Jessica Mederson and Joshua Gilliland sought out Judge Matthew Sciarrino for his extensive Star Wars knowledge to discuss the casting news of Episode VII: The Order of the Jedi, and the legal issues surrounding General Krell vs the 501st in the Clone Wars.
Plus, what to do when your video conference software does not switch to active speaker.
A Long Time Ago, in a Galaxy Far, Far, Away, was Luke Skywalker within his legal rights to offer R2D2 and C3PO as a gift to Jabba the Hutt in Return of the Jedi? In order to determine whether Luke was legally entitled to do so, we have to understand the ownership history of our favorite Droids.
R2D2 is introduced in Queen Amidala’s escape from Naboo. As such, R2D2 appears to be the state property of Naboo. Queen Amidala as the head of state exercised her control over R2D2. The Droid continued his service to Amidala while she was a Senator.
C3PO was built by Anakin Skywalker. As such, C3PO is Anakin Skywalker’s personal property. However, as a minor, Anakan’s mother may have held title, but for the fact both Skywalkers were slaves. Moreover, C3PO was left on Tatooine after Anakan left to become a Jedi. At this point, C3PO was in the possession and control of Shmi Skywalker as her personal property (assuming a slave could own property).
At the time of Shmi’s death, C3PO would have been her personal property. Moreover, Shmi’s marriage to Cliegg Lars would not transmute her personal property to community property, unless there had been a written change of ownership. As such, Lars would have had a right to one half of Shmi’s personal property by intestate succession, because Shmi had one child (Anakin). See, Cal Probate Code 6401(c)(A). As one cannot have half a Droid, Lars arguably gave up any interest in C3PO in order to have Shmi’s other remaining personal property. As such, Anakin Skywalker would have become CP3O’s legal owner upon her death (unless Shim had a will stating otherwise). Alternatively, Cliegg Lars would become the proper owner of C3PO if the Droid were community property and Shmi died without a will.
As such, by the time of Anakin and Padme’s marriage, Anakin was the owner of C3PO and Padme the owner of R2D2 (or the state of Naboo). However, the marriage does not make them co-equal owners of the Droids, because marriage does not make personal property community property, unless there is a valid transfer of ownership.
R2D2 shared many adventures with Anakin Skywalker throughout the Clone Wars. Moreover, C3PO appeared to spend a substantial amount of time with Senator Amidala. While there marriage was secret, this does tend to show them treating the Droids as community property.
Revenge of the Sith first shows Anakin being left for dead on Mustafar, soon followed by Padme giving birth to twins, followed by her death. In theory, Anakin’s personal property could have transferred to Padme at the time of Anakin’s “death.” As such, Padme would have been the legal owners of both Droids before her death. Alternatively, an argument could be made that Anakin’s attempted murder of Padme cut off his rights to any of Padme’s personal property or community property, much like Obi Wan Kenobi did to Anakin’s limbs. (See, Cal Prob Code § 250, which prohibits someone who kills a descendant from inheriting under interest succession or a will). Additionally, one could argue that Lord Vader lost his property rights to CP3O due to abandonment.
The twins would have had a right to the Droids at the time of their mother’s death through intestate intestate succession. However, given both were newborns, Bail Organa arguably became the bailee of the Droids until the Skywalker twins were of legal age. In turn, Organa entrusted the Droids to Raymus Antilles for safe keeping.
By the time of A New Hope, Leia has possession, custody and control of the Droids. While this was to the exclusion of Luke, only Bail Organa, Yoda, and Obi Wan knew of the Skywalker twins. Leia exercised her property rights over R2D2 by sending him on the mission to find Obi Wan Kenobi.
The Jawas finding R2D2 and C3PO on Tatooine and selling the Droids presents an interesting legal challenge. The Jawas could argue the Droids were abandoned or lost, claiming a right over them. However, if lost, the Jawas made no attempt to locate the right owners, but simply put them up for sale. Consider the following California law:
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.
