The Bride of Frankenstein!

By

-

October 31, 2018

The Bride of Frankenstein is a reminder that you literally cannot MAKE someone to love you. For anyone who thinks the myth of Pygmalion is a workable model in sculpting a woman to love you, Bride of Frankenstein is a healthy dose of reality. The story picks up from the ashes of the original Frankenstein, with enough changes in continuity that shows the producers had not planned to make a sequel of the original film.

The Mad Doctor

Dr. Septimus Pretorius is the archetype of the mad scientist without any ethics. Dr. Pretorius is the poster child on why the Nuremberg Code exists to protect people from human experimentation. Pretorius paid henchmen for access to catacombs, where he identified the body of a deceased woman, and noted that he hoped she had strong bones. Pretorius later stayed in the catacombs for the ambiance, where he enjoyed a bottle of wine with a coffin as a table. He took the creepiness up a notch by decorating coffin with a skull and bones for happy hour.

Laws globally are enacted to keep the living from doing everything Dr. Pretorius did in the catacombs. Anyone who knowingly “mutilates or disinters, wantonly disturbs, or willfully removes any human remains” without legal authority is guilty of a misdemeanor. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 7050.5(a). Moreover, anyone who removes any part of human remains from where they are interred, with intent to sell or dissect the remains, or with malice or wantonness, without legal authority, has committed a felony and is subject to imprisonment. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 7051; Cal. Penal Code § 1170(h). Furthermore, anyone who willfully mutilates, removes, or has sexual contact with human remains, is guilty of a felony. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 7052(a).

Dr. Septimus Pretorius willfully mutilated remains by placing the skull and bones on the coffin for his twisted picnic. This was at least a misdemeanor. The removing of the female corpse for medical experimentation is a felony.

But the crimes don’t stop there.

Crimes Against Frankenstein

Dr. Septimus Pretorius forced Dr. Henry Frankenstein to collaborate on creating a mate for Frankenstein’s Creature by kidnapping his wife Elizabeth. Pretorius held Elizabeth in an unknown location and threatened her safety in order to compel Dr. Frankenstein’s participation in creating a “friend” for the Creature.

It is worth noting that the collaboration between the two doctors sought Dr. Frankenstein’s knowledge to create a living body from corpses. Dr. Pretorius proved he could “grew” miniature people, thus would grow a brain for the Bride.

Pretorius had no moral reservations about holding people against their will. His homegrown homunculi were kept in glass jars; imprisoning Elizabeth was completely within his “means justify the ends” attitude.

Kidnapping is the forcible taking of a person. Cal. Penal Code § 207(a). Kidnapping someone for ransom is a felony that can be punished with life without parole if suffers bodily harm or is exposed to a substantial likelihood of death. Cal. Penal Code § 209. False imprisonment is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another. Cal. Penal Code § 236.

Elizabeth was taken by the Creature and imprisoned with threats against her life. Given the ease with the Creature had killed others, Elizabeth had been exposed to a substantial likelihood of death. Moreover, Elizabeth was taken in order to secure the compliance of Dr. Frankenstein in order to build a Bride for the Creature. This is a ransom case and Pretorius clearly committed multiple felonies.

Is Creating a Bride from a Reanimated Corpse Human Trafficking?

Dr. Septimus Pretorius compelled the help of Dr. Frankenstein and stole a human body (plus a heart on Frankenstein’s instructions) in order to build a mate for the Creature. This arguably is human trafficking…with the added twist that victim was brought to life by those who did the human trafficking.

Human trafficking is the deprivation of the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor from the victim. This is a felony that can be punished in prison for 5, 8, or 12 years with a fine up to $500,000. Cal. Penal Code § 236.1(a).

The Bride immediately rejected the Creature after being brought to life and introduced to her “groom.” There is a defense that she was never actually deprived of her personal liberty, given how quickly the situation deteriorated, but that would ignore the Creature’s action to destroy the laboratory with “we belong dead.”

