Not the Younglings (Again)!

By

-

December 5, 2015

Growing up is hard, but for a Force Sensitive child in the Star Wars universe, it means being hunted by the Empire. In the Star Wars Rebels episode “The Future of the Force,” our heroes protect human and Ithorian infants from the Seventh Sister and Fifth Brother.

The treatment of Younglings has been problematic since The Phantom Menace. It appeared the Jedi would take children from their parents who were strong in the Force. It is not clear that the parents always consented to their children to be raised by the Jedi or if it was mandated by law. From a certain point of view, it appeared the Jedi adopted Younglings, severing parental rights to their children. The Jedi effectively put Plato’s Republic in practice with the Community of Women and Children, with the state raising the children to serve the collective good.

Severing parental rights without parental consent is a complicated process. Courts must find parental custody would be detrimental to the child by clear and convincing evidence. Cal Fam Code § 3041. Raising a Force sensitive child might have its challenges, but the Jedi would need more than “The child could turn to the Dark Side,” in order to take away parental rights without consent.

Star Wars Rebels sent a very different message. The Inquisitors Seventh Sister and Fifth Brother were abducting Younglings strong in the Force. Just as there are always two, the Inquisitors committed at least two crimes: kidnapping and child abduction.

Kidnapping is the forcible taking of a person. Cal Pen Code § 207. Child abduction is the taking of a child by someone who does not have a right to custody of that child. Cal Pen Code § 278. One Court explained the difference between the crimes as follows:

There is a fundamental difference between kidnapping, Cal. Penal Code § 207, and child abduction, Cal. Penal Code § 278, in terms of the person targeted by the offense; the first is a crime against the person being kidnapped, the second against the parents of the child abducted. If there is evidence that a defendant’s conduct is aimed at both, there is no reason why he or she should not be prosecuted under both statutes.

In re Michele D. (2002) 29 Cal 4th 600.

The Inquisitors committed both crimes in “The Future of the Force.” The human Youngling was forcefully taken from her grandmother. The grandmother had legal custody of the child and the Inquisitors had no legal right to custody. Taking the Youngling was child abduction from the grandmother and kidnapping of the Youngling herself (plus assault, battery, and possibly murder).

The Inquisitors attempted to take the Ithorian infant from his mother, making their actions attempted kidnapping and child abduction (and actual assault and battery on the mother).

Our Rebels were well within their right to rescue the Younglings under the “defense of others.” Granted, they did sort of carjack that speeder flown by the Ithorian, but we’ll let that one slide with a necessity defense.

Leia’s Lightsaber? A Question of Loss and Larceny

By

Kean Zimmerman

-

December 2, 2015

0

As the time for the premier for The Force Awakens draws near, excitement is brewing for those new and familiar with the series. For decades many fans have speculated on the comings and goings of the characters from the original Star Wars Trilogy. With the canon now being rewritten, The Force Awakens hopes to take us to places in the galaxy far far away that have never been seen before. Screen shots from the movie trailers hint at the return of many familiar characters. Of course this just leads to more questions, but one question that has been left unanswered for decades deals with an object rather than a character. That object is the lightsaber wielded by Luke and Anakin Skywalker. Yes, fans might want to know where that lightsaber is, but for that matter, who actually owns the lightsaber? For that answer the lightsaber must be analyzed through the intricate lense that is property law.

As you might recall this was the second lightsaber Anakin built. His first lightsaber was destroyed on Geonosis during the events of Attack of the Clones. From the Clone Wars series there is no depiction of him making the new lightsaber, but there was an episode showing younglings crafting their own Jedi weapons. For the sake of this analysis, we will assume that Anakin made his second lightsaber in a similar matter. However, this does not mean that the Jedi Order may claim ownership over the weapon (think crafts that you bring home from summer camp, but more dangerous). This would mean the lightsaber is Anakin’s personal property. This means that Anakin has the true legal title to the lightsaber.

After Anakin and Obi-Wan’s battle on Mustafar, Obi-Wan took the lightsaber with him before entering into a self-imposed exile on Tatooine. At no point does Anakin give the lightsaber to Obi-Wan, therefore Anakin still retained rightful title in the lightsaber. It is not clear if Obi-Wan meant to take it for himself or if he knew that he would give it to either Luke or Leia. Either way, this was arguably still an act of larceny. Connecticut law defines larceny as:

A person commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-119 (2015).