Cal Pen Code § 485.
This puts Uncle Owen into a strange position of arguably buying Droids that Luke actually had a legal right to already own.
The Jawas might have had a valid claim to lawfully owning the Droids on a “finders keepers” theory. Considering that the Droids escaped the Tantive IV in an escape pod, case law involving life boats found at sea is helpful in determining if the Droids were abandoned by Princess Leia, thus properly found by the Jawas.
Under case law, a “derelict vessel” is one that is abandoned and deserted. This can be by accident, necessity or voluntary actions, without hope of recovery. PAUL W. REISS, ET AL. v. ONE SCHAT-HARDING LIFEBOAT NO. 120776 # 1, ET AL., 2006 AMC 1401 (D.S.C. 2006), citing Rowe v. the Brig, 1 Mason 372, 20 F.Cas. 1281, 1282, No. 12,093 (C.C.Mass. 1818).
At the time of Leia’s capture, she could have believed she had no chance of escape. Moreover, she had no idea of where the Droid escape pod landed. However, she did give R2D2 orders to find Obi Wan Kenobi. These facts show that while the Tantive IV was lost without hope of recovery, Leia still exercised control over the Droids to complete her mission, even if she had no hope of recovering them.
If the escape pod could be considered a derelict vessel, and the Droids lost, the Jawas could have been within their salvage rights to find and sell the Droids. PAUL W. REISS, ET AL. v. ONE SCHAT-HARDING LIFEBOAT NO. 120776 # 1, ET AL., 2006 AMC 1401 (D.S.C. 2006). However, there could be a real legal challenge against the Jawas for not attempting to find the legal owner of C3PO and R2D2.
Assuming that the Jawas had the legal right to sell the Droids, Luke Skywalker would have become the proper owner of the Droids after the deaths of his aunt and uncle. As such, he would have had the legal right to gift the Droids to Jabba the Hutt. However, the following mutual combat and death of Jabba would either make Jabba’s estate the rightful owner of the Droids, or Luke re-covered them as lost property.
Alternatively, since Jabba did not accept Luke’s initial offer, he could claim the Droids were not a gift, but consideration for a contract for Han Solo. Since Jabba rejected the deal, he had no right to R2D2 and C3PO.
The Clone Wars The Lost Missions posed very interesting legal questions over Clone rights. Is a Clone a person? Is a Clone property? Can a Clone be euthanized to protect the rest of the Clone population?
What is more impressive is these issues were presented in a children’s cartoon.
Attack of the Doctors
The Clone Wars episodes “The Unknown,” “Conspiracy,” “Fugitive” and “Orders” centered on a Clone Trooper named Tup who suffered a breakdown from a defective bio-chip in his brain that caused him to kill a Jedi. The story focused on his friend Fives trying to get Tup proper medical treatment.
The issues of treatment turn on whether the Republic or Kamino owned the Clones. Moreover, doctors proposed a medical exam to kill the Clone to find out the illness caused Tup to kill a Jedi.
A doctor killing a human being “for the greater good” is the unholy marriage of eugenics and euthanasia. Normally, deciding whether the state kills someone requires a criminal trial and not a doctor’s note.
Eugenics laws in the United States were common through the first third of the 20th Century, often forcing sterilization on those with physical illnesses. Justice Holmes described the intent of the laws as follows:
It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
United States v. Kriesel, 720 F.3d 1137, 1160 (9th Cir. Wash. 2013), Dissent, citing Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207, 47 S. Ct. 584, 71 L. Ed. 1000 (1927).
Euthanasia raises many other issues, but many states have prohibited the practice (while others legalized death with dignity) on the governmental interests of “prohibiting intentional killing and preserving human life; preventing the serious public-health problem of suicide, especially among the young, the elderly, and those suffering from untreated pain or from depression or other mental disorders; protecting the medical profession’s integrity and ethics and maintaining physicians’ role as their patients’ healers; protecting the poor, the elderly, disabled persons, the terminally ill, and persons in other vulnerable groups from indifference, prejudice, and psychological and financial pressure to end their lives; and avoiding a possible slide towards voluntary and perhaps even involuntary euthanasia.” Wash. v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (U.S. 1997).