Love’s Labour’s Lost

The Creature survived being burned alive, shot at after saving a woman, pursued by a lynch mob, tortured, hunted, and imprisoned without the right to counsel. The one person who cared about him was a blind man who did not know the Creature was “a monster.” Cruelty drove the Creature straight to Dr. Pretorius who capitalized on the hate the Creature endured to transform him into “The Monster.” The Creature wanted only to be loved and took a dark path that lead to ruin. While the Creature ultimately realized what he had become, the real monsters were the ones who carried torches and strung the Creature up like an animal.

Ethical Concerns of Representing Dracula

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 30, 2018

0

There is the long running lawyer joke that attorneys are vampires. However, the story of Dracula features an attorney who was retained by a creature of the night for leasing property in England. In the 1931 film, Renfield travels to Transylvania and quickly falls under Dracula’s spell. Renfield assists the vampire in traveling to England aboard a sailing ship, alerting Dracula when the sun had set for the Count’s nightly feeding on sailors. For a different take on the story closer to the book, check out the Fictional Podcast has a great three part series telling the story that follows Jonathan Harker on his ill-fated trip to Transylvania.

Here is a question worthy of a bar exam, what should a lawyer do if a vampire seeks their legal representation?

Client Discrimination Based on Status as a Vampire

Attorneys have a duty “[n]ever to reject, for any consideration personal to himself or herself, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(h). Moreover, lawyers “shall not unlawfully discriminate or knowingly permit unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age or disability in accepting or terminating representation of any client.” California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 2-400(B)(2).

It would be wrong to reject representing a vampire on the sole basis the client is a vampire. Lawyers cannot discriminate based on a disability (such as being undead, bursting into fame if exposed to sunlight, and requiring human blood based on dietary restrictions), or national origin (such as being Transylvanian). These factors are alone not a basis for rejecting someone as a client and could be grounds for a discrimination lawsuit.

Lawyer Can’t Advise Breaking the Law

Renfield (or Harker in the book) did not know Dracula’s intentions besides his real property interests in England. This is important, because attorneys are not supposed to advise clients on violating laws. California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-210. If the attorney knew that Dracula intended to travel to England in order to murder and feed on an unsuspecting population who did not decorate their homes with Crucifixes and Communion wafers, the attorney did not knowingly advocate violating the laws against murder. If the attorney knew Dracula’s intent, then there is a serious ethical breach.

Attorney-client Privilege Doesn’t Apply to Enabling Crimes

Attorneys have a duty to maintain their client’s confidential information. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(e)(1). However, an attorney may, but is not legally required, to reveal confidential information if the attorney believes it is necessary to prevent criminal activity that can result in death or substantial bodily harm. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(e)(2). Moreover, the attorney-client privilege does not apply if a lawyer’s services were sought to enable or aid anyone to commit a crime. Cal Evid Code § 956(a).

Dracula’s attorney would have to maintain his client’s confidential information that went into securing the real property agreements, but if the lawyer knew of Dracula’s intent to kill, then the lawyer has options for informing law enforcement. The attorney could inform the police of Dracula’s intent to kill people for their blood, which could include the location of Dracula’s properties. However, there is no legal requirement that the attorney has to inform law enforcement, which would make the lawyer a true monster if he decided to not take any action to stop his client from feeding on others.

If the attorney offered Dracula legal advice on how to murder, locations around London that would be prime hunting grounds, that advice would not be protected by the attorney-client privilege. At that point the lawyer has transformed from attorney to henchman, and is assisting with committing crimes.

The Required Medical Consent to Transfer Costello’s Brain to the Frankenstein Monster

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 27, 2018

0

The cultural watershed of Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is the perfect Halloween treat of horror and comedy joining together, much like a Reece’s Peanut Buttercup.

In a tale of monsters, the Uniform Commercial Code, and possible insurance fraud, one legal issue towers above the rest: Dr. Sandra Mornay’s seduction of Wilbur Grey (Lou Costello) in order to transfer his brain to the body of Frankenstein’s Creature without Grey’s medical consent.

