual possession, the ghost must demonstrate that their possession of the house is more than constructive. See Edward G. Mascolo, A Primer on Adverse Possession, 66 Conn. B.J. 303, 311 (1992). It is not enough to have once lived in the house during their lifetime. The ghost must be physically occupying the house to establish actual possession.

To prove open and notorious possession, the ghost must perform “open acts of ownership” (Mulle at 930) that “put a person of ordinary prudence on notice of the fact” that the ghost is claiming the land as their own. Mascolo at 311-12. By making weird noises, lowering the temperature of a room drastically, opening and slamming doors, and appearing visibly before the living occupants of the house, the ghost has effectively made the living aware of the ghost’s claim on the house.

To prove hostile possession, the ghost must show that at no point during the 15 year possession did the ghost have the permission of the living owner to haunt the house. Alternatively, if the ghosts and the living owners are strangers, possession may be considered hostile if the haunting is both open and notorious. See Woodhouse v. McKee, 879 A.2d 486 (Conn. App. 2005).

To prove continuous possession, the ghosts must continue to haunt the house, without prolonged breaks, for a full fifteen years. An exorcism counts as the forced eviction of the ghost, thereby resetting the clock on the ghost’s continuous possession.

To prove exclusive possession, the ghost must act as if it has final say over who can enter or stay in the house. These actions must be so open and public that the ghost’s control over the house is assumed. See, e.g., Mascolo at 309; Roche v. Town of Fairfield, 442 A.2d 911, 917 (Conn. 1982). A haunting may be considered exclusive if the ghosts are able to scare living occupants into abandoning the house in question.

Applying these elements to the plot of Beetlejuice, we find that the Maitlands face several hurdles to a successful adverse possession claim. Unfortunately for the Maitlands, they fall short of exercising “exclusive” possession over the house. On the one hand, hiring Beteljeuse to help them scare away the Deetzes is consistent with exclusivity: he is present with the Maitlands’ permission, and for the purpose of helping them enforce their control over who can be in the house. He’s kind of like a supernatural exterminator, or perhaps a guard dog. However, all of the ghosts’ hijinx continually fail to scare the Deetzes into abandonment. Moreover, because their deaths are so recent, the Maitlands have not been haunting their house long enough to satisfy the 15 year requirement. There remains the potential that they could fulfill this requirement over time, considering how they are tied to the house for 125 years, but the mere expectation that they will be present in the house for that length of time is not enough on its own to satisfy the “continuous” requirement. Most damningly, the eventual agreement between the Maitlands and Deetzes to share the house negates the element of exclusivity. Once the ghosts have been given permission to haunt the house, their adverse possession claim is even deader than they are.

In Conclusion…

Because literal death triggers the transfer of property, either to heirs or to the state, there appears to be no way for ghosts to directly maintain ownership over their houses—unless courts could be convinced to adopt an alternative definition of “death” as the being the end of one’s conscious existence, as opposed to the mere demise of one’s corporeal form. The law of adverse possession, however, provides a potential avenue for ghosts to claim (or reclaim) a possessory interest through haunting. In Beetlejuice, an out-of-court settlement proves to be a happy ending for all involved. But at least in theory, a ghost that successfully met all the elements of adverse possession could get the full rights to their house back—if they haunted the house long enough.

Works Cited

George Coppolo, Adverse Possession, Connecticut General Assembly Office of Legislative Research (Jan. 19, 2006), https://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0032.htm.

Edward G. Mascolo, A Primer on Adverse Possession, 66 Conn. B.J. 303 (1992)

Mulle v. McCauley, 927 A.2d 921, 925 (Conn. App. 2007).

Roche v. Town of Fairfield, 442 A.2d 911, 917 (Conn. 1982)

Stambovsky v. Ackley, 169 A.D.2d 254 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Woodhouse v. McKee, 879 A.2d 486 (Conn. App. 2005).

About the authors

Gaby, Hannah, Andrew, and Alex are all second-year law students at NYU School of Law. Collectively known as “The Gaang,” the four of us bonded over rewatching/finally finishing Avatar: the Last Airbender during our first year of law school. As proud members of both the geek and legal communities, we’re thrilled to have the chance to contribute to this esteemed publication!

Gaby Schneider

Gaby Schneider is 2021 graduate of NYU School of Law. A lifelong nerd and proud "fangirl", she started writing for the Legal Geeks during her first year of law school. At NYU, she was best known for her double-triple-threat contributions to the Law Revue (actor/singer/dancer and writer/producer/techie). Her real life legal experience includes class action litigation at Bursor & Fisher, P.A., as well as internships at the Knight First Amendment Institute and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Originally from the Bay Area, she lives in San Francisco, where she can often be found indulging her boba tea addiction under the guise of a nice stroll around the neighborhood.

Hannah Umansky-Castro

Hannah Umansky-Castro is a second year law student at NYU Law who is passionate about immigration, equal protection, law of democracy and administrative law issues. She wrote a college thesis that compared Lord of the Rings to Don Quixote, analyzing the modern quest for meaning within the epic novel framework. She is a major fan of Percy Jackson, Avatar the Last Airbender, Doctor Who and Supernatural.

Andrew Soboeiro

Andrew Soboeiro is a third-year law student at NYU, as well as an aspiring immigration lawyer, Portuguese speaker, and barbecue enthusiast! Before law school, Andrew attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he wrote a thesis analyzing racial and ethnic stereotypes in Victorian English children's literature. He then taught English in Malaysia through the Fulbright Program. Andrew is a fan of Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Avatar/Korra, and The Good Place, to name just a few fandoms!

Alex Frey

Mr. Frey is a law student at NYU and connoisseur of popular culture.