The mixing of eugenics and euthanasia truly would create a “Doctrine of Fear,” because the state could execute anyone a doctor found to be of a public heath danger.
Revenge of the Lawyers
The issue of “Clone ownership” in determining the medical treatment of Tub had the haunting unease of Chief Justice Roger Taney’s rejection of human rights in the Dred Scott opinion. Once again, science fiction turned to a cartoon about a Clone and a Droid to define what it means to have “human rights.”
The law and science explains there are two types of cloning:
Therapeutic cloning is the use of cloning techniques to reproduce cells, tissue, and in some instances, organs for medical uses. Therapeutic cloning has possible future uses for deficiencies in bone marrow, heart muscle tissue, and neurons (for patients with Parkinson’s disease). Therapeutic cloning is to be distinguished from reproductive cloning which seeks to reproduce entire organisms. “Dolly” the famous, or infamous, sheep created by the Roslin Institute in Scotland is an example of reproductive cloning.
Advanced Cell Tech. v. Infigen, Inc., 2002 Mass. Super. LEXIS 377, 2-3 (Mass. Super. Ct. June 18, 2002).
The Star Wars Clones without question are products of reproductive cloning.
My friend Judge Matthew Sciarrino posed the following questions about the issues of ownership:
I would have loved to see the purchase agreement – did the Kominoans reserve a right to take back a damaged clone? Did they become Republic property upon delivery? Was the agreement modified by Lord Tyranus after Syfo Dyas?
The answers to all of those questions require a “Clone” to be property and lacking any human rights.
That is not the Jedi way.
I’m A Man, Not a Number
The Clone Fives highlighted his humanity by stating he was “not a number” and that “Clones do not use numbers.” Fives bluntly told one of his creators “I am a living being.”
The United States has actively tried to keep these “science fiction” issues from becoming reality. Missouri banned human cloning in its state Constitution (Cures Without Cloning v. Pund, 259 S.W.3d 76, 79 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008)) and New York banned grants being made available to fund human reproductive cloning from any source directly or indirectly (NY CLS Pub Health § 265-a) as two examples.
The Clones were created to be the soldiers of Grand Army of the Republic. On many levels, this is taking a leap beyond using drones in combat. Instead of risking the lives of citizens or having an unpopular draft to build an army, simply ordering thousands of Clones avoids having citizens fight for their country. A civilian population is less likely to oppose a war if they are not feeling its effects by actually having to fight it.
What rights would a Clone have as a living being? We often view being human as requiring being born and having parents. Clones have a donor and were grown in a laboratory. Do these facts make them less or human? Or is humanity based on 1) Intelligence; 2) self-awareness; and 3) consciousness (to borrow from Star Trek The Next Generation)?
The fact the Clones did not refer to themselves as numbers, but names they gave themselves, demonstrated all three elements. Moreover, the fact Clones had different haircuts, facial hair and interests showed further self-awareness. Additionally, demonstrating compassion for their fellow soldiers showed character traits of what makes humans, human.
If the Republic recognized that Clones had intelligence, self-awareness, consciousness, but viewed the Clones as state property, then the Republic sanctioned slavery based on whether a life was born or grown in a test tube. Alternatively, if the Republic did not recognize Clones having intelligence, self-awareness, consciousness, then the Clones were legally treated like a machine or a domestic animal.
Neither option is attractive for a Republic. It was redeeming of the Jedi Shaak Ti to stand up for Fives with the statement, “it is simply the right thing to do” over his life and reporting to the Chancellor, even if her argument was based on the Republic owning the Clones.
Jabba the Hutt likes to have Droids torture other Droids. However, is that even torture?