Doctors in Florida (the state where Wilbur Grey and Chick Young worked for a shipping company), are required to explain to patients proposed medical procedures within the accepted standards of the medical profession, so that a reasonable person would understand the risks of undergoing the procedure, or alternatives. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 766.103(3)(a)(1) and (2).

Dr. Sandra Mornay conspired with Dracula to transfer Wilbur Grey’s brain to the body of Frankenstein’s Creature. While Mornay ultimately fell under the influence of Dracula, she had agreed to the “brain transfer” before falling under Dracula’s spell. After kidnapping Grey and transporting him to an island laboratory, Dr. Mornay explained the following procedure to Wilbur:

I’m not going to hurt you. Soon, instead of being short and chubby, you’ll be big and tall and as strong as an ox. And furthermore, you’ll live forever and never grow old.

I shall remove your brain and put it in his body.

Dr. Mornay explained the basics of the removing Wilbur’s brain and placing it in the Creature, but there was no discussion of how the procedure worked or risks. Moreover, “brain transfers” are outside the accepted standards of the medical profession, as seen by the lack of “brain transfers” performed by doctors. This is in addition to Dr. Mornay having the worst bedside manner ever and body shaming Wilbur after kidnapping him.

Florida law states that it is the duty of a physician to obtain the informed consent of a patient, which requires the patient to know the degrees of danger of the medical procedure to be performed. Cedars Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Ravelo, 738 So. 2d 362, 367 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999). Wilbur was never a patient, but a kidnap victim who was being subjected to an unorthodox medical experiment. Even if the kidnapping is overlooked, Wilbur was being subjected to a medical procedure that was never fully explained without his permission.

Informed medical consent for any procedure, especially medical experiments, is to ensure patients understand the risks. Moreover, it is to protect patients from physicians who want to play Dr. Frankenstein.

Can the Ghostbusters be sued for not coming to your assistance?

By

Steve Chu

-

October 24, 2018

0

CAN THE GHOSTBUSTERS BE SUED FOR NOT COMING TO YOUR ASSISTANCE??

By: Steve B. Chu, with help from Cameron J. Chu and Brandon C. Chu

We’ve all been there: enjoying a peaceful day at the park, the kids are playing, and we line up for a sumptuous healthy repast of hot dogs, only to be interrupted by an appearance of the supernatural kind . . .

The horror!!

What happens now?

Who can possibly help us before the focused, non-terminal repeating phantasm, also referred to as a class 5 full roaming vapor, aka “Slimer” makes off with our healthy hot dogs???

Of course! We call our faithful paranormal investigators: the Ghostbusters! They are still busting ghosts after all these years, and doing it well I might add. They would handle the job and protect both our fun and our food, all at the same time. No slime on these hot dogs here!

Now, in the legal world, we live in the realm of “what if?” So what if the Ghostbusters were NOT so quick to respond? In fact, what if they didn’t particularly care for our paranormal dilemma? What if something were to happen that went a little like this . . .

The Ghostbusters NOT answering the call??!! Chaos would ensue: ten years of darkness, cats and dogs living together, you get the picture. So now what? Could an aggrieved park-goer now sue the Ghostbusters for their inaction?

The argument for the case would probably go something like this: the Ghostbusters are in the business of protecting people by fighting ghosts, they make their living this way and even advertise that they protect people. And yet, when I actually called them, they didn’t care! They neglected me and all the other poor park-goers. Thanks to them, we had to live with slimy hot dogs. Would such a case stand a chance in a Court of law?

Can the Ghostbusters be sued for not taking action? Under California law, the answer is a resounding no. In order to file a tort lawsuit seeking money damages, one must first show that the person/entity being sued had a legal responsibility to do something they did not do. Or in legal parlance, the defendant must have owed a legal duty to act. The general rule here is that absent some special responsibility, one owes no duty to control the conduct of another, nor to warn those endangered by such conduct. Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 203 (1982).