Since Obi-Wan cut off Anakin’s legs and arm immediately before taking the lightsaber, it seems a likely conclusion that Obi-Wan intended to deprive Anakin of the lightsaber by taking it and leaving Anakin to smolder in the lava of Mustafar.

Meanwhile, Obi-Wan has been exerting dominion and control over the lightsaber. He kept it with him on Tatooine during his exile, and nineteen years after the events of Revenge of the Sith, Obi-Wan presented the lightsaber to Luke Skywalker, saying that it belonged to his father. At this point, Luke was under the impression that his father was already dead. To his knowledge then, there was no other owner of the lightsaber still living. He took the lightsaber from Obi-Wan as a gift, not knowing that the true title of the lightsaber still resided with his living father. Connecticut defines a gift as follows:

A gift is the transfer of property without consideration. It requires two things: a delivery of the possession of the property to the donee, and an intent that the title thereto shall pass immediately to him. Coppola v. Farina, 50 Conn. Sup. 11, 13, 910 A.2d 1011 (2006).

There are two elements that must be satisfied. First, that the possession of the lightsaber transfer to Luke, and second, the intent that the title immediately transfer to Luke. While the first element was satisfied, the second could not be fulfilled as Obi-Wan never had the title to the lightsaber. As such the gift fails, however, Luke is still in (unlawful) possession of the lightsaber.

Fast forward to the events of the Empire Strikes Back in which Luke has his hand cut off by Darth Vader (Anakin Skywalker) and is deprived of the lightsaber. However, shortly after this he learns that Darth Vader is his father. Upon this revelation, he is aware that his father, the true owner of the lightsaber, is alive. Darth Vader has a valid claim against Luke for the return of the lightsaber. In terms of criminal conduct though, it is unlikely that Luke could be charged with receipt of stolen property. In the state of Connecticut “a person is guilty of larceny by receiving stolen property if (he/she) receives stolen property knowing that it has probably been stolen or believing that it has probably been stolen.” Conn. Gen. Stat.§ 53a-119(8). In this instance, Luke had no reason to think that the lightsaber had been stolen since he was convinced that his father was dead. Granted Luke probably should have asked a few more questions regarding the provenance of the lightsaber, but this does not make him liable. As a result, though Darth Vader would have had a claim, there would likely not have been a criminal claim against Luke.

Regardless of the claims against him, Luke lost the lightsaber in an undisclosed location on Cloud City. If he was still exerting dominion and control over the lightsaber, he would be on notice to return it to its true owner. Luke, however, was not in possession of the lightsaber after learning that his father was still alive. As such, he was not necessarily responsible for returning it at that point.

Moving then to the events of Return of the Jedi. After the death of Darth Vader, Connecticut intestacy law suggest that his personal property would then belong to his living heirs. In this case, the two living heirs would be Luke and Leia Skywalker (since Padme, their mother, is also deceased). See Conn. Gen. Stat.§ 45a-438. However, there is an argument to be made that Luke contributed to the death of Darth Vader by weakening him before his confrontation with Emperor Palpatine. Albeit Darth Vader acting on his own to save his son, this does not change the fact that Luke intentionally acted to harm his father. But for Luke’s lightsaber duel, Darth Vader may have been able to fend off Emperor Palpatine. More importantly, after the exchange Luke drags his father’s body to a hangar in an effort to leave the second Death Star. In the end, Darth Vader asks Luke to help him take off his mask. Luke acknowledges that this will kill Darth Vader. Although Darth Vader claims that this is inevitable, Luke still takes off the mask knowing that it would lead to Darth Vader’s death. While some jurisdictions recognize “right-to-die” legislation, Connecticut is not one of them. As a result, Luke may be charged with murder. In Connecticut, “A person is guilty of murder when, with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person or causes a suicide by force, duress or deception . . . .” Conn. Gen. Stat.§ Sec. 53a-54a.