The law defines “torture” as follows:
Every person who, with the intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose, inflicts great bodily injury as defined in Section 12022.7 upon the person of another, is guilty of torture.
The crime of torture does not require any proof that the victim suffered pain.
Cal Pen Code § 206.
“Great bodily injury” means a significant or substantial physical injury. Cal Pen Code § 12022.7(f).
In Return of the Jedi, Jabba’s Palace included a Droid duty assignment office, which doubled as a Droid torture chamber. A Power Droid was hung by his shaking little feet while a hot brand was applied to his feet. The Power Droid screamed “NNNNNOOOO, NNNNOOOO” during the procedure as a guard laughed.
R2D2 was made to watch these events, serving as a form of torture to ensure compliance with the orders of Jabba’s Droid.
The issue whether Jabba unlawfully had Droids tortured in an inhuman house of horrors must overcome an ugly legal issue: Does a Droid have “human rights”? Can a Droid be responsible for torturing another Droid even though the law requires a “person” to commit the act?
Droids are considered property, as evident from Uncle Owen purchasing C3PO and R2D2 from the Jawas in A New Hope (the legality of the purchase is problematic, based on whether the Droids were lost or abandoned property after Princess Leia was captured by Darth Vader). Assuming the purchase was valid, Luke would have been the legal owner of the Droids after his aunt and uncle were killed. Alternatively, the ownership of the Droids could be established as inheritance from his parents, however that is problematic from the passage of time between Revenge of the Sith to A New Hope, unless Captain Antilles was serving as a bailee until the twin Skywalkers were of proper age.
Regardless, Luke Skywalker offered C3PO and R2D2 as a legal gift to Jabba the Hutt. This is further evidence that Droids are merely considered property and do not have “human rights,” because a basic human right is not to be exploited for slavery.
Droids have an odd quality for being property: they have a range of personalities and emotions, including fear or being grumpy. Why build machines that serve as property that experience fear and pain? Such programming begs to introduce a wide range of legal issues on the ethical treatment of Droids.
The law has over a century of statutes and cases protecting animals from cruelty (See, Cal Pen Code § 597 and Yielding v. Ball, 205 Ala. 376, 377 (Ala. 1921)). Moreover, animals such as dogs and cats are considered personal property. Just like a Droid.
Hanging a Power Droid by his feet and burning him would be actions consistent within the protections of Cal Pen Code § 597, which prevents the maliciously and intentionally torture of an animal and Cal Pen Code § 206 as sadistically causing great bodily harm. While a Droid is neither a “person” or an “animal,” a Droid is property like an animal, with a wide range of emotions that both animals and human beings experience. While the law does not specifically include Droids, the great body of law prohibiting torture of humans and animals shows the intent to prohibit the torture of Droids based upon our human values to prevent harm to others.
The fact a Droid carried out Jabba’s torture does not free the Droid or Jabba from prosecution. The “I was just following” orders defense would fall on deaf ears, as Jabba’s Droid knew its actions were causing pain upon the Power Droid and serving as a threat to R2D2. Jabba would be responsible as both the Droid’s owner and as the business owner.
The epic Twitter contract negotiations of Marvel and Star Wars heralded a heroic age of contract formation of offer, acceptance and consideration for the use of property.
The Twitter negotiations, however, also required trading Yoda, Hutts, plus Deadpool for Boba Fett, and Mace Windu for Nick Fury. The open discussions for trading human beings (and other living beings who are not animals or property), would violate the civil rights of those individuals, given the prohibition of indentured servitude. Moreover, @Marvel specifically rejected including any of Tony Stark’s armor in the negotiations out of fear Ewoks would be placed in them. As such, the parties discussion could be summarized as the following terms and conditions:
The Marvel & Star Wars Lease Agreement of Lightsabers for Mjolnir
@Marvel and @StarWars, both subsidiaries of Disney, hereby agree to the following terms and conditions:
@StarWars will lease to @Marvel one blue lightsaber, one green lightsaber, one purple lightsaber, one yellow lightsaber and one red lightsaber for the term of one week (7 day on Earth);
@Marvel will use the above mentioned lightsabers for scientific research.