In the excellent IDW Ghostbusters comic, the City of New York reached an agreement with the proton pack carrying team to have them act as a form of deputized law enforcement. So let’s take that example of law enforcement and public entities such as police and firefighters. The law makes clear that generally speaking, one cannot civilly sue public safety officers for not coming to one’s aid.

A long line of California cases protects public safety personnel from being sued based upon the failure to act reasonably in protecting members of the public. Williams v. State of California, 34 Cal.3d 18, 28 (1983); Carpenter v. City of Los Angeles, 230 Cal.App.3d 923, 931 (1990); Davidson, 32 Cal.3d at 203. Recovery has been denied for injuries caused by the failure of police personnel to respond to requests for assistance, the failure to investigate properly, or the failure to investigate at all, where the police had not made some form of promise that they would provide protection to a specific person. Williams, 34 Cal.3d at 28; Carpenter, 230 Cal.App.3d at 931.

In one example, a court found that police had no duty to act when they were engaged in surveillance of a laundromat, a victim was attacked by an assailant, and officers knew there was a similar assault the night before and saw the alleged perpetrator leave and enter the premises several times. Davidson, 32 Cal.3d at 203. The court ruled that a police officer’s mere observation of a citizen’s conduct which might create a risk of harm to others does not create a legal responsibility to control the citizen’s subsequent harmful behavior. Jackson v. Clements, 146 Cal.App.3d 983, 987 (1983).

The rationale for this rule? It is the age old “slippery slope.” As California Courts have recognized: “The problem is that a duty to warn in the context of danger existing off premises will seldom be as simple as passing along unverified information. Inevitably, [the Court] would be imposing not just a duty to warn but a duty to investigate, monitor and evaluate reports of off-premises dangers.”

So the concern is that if we were to allow lawsuits against public officials who are sworn to protect the public and yet fail to do so, we are significantly increasing the potential for lawsuits and people could now sue a police officer for not responding to a call that they personally believe to be meritorious. This would make things more difficult for law enforcement officials to do their jobs as they would have less ability to make their own decisions about where to focus their resources, what investigations to conduct, and how to deploy their personnel.

California also has a specific statute that prevents these type of “failure to act” lawsuits against police. California Government Code sections 818.2 and 845 state that public entities are not liable for failure to provide sufficient police protection service, for failing to make an arrest, or failing to retain an arrested person in custody.

California Courts have specifically held that: “Whether police protection should be provided at all, and the extent to which it should be provided are political decisions which are committed to the policy-making officials of government. To permit review of these decisions by judges and juries would remove the ultimate decision-making authority from those politically responsible for making the decisions.”

(Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal. 4th at 1142 (emphasis added).)

So regardless of the ultimate reason for not responding, the law protects the discretion of law enforcement and public safety officials to decide how best to go about their jobs.

Let’s take the comic example we just saw where poor Louis Tully is attempting to cross at a crosswalk before almost being viciously mowed down by a Zombie Cabbie. What if super-assistant Janine Melnitz, and the Ghostbusting crew were otherwise engaged in all important contests of video games, pool and darts? If that were the case, could they be sued?

The answer would remain a resounding no. The reason the Ghostbusters do not act is not the concern of the inquiry. The concern is that Courts are reluctant to impose legal obligations upon people that would force them to take action.

Undoubtedly, most situations where public safety officers don’t show up would likely involve officers who are simply tied up on other cases and unable to be everywhere at once. One can imagine situations where public safety officers are working long hours, getting inundated with calls for assistance, and despite best efforts they still cannot respond to every call. The law protects these officers from civil lawsuits for the alleged failure to respond.

Here’s what we would LIKE to happen!! We would like for the Ghostbusters to hang out in their headquarters, ready to spring into action 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They could then respond to a call anywhere within the time it takes for Ecto-1 to make the trip. Who needs a day off when one is fighting evil paranormal spirits?