The reason Luke’s actions are relevant to the lightsaber ownership is due to the fact that Connecticut has a slayer law. A slayer law prevents certain individuals from inheriting property if they caused the death of the person leaving the estate. In Connecticut, if Luke is found guilty of murdering his father (or being an accessory to his father’s murder) then he is prohibited from inheriting or receiving part of the estate from the victim (i.e. his father). Conn. Gen. Stat.§ Sec. 45a-447(c)(1). According to Connecticut law, the residual estate would then pass to Anakin’s other heirs. Conn. Gen. Stat.§ Sec. 45a-447. This means that the Connecticut Superior Court could determine he is guilty of murder, but a conviction would not bar him from inheriting the lightsaber. Only when he exhausts all of his appeals would he be barred from inheriting. Sulser v. Winnick, Conn. Super. LEXIS 2137 (2007).

If Luke were to be found responsible for Darth Vader’s death, then the statute would leave Leia Skywalker, Darth Vader’s only other living heir, to inherit their father’s entire estate (which may consist of shares in a now imploded Death Star). Whether or not Leia is aware of this, the true title to Darth Vader’s lightsaber would go to Leia. The unique nature of the lightsaber may prohibit Leia from wielding it like her brother or father. Certain laws may require the lightsaber to be registered for Leia to possess it, or the law could require Leia to have a permit for the lightsaber. This is likely not the case as it would equate lightsabers to handguns under Connecticut law. However, Connecticut still finds a knife with an automatic spring release from the handle with a blade longer than one and one-half inches to be a dangerous weapon. See Conn. Gen. Stat.§ Sec. 29-38. A lightsaber surely has a similar release function with a saber length of longer than one and one-half inches. While this law does not make mere possession of the lightsaber illegal, carrying the lightsaber in a vehicle or on one’s person would certainly be illegal with few exceptions. Although Leia may have title to the lightsaber, she could be prevented from taking it with her for weekend getaways in the Millennium Falcon.

[SPOILERS AND SPECULATION]

This leads us to Star Wars VII. While images show Finn (John Boyega) holding what looks to be the lightsaber in question this has not been definitively confirmed. How he received or acquired the new lightsaber will impact the necessary legal analysis. In the hands of Finn, we see the memorable blue glow of the lightsaber that has not been seen (in the film timeline) since Luke learned of his parentage in The Empire Strikes Back. While the lightsaber’s current location is yet to be seen, its fate will likely play some role in the plot of The Force Awakens. Leia has the legal title to that fabled piece of property, but she may not even realize it. In the end, no one can legally obtain ownership of the lightsaber in question without Leia transferring title.

Did Han Solo Abandon a Marriage?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

August 21, 2015

0

The new Star Wars comic set between Episodes IV and V has added a new spin on Han Solo: A woman named Sana Solo claimed Han is her husband. As quickly as you can say, “I’d sooner kiss a Wookiee,” Han has denied being married to Sana. If Sana were to be believed, this would mean Han abandoned the marriage. Making matters worse for Han, Sana is one ticked off bounty hunter who probably is seeking an extra-judicial resolution.

Let’s just hope that Han Solo does not have a profile on Ashley Madison.

Long, Long, Ago, In a State Far, Far, Away

Sana Solo has not yet produced a marriage certificate from any planet documenting her marriage to Han Solo. As such, we cannot analyze the laws of that planet on marriage. By way of comparison, abandoning a marriage is grounds for divorce in Texas and fault states such as New York. Moreover, abandoning a marriage could be a crime in both Texas and Oklahoma.

A Court may grant divorce for an abandoned spouse if 1) the offending spouse left the complaining spouse with the intention of abandonment; and 2) the offending spouse remained away for at least one year. See, Tex. Fam. Code § 6.005 and NY CLS Dom Rel § 170.

Abandonment cases are as varied as the color of lightsabers. In one case from 1914, a Texas farmer secured a divorce by abandonment of his wife after three years. The wife had claimed to leave the farm for a trip, but never returned. There were repeated attempts to save the marriage, but the farmer was unwilling to give up his farm and the wife unwilling to live on a farm. The Court accordingly found the marriage abandoned by the wife. Dickerson v Dickerson (Tex.Civ.App. 1918) 207 S.W. 941, 942.)