@StarWars hereby warns @Marvel of the risk of injury of using said lightsabers, including loss of limbs, eye injury, blindness, beheading and even death.
In consideration for the use of the lightsabers, @Marvel will lend for a period of one week Mjolnir (7 days on Earth), making no warranties on whether anyone at @StarWars is worthy enough to lift Mjolnir.
@Marvel hereby warns @StarWars of the risk of injury for using Mjolnir, including lower back strain for attempting to lift, arm injury, dislocated shoulders, eye injury from lightening, hearing damage from thunder, electrocution, property damage from flooding, high winds, rain, or lightening strikes, and any other reasonably foreseeable injuries from attempting to control weather or throwing a hammer.
Choice of Law:
The parties agreements will be governed by the laws of the State of California.
Forum Selection Clause:
Any and all disputes will be heard in Anaheim, California, at Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln, and arbitrated by the animatronic Abraham Lincoln. The parties further agree to be bound by the arbitrator’s final decision on ay disputes, waiving all legal claims.
Waiver of Claims by @Marvel:
@Marvel waives any claims against @StarWars, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers from damage or loss caused by:
A. Any suit or proceeding directly or indirectly attacking the validity of this Contract, or any part of this Contract.
B. Any judgement or award: (i) declaring this Contract, or any part of this Contract, either void or voidable, or (ii) delaying the performance of any part of this Contract.
Waiver of Claims by @StarWars:
@StarWars waives any claims against @Marvel, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers from damage or loss caused by:
A. Any suit or proceeding directly or indirectly attacking the validity of this Contract, or any part of this Contract.
B. Any judgement or award: (i) declaring this Contract, or any part of this Contract, either void or voidable, or (ii) delaying the performance of any part of this Contract.
Express Agreement by Parties
Neither @Marvel or @StarWars will allow any of its officers, agents, employees or volunteers to use either a lightsaber or Mjolnir without a signed liability wavier for any injury sustained by using a lightsaber or Mjolnir. Children are expressly prohibited from using the property subject to this agreement.
Property Damage:
The parties will be financially responsible for any damage to the property subject to this contract.
Severability:
If any provision of this Contract is held invalid or unenforceable, its invalidity or unenforceability will not affect any other provisions of this Contract, and this Contract will be construed and enforced as if such provision had not been included.
Entire Agreement:
This Contract constitutes the entire agreement between @Marvel and @StarWars. Both parties revoke all prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements between them that are inconsistent with this Contract. In the event of a dispute between the parties regarding the Contract, this Contract will be deemed to have been drafted by the parties in equal parts so that no presumptions or inferences concerning its terms or interpretation may be construed against any party to this Contract.
Experts can get creative when stating their opinions.
In a products liability case over injuries sustained while wearing a snow sports helmet, the Defense expert demonstrated his Star Wars knowledge. The Defense expert explained their were no feasible alternatives in designing a helmet that would have prevented the Plaintiffs injuries:
[Such a helmet would be] made out of depleted uranium and weighs more than [the wearer] can move. Therefore, he can’t do anything while wearing the helmet. Therefore he won’t be injured. . . .
. . . [Y]ou could write a helmet standard that requires the helmet to cover from your shoulders to the top of your head and you look like Darth Vader and it weighs 6 pounds and no one would ever wear it. So you haven’t accomplished anything when it comes to protecting the public because it’s beyond the scope of what people are willing to wear.
Trust Dep’t of First Nat’l Bank of Santa Fe v. Burton Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130534, at *11 (D. Colo. Sept. 11, 2013) (Tr. Vol. V at 49.).
The expert’s opinion sounded more like Dark Helmet than Darth Vader, but the point was made: it would be big and heavy.