Part of the Ghostbusters’ recruiting pitch, should they decide to open up their ranks, could include the notion that people cannot legally force the Ghostbusters to act. The Ghostbusters have the freedom to help, or not help, as they choose.

Now as a practical matter, if the Ghostbusters started refusing calls and leaving people to be slimed in parks and crosswalks, then they would likely start losing business and it would be a public relations disaster. However, from a tort law point of view at least, they cannot be forced to act.

On a related side note, a member of the public should also not be able to prevail in a case against the Avengers or any other superhero for failing to swoop in and save them at the last minute for the reasons already discussed.

Indeed, an individual relying upon a civil tort case to force the Ghostbusters to act is likely to end up feeling like this shining example of comic book fan stereotypes.

Have a safe and Happy Halloween everyone!

Toys and Photography: Cameron, Brandon and Steve Chu.

Directed by: Cameron

Ghosts and staging: Brandon and Cameron

For more Lego fun and shenanigans, plus blooper reels, please take a quick look at these two videos:

Motion for Declaratory Relief that Tolkien is Better than Martin

By

Evan Walker

-

October 22, 2018

0

Forth Eorlingas!

The gauntlet is thrown, the die is cast.

Oxford don J.R.R. Tolkien has moved the Court for declaratory relief that every erudite lawyer should recognize that Tolkien is better than Martin.

Who dares to challenge his motion?

“Thus he came alone to Angband’s gates, and he sounded his horn, and smote once more upon the brazen doors, and challenged Morgoth to come forth in single combat. And Morgoth came.”

The Silmarillion: Of the Ruin of Beleriand and the Fall of Fingolfin

Motion for Declaratory Relief

Contact Us to Post Your Opposition or Amicus Brief

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Lessons in Air Races from Star Wars Resistance

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 18, 2018

0

Star Wars Resistance does a wonderful job honoring the flying spirit of air races and test pilots, with homages to Chuck Yeager, “Pancho” Barnes, the Happy Bottom Riding Club, Fireball XL5, and classic anime such as Starblazers, Robotech, and Area 88. It is also pure Star Wars fun.

Star Wars Resistance takes place on the Colossus, a fuel super tanker that functions as a city-state island on the ocean planet Castilon. The Colossus exists to support an economy built upon air races and gambling.

Air racing is a highly regulated activity on Earth. In the United States air races are governed by FAA regulations and local laws. Examples of local regulations include special events requiring use of the airport for air shows, air races, fly-ins, sky diving, require the approval of the Airport Manager and compliance with all FAA regulations. Carson City, Nevada Code of Ordinances Sec. 19.02.020.040. Permits can also be required for events with more than ten aircraft or thirty people. Buckeye, Arizona Code of Ordinances Section 22-1-5.

The procedures for applying for an air race are outlined in FAA Order 8900.1 and directs applicants to use FAA Form 7711-2, Application for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization. The Accreditation Process outlined in FAA Order 8900.1 includes the following multiple steps:

Pre-application

Formal Application

Document Compliance

Demonstration and Inspection

Accreditation

The required documents for the application include at least the following:

1) Management résumés.

2) Operation manual.

3) General Maintenance Manual (GMM) (as applicable).

4) Aircraft qualification.

5) Minimum pilot qualifications and experience.

6) Pilot qualification (air race card) training program.

7) Air race security plan.

8) Safety operating rules and procedures which include Safety Management Systems (SMS) and/or risk management practices.

9) All air racecourses proposed.

10) Airport analysts and feasibility/airport requirements.

11) Race format and description.

12) Race control procedures.

13) Onsite surveillance plan for validation.

14) Emergency response plan in accordance with Volume 3, Chapter 6, Section 1, subparagraphs 3143A18) and H) and 3144A1), B1), C12).

15) Event management plan, in accordance with Volume 3, Chapter 6, Section 1, subparagraph 3144B1).

