Voting is now open in The Geekie Awards. It is time to vote early and vote often for The Legal Geeks for Best Podcast. We ask for your vote every day for Best Podcast until August 31, 11:59pm PST.
Please help us show the world that lawyers love not just the law, but comic books too. Please go to http://vote2015.thegeekieawards.com/ and cast your vote for The Legal Geeks.
The Thing is naked in the new Fantastic Four movie. Heck, even San Francisco has an ordinance against public nudity. What happened here?
I fondly remember John Byrne’s run on Fantastic Four with excellent adventures across space and time. Since the earliest days of the comic, the cover declared, “The World’s Greatest Comic Magazine.” The reviews of the new movie do not honor the comic characters so many love.
Ben Grimm being naked in no way lives up to the comic brought to life by Jack Kirby. Parents potentially have to explain to kids where is The Thing’s “thing.” The FF deserve a Netflix series where they take on the Mole Man with an army of monsters and advance technology; or the Sub-Mariner declaring war on the surface for pollution; or Rama-Tut/Kang seeking to conquer time. Hopefully Marvel can get the rights back and give the world the Fantastic Four it deserves.
Fanboy rage aside, could The Thing be charged with indecent exposure for being naked (assuming a war-hero pilot from New York would suddenly become a nudist Ken-doll-like super-hero)?
New York defines public lewdness as when someone “intentionally exposes the private or intimate parts of his body in a lewd manner or commits any other lewd act (a) in a public place, or (b) in private premises under circumstances in which he may readily be observed from either a public place or from other private premises, and with intent that he be so observed.” NY CLS Penal § 245.00
New York defines exposure when a person “appears in a public place in such a manner that the private or intimate parts of his body are unclothed or exposed.” NY CLS Penal § 245.01. New York law has an exception for exposure, which states, “Nothing in this section shall prevent the adoption by a city, town or village of a local law prohibiting exposure of a person as herein defined in a public place, at any time, whether or not such person is entertaining or performing in a play, exhibition, show or entertainment.” Id.
If Ben Grimm were charged with either public lewdness or exposure, a defense attorney could argue that the law does not apply to Ben Grimm as The Thing, because Grimm no longer has a human body with “intimate parts.” A prosecutor might counter that Grimm is still a human being, protected by the Constitution, Federal, and state law; therefore, Grimm has to also follow the law.
Just as Ben Grimm’s older brother would never abuse him, Ben would never give up his claims on his humanity in order to escape criminal prosecution. Comic stories over the last 35 years had The Thing travel in time and give his past self an antidote to the Cosmic Rays in an alternative timeline to regain his humanity. Moreover, Ben Grimm stayed on the first Secret Wars world where he could change back into a human body. If you have not read those stories, be sure to check them out.
The Thing simply walking around in public would also not be lewd by itself, which would demonstrate that a core element of the law was not broken. However, exposure would be harder to challenge, because Grimm is entering public places “in such a manner that the private or intimate parts of his body are unclothed or exposed.” As such, The Thing would be violating the plain text of the statute.
The best way for a man turned into a rock monster to not be charged with exposure is to AT LEAST wear blue shorts. Pants and boots would also be great. A shirt would also ensure Ben Grimm would be served at most restaurants (assuming their seating could support his weight).
Jess and I both loved Marvel’s Ant-Man. We discussed all things Ant-Man on our podcast, from comic history to the many faces of Hank Pym.
We also explored the number of crimes Scott Lang committed and how many years could he have served in prison. After all, Scott’s time San Quentin could not have exceed Cassie Lang’s life.
We entered the micro-verse on whether vigilantes could legally fight arms dealers selling to international terrorists, and course, whether Cassie Lang could have a giant ant as a pet.
It is the time of year again, when attorney bloggers start barnstorming across Iowa and New Hampshire to win the hearts of readers at pancake breakfasts and state fairs.
Nominations for the ABA Journal Blawg 100 are now open. If you enjoy our blog, we would be honored if you took two minutes and “cast a vote” for us.
You can cast your vote to nominate The Legal Geeks by visiting the ABA Journal and submitting 1) your name and email; 2) our website www.thelegalgeeks.com; 3) a link to your favorite recent post; and 4) say why you like our blog with up to 500 words.
Nominations are due by 11:59 p.m., Central Time, on August 16, 2015. Please visit http://www.abajournal.com/blawgs/blawg100_submit for more information.
Thank you for reading our blog. Let’s “Geek the Vote.”
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.
Cassie Lang has a very special pet at the end of Ant-Man: An ant that is larger than a Rough Collie. Would she be legally able to have such an exotic pet in San Francisco?
The state of California and cities have very specific rules on the kinds of animals that can be pets. California prohibits a long list of animals from being imported, possessed, or released live in the state without a revocable, nontransferable permit, including any animal from Manatees to all species of Crocodilidae. Cal Fish & G Code § 2118. This list does not include any inspects.