The Court, best read in a Governor Tarkin voice, stated the following in footnote 5:
In a less florid vein, Dr. Halstead opined that a helmet with four inches of padding — as opposed to the 1 to 1.5 inches typical of snowsport helmets — might have prevented Mr. Melendy’s injuries, but that the mass and bulk of such a design likely would negatively impact other important aspects of the helmet’s utility and performance, making it unlikely that anyone would purchase or wear a helmet thus designed.
Trust Dep’t of First Nat’l Bank of Santa Fe, at *11-12.
I often wonder if Geek Judges call their Law Clerks Padawans.
Below are two more Judges who reference Star Wars in opinions.
One directly makes a Star Wars reference to shoot two proton torpedoes at an attorney’s argument; the other referencing testimony from a party.
Who Doesn’t Like a Judge Who Quotes Obi-Wan Kenobi?
Stapleton also demands a list of Dr. Harries’s publications over the last decade, a list of the cases in which he has testified over the same period, and a statement of his compensation. See R. 93 at 5. Without citation to authority or much supporting argument, Stapleton tries a unique line of attack. He directs the Court for “guidance” to the more detailed requirements of the analogous rule of civil procedure. See R. 45 at 5 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)). This attempted diversion—the legal equivalent of Obi-Wan Kenobi’s “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for,” see Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (Lucasfilm 1977)—is unavailing. “[D]iscovery afforded by Rule 16 is limited to the evidence referred to in its express provisions.” United States v. Presser, 844 F.2d 1275, 1285 (6th Cir. 1988). The government has already provided Dr. Harries’s reports and curriculum vitae. See R. 87 at 2. Because these documents amply cover his opinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions, and his qualifications, Rule 16(a)(1)(G) is satisfied. The government has thus met its disclosure obligations regarding Dr. Harries’ testimony.
United States v. Stapleton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108189, 23-24 (E.D. Ky. July 31, 2013).
Would “Callrisian-esque” Be an Adjective?
Defendants, who referred to TestMasters as an “evil empire,” began working together in September and October 2004 on what would become Blueprint while all of them were still working for TestMasters. For example, on September 28, 2004 Teti wrote to Martin about the terms of a potential partnership agreement and how to compete successfully with TestMasters. On October 12, 2004 Teti wrote to Capuano, Triplett, and Martin “collectively for the first time,” distributing a list of “vital questions to consider” for their new business. By October 13, 2004 defendants were discussing the viability of forming a new business together, undercutting TestMasters’ price (by $250), and preparing for litigation with TestMasters. Defendants made plans in October 2004 to meet with attorneys to discuss these issues, and to get advice on what they “were and weren’t allowed to do in terms of figuring out whether this potential business was feasible while still employed by TestMasters.” Teti, Capuano, Triplett, and Martin met several more times in October 2004 to discuss creating their own LSAT preparation company, and by October 25 were referring to each other as partners and were working on structuring their course and creating course material for their new business that would be “very similar to the TM [TestMasters] course structure.” Capuano promised the others he would “not do anything ‘Callrisian-esque,'” which was his way of saying that he would not betray defendants to TestMasters, as the character Lando Calrissian (“the mayor of Cloud City” played by Billy D. Williams) had done in the Star Wars movie The Empire Strikes Back (Lucasfilm 1980).
Robin Singh Educ. Servs. v. Blueprint Test Preparation, 2013 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 537, 11-13 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Jan. 23, 2013).
The Court Will Be With You, Always
I believe there will always be Star Wars quoting judges. The Gen Xer’s now on the bench grew up with an X-wing fighter in hand, chasing a sibling with a Tie Fighter. Those sort of positive life long memories simply do not go away, they helped define a person. Those same attorneys and judges have watched The Clone Wars with their kids (or without) and are counting down the days until Episode VII is released.
The more interesting question is whether a Federal or State Court Judge will write the Star Wars Bench Book for judicial quotes for specific rulings…