There is no question watching a Rodian, Ithorian, and Snivvian, prepare operation manuals and emergency response plans for a closed course air race would be tons of fun, however, it is highly unlikely we will see that in Star Wars Resistance…

Can Kaz Recover Damages if Injured in the Fireball?

Air racing is an inherently dangerous activity. The Resistance pilot and spy Kaz inadvertently found himself in a race within one day or arriving on the Colussus. Pilots who are injured in air races have an extremely difficult time recovering any damages because of the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. The issue for Kaz is whether he assumed the inherent risks of air racing based on his “knowledge and experience” as a pilot. Goodlett v. Kalishek, 223 F.3d 32, 37 (2d Cir. 2000).

In a decision denying a surviving family member’s case for the death of a pilot in an air race, the Court explained that in that lawsuit, “[t]he risk of a fatal crash, whether as a result of a midair collision or some other cause, plainly inheres in one’s participation in this sport, as is evidenced by the fact that there had been several accidents in previous air races that resulted in death or serious injury to pilots and the fact that the sponsoring Association explicitly warns pilots that there is a risk of midair collisions (and that such collisions “usually” result in the deaths of both pilots).” Goodlett, at *37-38.

Kaz flew a plane named the Fireball, which required extensive repairs in order to be flight ready. Moreover, the former pilot turned mechanic Yeager warned Kaz that the Fireball could live up to its name. Kaz had actual knowledge of the risks of flying based on his military experience; knowledge of the second-hand parts used to repair the Fireball; and was told by Yeager not to push the engines in order to avoid an explosion. Based on Kaz’s knowledge of the Fireball and experience as a fighter pilot, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk would bar Kaz from recovering for any injuries he sustained in racing the Fireball around the Colossus.

However, nothing would blow a spy’s cover like a lawsuit…

The Law of Monster Crossovers

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 13, 2018

0

Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman is the first time movie characters had a crossover event in a connected universe. The film brought to life many legal issues that attorneys have howled over for decades.

Grave Robbing

Lawrence Talbot was dead at the end of The Wolfman. Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman begins with two men who entered the Talbot family tomb and opened Lawrence’s crypt four years after his death to steal cash, a ring, and his watch off his body. This is the literal definition of “grave robbing,” but with a few historical twists.

19^th Century cases pertaining to “grave robbing” centered on the removal of a body with the purpose of selling the remains for medical experimentation. State v. Baker, 46 S.W. 194 (Mo. 1898). In the case of Lawrence Talbot, the robbers clearly trespassed into the crypt with the intention of committing a crime, but it would not be the “ancient” view of grave robbing. These older laws would clearly prohibit the conduct of any of the Dr. Frankenstein’s who dug up bodies for experiments.

Modern laws clearly prohibit the conduct of the men who tried to “rob” a dead body. Idaho prohibits the desecration of a place of burial. Idaho Code § 18-7027. Entering the tomb and opening the crypt would qualify as desecrating the grave of Lawrence Talbot. Nevada specifically includes that anyone who removes an article interred with a body is guilty of a felony. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 451.030. Talbot’s watch, ring, and cash, were clearly intended to be interred with his corpse, as those items were buried with him.

While the two grave robbers did not have their day in court, they did suffer extra-judicial punishment from a reanimated corpse that turned into a wolf.

Police Led Mobs

After a distraught father named Vazec carried his dead daughter killed by the Wolfman to the town square of Vasaria, the public response was to form a mob led by the chief of police. The angry mob quickly found Maleva, who was racially profiled as a Gypsy. She was told to “speak up, Old Witch,” and suffered other indignities.

The angry villagers chasing after the Wolfman were at best an “unlawful assembly,” which is when two or more people do “an unlawful act, or do a lawful act in a violent, boisterous, or tumultuous manner, such assembly is an unlawful assembly.” Cal. Penal Code § 407. The plausible argument for unlawful assembly is the villagers were seeking a dangerous animal that killed a human being, yet were doing so in a violent manner.