In a New York case, a woman of Roman Catholic faith married a Protestant man in a Protestant church. After the birth of a child and three years of marriage, the wife refused to recognize her own marriage or have sex with the husband unless they were remarried in a Catholic service. Diemer v. Diemer (1960) 8 N.Y.2d 206, 208.

The husband successfully brought an action for abandonment. The Court explained [in very 1960s language that would not fly in most states today]:

That a refusal to have marital sexual relations undermines the essential structure of marriage is a proposition basic to this court’s decision in the Mirizio case and as obvious as it is authoritative. Sexual relations between man and woman are given a socially and legally sanctioned status only when they take place in marriage and, in turn, marriage is itself distinguished from all other social relationships by the role sexual intercourse between the parties plays in it. This being so, it may not be doubted that a total and irrevocable negation of what is lawful in marriage and unlawful in every other relationship, of what unmistakably and uniquely characterizes marriage and no other relationship, constitutes abandonment in the eyes of the law.

It is clear, therefore, that the plaintiff now before us is entitled to a separation on the ground of abandonment unless his wife had good legal cause to refuse to have sexual intercourse with him. And, as to that, it is equally clear that she had neither cause nor justification. Although it appears that she acted without malice and was activated by deep-felt and conscientious religious convictions, her motives were not sufficient in law to excuse the abandonment of her marital status. If, as a result of religious scruples, she considers her marriage invalid or non-existent and, on that account, neglects the fulfillment of a primary marital obligation, in fairness and in law her husband must likewise have the power to free himself of its obligations. While our law is not to be “unnecessarily construed in a manner which would be hostile to religion in family life or to any other of those principles of moral, ethical and considerate conduct which ought to govern the marriage relationship”, we may not forget that this State, “as a matter of long-continued policy, * * * has fixed the status of the marriage contract as a civil contract”, governed by civil, not religious, law. ( Mirizio v. Mirizio, 242 N. Y. 74, 83, supra.) It follows as a consequence of the civil nature of the marriage contract that a wife who disavows her marriage and repudiates a fundamental marital function out of deep-felt religious conviction has abandoned her husband just as effectively as one who has done so for base and illegitimate motives.

Diemer, at *210-211, emphasis added.

Could Sana Solo bring a successful divorce for abandonment case against Han, assuming there is a valid marriage? It would appear so in New York, Texas, and Oklahoma.

However, Sana does not seem interested in divorce.

The Crime of Abandonment of Marriage After Seduction

Han Solo could face serious jail time and fines if the Empire has chastity and marriage laws like Oklahoma:

Any person who, under promise of marriage, seduces and has illicit connection with any unmarried female of previous chaste character shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary not exceeding five (5) years, or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one (1) year, or by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($ 1,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

21 Okl. St. § 1120.

It is a felony in Oklahoma to abandon a marriage after seduction:

Any person charged by information or indictment with the offense of seduction who shall, before the trial of such charge, marry the female whom he was accused of seducing, thereby procuring the dismissal of such charge, and who shall within two (2) years after said marriage, without the fault of his said wife, such fault amounting to acts committed by her after said marriage as would entitle him to a divorce under the laws of this state, shall abandon her or refuse to live with her, or shall be so cruel to her as to compel her to leave him, or shall be guilty of such outrages or cruelties towards her as to make their living together impossible, thereby leaving her or forcing her to leave him, and live apart from each other, shall be guilty of the offense of abandonment after seduction and marriage; and any person convicted of said offense shall be guilty of a felony and shall be confined in the State Penitentiary for a term of not less than two (2) years nor more than ten (10) years; and said marriage shall be no bar to the qualifications of said female to testify against the defendant; and the female so seduced and subsequently married and abandoned as herein provided, shall be a competent witness against said defendant.

21 Okl. St. § 1122.

Substantially more discovery needs to be conducted to see if Han Solo could be prosecuted for marriage after seduction and abandonment. Han must be a scoundrel, but it is unlikely he would seduce a woman, marry her, and then abandon her.

Monster Party Guest Podcast at SDCC!

By

Josh Gilliland

-

July 29, 2015

0

I am a huge fan of Monster Party. I have known Matt Weinhold since my mother owned Rooster T. Feathers back in the mid-1990s. We caught up at San Diego Comic Con and I was able to join Matt, Larry Strothe, James Gonis, and Shawn Sheridan, for their special Monster Party Comic Con podcast.

