Home Blog Page 6

The Legal Geeks Panel Schedule @ SDCC 2022

0

We are proudly presenting three panels at San Diego Comic Con 2022, the first SDCC since 2019! Join us as we celebrate our 10th Anniversary with three panels celebrating Jaws, Star Wars, and Marvel movies.

Thursday 7/21/22

7:00PM – 8:00PM Jaws: The TrialThe Town of Amity is being sued by the families of shark attack victims! Was it right for Mayor Vaughn to keep the beaches open after the death of Chrissie Watkins? Was the medical examiner right to change Watkins’s cause of death to a boating accident? Join attorneys Michael Dennis, Mark Zaid, Danna Nicholas, and Kathy Steinman, as they argue before Judge Carol Najera. Featuring Valerie Tosi as Mrs. Kintner and Jeff May as Mayor Vaughn. Presented by The Legal Geeks. Room Grand 12 & 13, Marriott Marquis San Diego Marina.

Friday, 7/22/22

7:00PM – 8:00PM Law of the Star Wars Underworld. From bounty hunters to powerful syndicates and smuggling runs, the seedy criminal underworld of Star Wars isn’t for the faint of heart, but it plays an important role in the galaxy far far away. Have you ever wondered whether Din Djarin could legally carbon freeze his bounties, or if Boba Fett had grounds to demand tribute in Mos Espa? Join our panel featuring Circuit Judge John Owens,  Judge Carol Najera, Stephen Tollafield, Christine Peek, and Gabby Martin, as they venture into the Star Wars underworld to explore some of the biggest legal issues, from the complicated business of bounty hunting to the shadowy operations of groups like the Hutts, Pykes, and Crimson Dawn. Moderated by Joshua Gilliland of The Legal Geeks. Room: 7AB

Saturday, 7/23/22

7:00PM – 8:00PM Law and Thunder: Legal Analysis of Thor and Doctor Strange. Who is the true owner of Mjölnir? What is the liability for breaking the multiverse? What are the legal defenses for Wanda of 838 for being possessed by Wanda of 616? And is there a cause of action for Zeus flicking too hard? Join our panel of lawyers for their legal analysis of Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness and Thor: Love and Thunder. Featuring Judge Stan Boone, Jessica Mederson, Gabby Martin, Stephen Tollafield, and Megan Hitchcock.  Moderated by Joshua Gilliland of The Legal Geeks. Room: 23ABC

Dungeons and Detention: How Marley Improperly Imprisoned Combatants and Civilians

0

Background

One of the hallmarks of some of the most recent episodes of Attack on Titan: The Final Season (AOT) has been the continual conflict between all three active parties: Marleyans, Eldians, and The Jaegerists. The Jaegerists, a new local military faction, found its genesis amongst the Paradis Survey Corps who adhered to Eren Jaeger and his pursuit of “The Rumbling.” He and other volunteers were detained by the Paradis military forces as punishment for insubordination during the assault on Liberio at the beginning of the season. We also see the detention of children. Specifically, Falco and Gabi who are members of Marleyan military who fought against the Paradis forces at Liberio and were subsequently captured. In both of these detention instances we see that international humanitarian law (IHL) has been violated. 

You might be wondering how it was violated or why do we have rules on detention? Well, the goal of this article is not to address every single detention issue that arose – there are many; rather, it is to address the most prevalent violations. Secondly, it will aim to explain how the Geneva Conventions would apply and the rationale behind the rules. 

Host of Violations

Detention itself is not wrong. Detaining prisoners of war (POWs) and civilians stretches back to the earliest forms of human conflict and is seen as a natural part of armed conflict. However, what has changed overtime is what we do with POWs and civilians once they are captured during an international armed conflict (IAC) and a non-international armed conflict (NIAC). An IAC exists when two states are in conflict with one another and a NIAC exists when a state(s) is in conflict with a non-state armed group. With this distinction comes separate IHL rules for the conflicts. IAC has more protections and the rules for detention are found in the Geneva Conventions (GC) – specifically, Common Article 3 (CA3) and GC III and IV apply. When it comes to NIAC, we have a much smaller set of rules and less protections and have only CA3 and Additional Protocol (AP) II that apply. But, the POW status isn’t something to be lightly given out. When looking to see who gets the protections Art. 4 of GC III helps guide us. It tells us there are four critical criteria to be considered: 