The City and County of San Francisco prohibit animal owners from letting animals run at large around the city, other than domestic cats. San Francisco Health Code section 41.12. It is illegal to sell wild or dangerous animals in San Francisco, which are defined as animals that are “wild by nature and not customarily domesticated in the City and County of San Francisco and which, because of its size…that could constitute a danger to human life.” San Francisco Health Code section 51. These animals include wolves, jaguar, elephant, orangutan, Gila monster, and others, to name a few. Id. Moreover, wild animals must have a permit, or be taken by animal control up to 14 days before being sold or destroyed. San Francisco Health Code section 65.
San Francisco’s laws do not specifically address insects. By way of comparison, Alameda pet restrictions include insects. Alameda, California Code of Ordinances Sec. 7-9.6.
Pet ordinances are not designed for insects to be artificially enlarged. The City and County of San Francisco would likely require a license for a giant ant based on its “size” as a wild animal that could pose a danger to a person.
There is not a rich body of law for “ant farm” liability. At common law, an owner of a wild animal is absolutely liable for any injuries caused by that animal. By way of comparison, owners of domesticated such as dogs or cats are not subject to liability under common law unless the owner knew the animal was abnormally dangerous. Drake v. Dean (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 915, 935. However, California statute states that dog owners are liable for damages if a dog bites someone if the victim is in a place where they can lawfully be, regardless of knowledge of whether or not the dog is vicious. Cal Civ Code § 3342.
Would the same be true of a giant pet ant? Most likely yes, given the exotic nature of the pet and an active plaintiff’s bar if the ant bites anyone. Moreover, ants can lift 1000% their weight. As such, “Antie” should be able to overturn cars, rip doors off hinges, and cause general mayhem on a rampage. However, it seems highly unlikely Cassie would employ her pet ant to terrorize first graders. That being said, it is a good thing Cassie has a police officer as a soon-to-be step-father to help with the permitting process.
Politics has a history of being ugly. In the election of 1828 John Quincy Adam’s campaign published the “Coffin Hand Bill,” which outlined people that candidate Andrew Jackson had killed in dueling; President Lyndon Johnson’s “Daisy Ad” nuked Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964; and the election of 1860 outright had threats against Abraham Lincoln.
While giving out the personal cell phone number of an opponent is nothing like dueling, it is a brutal way to reach out and touch someone. Just how many calls did Senator Graham have after Donald Trump’s sideshow antics? Moreover, what are the Senator’s possible legal actions (besides having a sense of humor and destroying his flip phone in a YouTube video)?
A creative Federal Prosecutor would analyze whether or not Donald Trump could be charged with violating 18 USCS § 351(e), which states “Whoever assaults any person designated in subsection (a) of this section [a Member of Congress, President, or member of the Executive Branch] shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the assault involved the use of a dangerous weapon, or personal injury results, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” 18 USCS § 351(e).
Case law has held that intentionally spitting on or throwing eggs at individuals covered by the law is sufficient to sustain a conviction. See, United States v Masel (1977, CA7 Wis) 563 F2d 322, cert den (1978) 435 US 927, 55 L Ed 2d 523, 98 S Ct 1496 and United States v Calderon (1981, CA10 Colo) 655 F2d 1037.
Giving out someone’s personal cell phone would not be assault under the plain text of current law, but it arguably is harassment. In South Carolina, harassment in the second degree is defined as “a pattern of intentional, substantial, and unreasonable intrusion into the private life of a targeted person that serves no legitimate purpose and causes the person and would cause a reasonable person in his position to suffer mental or emotional distress. Harassment in the second degree may include, but is not limited to, verbal, written, or electronic contact that is initiated, maintained, or repeated.” S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-1700(B).
A lawyer could argue that intentionally giving out a United States Senator’s personal cell phone number is harassment, because it encouraged others to be the agent of a political candidate in making unwanted phone calls to a political opponent. While the political candidate himself is not making any phone calls, his actions arguably encouraged others to do so on his behalf.
South Carolina also prohibits assaulting or intimidating citizens based on their political beliefs. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-560. One can argue that giving out a cell phone number is a form of intimidation, depending on the nature and number of phone calls Senator Graham received based on his political opinions.
Could a Federal Prosecutor or District Attorney charge Donald Trump for harassing Senator Graham in either Federal Court or South Carolina? Unknown, but is something the FBI would be investigating if the Senator got any threatening phone calls.
Senator Graham potentially has a very strong invasion of privacy case by Trump giving out the Senator’s phone number. To prevail on such a theory, Senator Graham would have to prove:
Snakenberg v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. (Ct.App. 1989) 299 S.C. 164, 166 [383 S.E.2d 2, 3].
Invasion of privacy requires that the defendant’s conduct would cause mental injury to a “person of ordinary feelings and intelligence in the same circumstance.” Id.
Most people would suffer mental injury if their cell phone exploded with adversarial calls and text messages. We do not know how many calls Senator Graham received because of Donald Trump’s disclosure of Senator Graham’s private phone number. Could the Senator have a civil case? Maybe, but there would have to be far more legal research and analysis of the number of calls the Senator received to determine if a lawsuit could be filed in South Carolina.
It is a good bet that there will be no legal action over this “political question.” Instead, the court of opinion that decides this case will be by the good people of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
I can safely say who I am not voting for in the primary.