Getting to podcast with the Monster Party team was like getting invited to the “grown-ups table” at Thanksgiving. These guys (along with their awesome wives) set a high bar for being a geek, having dedicated their lives too all things Godzilla, Star Trek, comic books, aliens, and monsters. It was truly an honor to hang out with them and “talk geek.”

I hope you enjoy the podcast. It was a blast to record and I wear my Monster Party hat with pride.

The Law Awakens at San Diego Comic Con 2015!

By

Josh Gilliland

-

July 13, 2015

0

We had an AMAZING time at our first San Diego Comic Con. There were fantastic panels, cosplayers who created costumes with awesome detail, and attendees who represented the joy of being a geek. We were truly honored to celebrate the third anniversary of The Legal Geeks at San Diego Comic Con.

I cannot say enough nice things about US Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal. The Judge might be the first Federal Judge to present at SDCC. Judge Grewal rocked on stage, gave one heck of a presentation, and truly loved Comic Con. I cannot thank him enough for joining Jessica and I on this adventure. Plus he asked to take a selfie with us. Jess and I were truly honored.

Tatooine Law

We were ecstatic that our Star Wars panel filled the room. I estimate that we had between 250 to 300 people in the room. We had a giant line outside the door and filled every seat. My only regret is not everyone was able to get in.

Our audience truly made our presentation experience excellent. We had Star Wars fans of all ages who really love the story, laughed at the humor on the slides, and asked very thoughtful questions on the law.

Our session highlighted to me that discussing legal issues through popular culture is an excellent way for community outreach. Many members of the public do not understand “The Law” and others are afraid of “the Courts.” Going over property rights by studying the ownership history of R2D2 and C-3PO, or Darth Vader modifying the deal with Lando, are great ways to illustrate legal issues for people who would like to know more on how “The Law” works.

I also was very happy that my brother and his fiancé attended our panel. As children we played with Star Wars toys for hours, having dog-fights with X-Wings and Tie Fighters and shootouts with action figures. It was awesome he could join us for our Comic Con debut.

A very dear friend from my volunteer work and her husband also joined us for SDCC. Both are Naval Officers and I was glad we were able to get active duty military personnel to the show as our guests.

Just a Few Panels

I was able to see multiple panels, including one on Marvel’s Secret Wars with Tom Brevoort, Harbro’s Star Wars team, and an interview with Jack Kirby that originally aired on public access TV in the early 1980s that had not been seen in over 30 years. There were tons of just excellent panels.

Marvel_SecretWars_3562 — The Marvel Secret Wars panel with Charles Soule speaking.

I was very impressed with Comics for Impact: Healing Wounds of War. The panelists discussed how comics can be used to help our vets with PTSD using different authoring tools. The two of the three methodologies empowered vets to tell their stories of to others by creating a comic. The third focused on a story of a Sargent tell his troops the story of the Odyssey and returning from war.

The Exhibit Hall

Millennium_Falcon_3476 — Who really needs space for a dining room table?

“Mind-blowing” is a accurate description of the Exhibit Hall. Booths ranged from vintage comics to TV shows, movies, and stunning models. I was especially impressed with Sideshow Collectibles. I have no idea where I would put a 1/6 scale Millennium Falcon cockpit or 5-foot Tie Fighter, but strangely want both.

Tom Hiddleston also walked by me, so that was pretty cool.

Tom_Hiddleston-_3612 — Rare moment of right place at the right time.

It was a Monster Party

I was very happy to catch up with my old friend Matt Weinhold and the team from Monster Party. I first met Matt back in the mid-1990s when my family owned Rooster T. Feathers Comedy Club. It was a joy to met his wife in person and go to dinner with Larry, Shawn, and James from Monster Party. It was very cool to join them for their SDCC podcast and I look forward to hearing it.

MonsterParty_3669 — James Gonis, Shawn Sheridan, Larry Strothe, and Matt Weinhold doing their magic.

2016?