The villagers pursuing the Wolfman could arguably be a riot, which is when there is any “use of force or violence, disturbing the public peace, or any threat to use force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two or more persons acting together, and without authority of law, is a riot.” Cal. Penal Code § 404. There is an argument that the villagers were acting under the authority of the police. Moreover, in times of public calamity, a governor could call for volunteers to act in an unorganized militia. Cal. Mil. & Vet. Code § 128. There is a colorable, but not strong, argument the mayor did call for volunteers and the villagers acted as an unorganized militia in response to the “public calamity” of a wolf that had killed a girl was now stalking villagers.

There were multiple instances of riots being urged and those calling for a riot could be prosecuted. Cal. Penal Code § 404.6. Moreover, when two or more people make any attempt to riot if they had actually committed the act, they could be prosecuted for committing a “rout.” Cal. Penal Code § 406. Naturally, the crimes of urging riot and rout were committed in the town bar by individuals drinking alcohol.

Medical Ethics of Murder and Assisted Suicide

Dr. Mannering agreed to help the villagers by killing Frankenstein’s Creature with science. After reviewing the diary of Dr. Frankenstein, Mannering agreed to help Larry Talbot commit suicide.

That….is really problematic for a doctor. The Hippocratic Oath states to “do no harm” and that a doctor will not “administer a poison to anyone when asked to do so nor will I suggest such a course.” Thorburn v. Dep’t of Corr., 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 584, 588 n.6 (Ct. App. 1998), citing The Oath of Hippocrates, as quoted in AMA Council Rep., supra, 270 JAMA 365. Medical ethics stated that doctors participating in state-ordered executions violation their duties as doctors. Id. In the case of Dr. Mannering, this is doubly problematic, because he is helping Talbot kill himself and a “promise” to kill Frankenstein’s Creature.

California has an “End of Life” law that allows for a person with a terminal disease who has mental capacity to request a prescription for them to self-administer an aid-in-dying drug if they meet residency requirements. Health and Safety Code § 443.2. Residency requirement aside, Talbot does not meet the requirement of having a terminal disease. If anything, the cruse of the werewolf brought Talbot back from the DEAD, so it is difficult to call it a “terminal illness.” Turning into a werewolf is a horrible physical condition, but not one that could be called “terminal.”

There is a new law that goes into effect on January 1, 2019 that makes it a felony to deliberately aid, advise, or encourage another to commit suicide. Cal Pen Code § 401. Dr. Mannering, Baroness Elsa Frankenstein, and Maleva, all aided in Talbot’s goal to commit suicide. While the plan was unsuccessful, Dr. Mannering violated medical ethics and engaged in conduct that would be a felony.

The issue of Frankenstein’s Creature is more black and white: Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. Cal. Penal Code § 187. Draining all of the life out of the Creature would have been murder, if Dr. Mannering had gone through with it. Instead the doctor could not resist going all “mad scientist” and opted to make the Creature stronger.

Domestic Terrorism

Vazec sought revenge on Talbot, Dr. Mannering, Baroness Elsa Frankenstein, Maleva, and the Creature for the death of his daughter. His logic was not based on reason, but prejudice. In order to kill everyone at Castle Frankenstein, Vazec decided to blow up the dam that provided hydro-electric power to the castle and flood the area.

Domestic terrorism is any act that is dangerous to human life that is in violation of the law. 18 U.S.C.S. § 2331(5)(A). Blowing up dams is not like parking illegally. Society cannot survive when individuals leverage self-help remedies for their grievances. Blowing up a dam to murder multiple people is a reckless action that could endanger the lives of everyone in the town. While the death of Vazec’s daughter was tragic, murdering multiple people would not bring her back.

The Monster Squad

Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman is the first time two Universal Monsters crossed over into one film. It is heavily “Wolfman 2” with Frankenstein’s Creature as a guest star. Lon Chaney Jr does a masterfully performance as someone suffering from a horrible condition who is riddled with guilt. For an in depth discussion of the film, please listen to the podcast with Matt Weinhold from Monster Party, available below.