We had an absolutely amazing time at San Diego Comic Con. A huge thank you to Mike Towrey from San Diego Comic Fest for all of his help in getting us a panel at SDCC. I hope we can present again next year, perhaps to honor the legal issues in Star Trek for the 50th Anniversary.

Was it Lawful for Darth Vader to Squeeze Lothal for the Rebels?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

July 6, 2015

0

Darth Vader does not lack imagination when it comes to targeting civilians and killing Imperial Ministers in order to crash a Rebellion. Were his actions in the Star Wars Rebels season two premier legal?

Lord Vader took the following actions to entrap the Rebels:

Used Minster Tua as bait;

Killed Minster Tua in a shuttle rigged with explosives;

Raided and arrested refugees in Tarkin-town; and

Placed a tracking device on a shuttle to follow the Rebels back to their Fleet.

Law enforcement cannot willfully use murder of suspected traitors as a means to entrap criminal suspects. While Minster TUA had planned to defect to the Rebellion given the threat on her life, killing her without a trial would violate the Fourth Amendment, Seventh Amendment, and Eighth Amendment on Earth (warrant for arrest, right to a speedy trial, and prohibition against cruel and usual punishment). Minster Tua was denied the right to defend herself in court, the right to counsel, a trial by her peers, and executed by explosives without any form of due process.

The Empire clearly views civil rights as an impediment to effective law enforcement. The State certainly has the right to set sting operations to capture criminals, however this does not permit the intention killing of individuals to carry out the arrest of others.

Darth Vader ordered the arrest of refugees in Tarkin-town in order to draw out the Rebels. There are precedents for squatters in public lands being arrested, such as the US Army routing the March of the Bonus Army or police in San Jose clearing out the homeless living in Shanty Towns on public areas. However, these actions are normally taken out of concern for public welfare after reports of high crime or safety concerns. Such police actions are often not taken well by the public, can be viewed as cruel, or in the case of President Herbert Hoover, cost him the 1932 Presidential Election after ordering General MacArthur to use the Army on World War 1 Army veterans. No one wins re-election when there is marshal law and fires burning in the Washington, DC.

Governments have a duty to protect its citizens from public and private nuisances that can originate from Shanty Towns such as Tarkin-town. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found that the mayor of Philadelphia was justified in ordering the destruction of a “Shanty Town” that was (1) composed wholly of highly combustible materials, (2) insufficiently provided with chimneys or protected against fire, (3) occupied as a bar-room, (4) the resort of disorderly persons, and (5) located so close to governmental buildings as to imperil them. Fields v. Stokley (1882) 99 Pa. 306, 309.

Vader made MacArthur look like a sissy in the Imperial attack on Tarkin-town. There was no evidence that the refugees in Tarkin-town were squatting on public lands or a danger to public safety with the construction of the village. They might have violated zoning requirements if they were within a city, but Tarkin-town appeared well removed from Capital City on Lothal. Furthermore, the refugees did not appear to pose the public health hazard that would come from living in a Hooverville.

Even if there were public health and safety violations, enforcing those laws with Imperial Storm Troopers, possible airstrikes by Tie Fights, mass arrests, imprisonment in labor camps, or sending refugees to the Spice Mines of Kessel, would be grossly excessive force. What was their crime, not dying in the first place?

The Empire’s Doctrine of Fear takes “laws with teeth” to a new level. Moreover, Darth Vader claimed at the end of Revenge of the Sith that he had “brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.” Executions without trials and military attacks on citizens are a very unique view of “peace, freedom, and justice.” Such extreme uses of force would justify in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” A Rebellion is not just very logical result of such tyranny, but the Doctrine of Fear would cause mass recruiting for the Rebellion.

Let’s just hope Ahsoka Tano does not die horribly fighting Darth Vader this season.

We’re Going to San Diego Comic Con to Discuss Star Wars Law!

By

Josh Gilliland

-

June 28, 2015

0

July 12 marks the third anniversary of The Legal Geeks. We are celebrating with our FIRST San Diego Comic Con appearance. We are presenting Tatoonine Law: The law of Star Wars on July 9 at 730 PM in room 26AB with US Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal.

Are you curious about the ownership history of R2D2 and C3PO? What are the rights of a clone? Can a Medical Droid can commit malpractice? Then go to San Diego with us and learn the ways of the law.