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In AOT, we have an existing IAC between Marley and Eldian so those detained will have the respective GCs and CA3 apply and will have the coveted POW status. When it comes to the Jaegerists and their relations to respective states, those detained will fall under the smaller subset of rules for NIACs and will not acquire POW status. 

a. Gender Separation 

When it comes to POW detainment, GC III sets out the rules for how POWs are to be treated spanning from food to shelter to alerting families back home of their capture. When it comes to quartering POWs, Art. 25 states that in any event that women are POWs alongside male POWs that they are to have separate dormitories. Adding to this is that when it comes to overall treatment, CA3 and Articles 13 and 14 inform the detaining powers that they are to treat the POWs with the utmost core and dignity. Just because someone is a POW does not mean they are seen as lesser humans; rather, they should be treated with more care. 

This is one of the clearest examples we have of an IHL violation when it comes to detention. As stated above in Art. 25 we are supposed to have separate quarters for individuals of opposite sex. The commentaries to Art. 25 note that in times of conflict securing separate quarters for opposite sexes can be difficult or infeasible; however, they are required to try to the best of the ability. If anything, if they can’t separate they need to ensure the women are not isolated and that they are provided with personal hygienic items. 

In episodes 74 and 75, we are shown the Eldians putting all the prisoners in a single cell regardless of their gender. They were not lacking in rooms within the detention center nor was the detention site in a conflict zone which might prohibit gender separation. Rather, the cells were in the capital of the Eldian empire within the HQ building far removed from conflict. Here, Art. 25 speaks to the Marleyan individuals that were detained like Pieck, Gabi, Falco and the rest of Marleyan forces. For the Jaegerists, the gender separation requirement doesn’t apply because they are not covered by GC III. They do get the basic protections outlined in CA3 like “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment” cannot be inflicted upon them once in captivity. 

Collectively, both the Jaegerists and the POWs may have been subjected to another violation during their tenure in the cramped cell. At one point a Marleyan military member came into the detainment area and brandished a gun towards the prisoners threatening to shoot one or multiple members. Although the threat was short lived, they were killed, the action alone may have violated CA3. Specifically, it could be seen as violation subsection A of CA3 which provides that a violation occurs if there is “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.” 

The POWs and Jaegerists were not given adequate treatment at the threshold they are expected to have during a time of conflict. The lack of humane treatment, separation, and exposure to violence makes it more difficult for other states to see the need to reciprocate the GCs rules when it comes to when they detain since their own people didn’t have those protections. 

b. Children and Detention

Children have no place in war. I mean GC IV and other treaties tells us that they are a protected class. Yet, in AOT, at the very front and center we see two children fully immersed in the horrors of war – Gabi and Falco. That alone is a law of war violation and won’t be covered here but if you’re curious here is another article that covers issues with children being involved in conflict. Instead, the focus here is to determine if there was a violation with Gabi and Falco in episode 70.

Gabi and Falco, ignoring the fact that they are children, qualify as POWs. How? As laid out above from Art. 4 of GC III, we need the individuals to carry arms openly, respond to a chain of command, wear a distinguishing symbol, and participate in actions that follow the rules and customs of the law of war. Gabi and Falco both wear the Marleyan uniform, have the symbol affixed to them, adhered to a chain of command in their respective unit, and for the most part followed the customs of war during armed conflict. 

This means that their detention in AOT must meet the higher standards set out in GC III. In episode 70, we are shown that these two are detained together in what looks like a bedroom, a violation of Art. 25 if we’re being picky. Further, the guard enters the room and seems to go after Gabi. We don’t know his true intentions, so it is murky to try and claim a CA3 or Art. 13/14 violation. But, we do know Gabi responded with violent force ultimately killing the guard before she and Falco make their escape. Now, Gabi’s action on its face seems like it should be a violation; however, Art. 91, 92, and 93 of GC III which cover escapes are silent to this. The commentary for Art. 92 tells us that it’s a longstanding practice not to punish a POW for their actions taken during their attempted escape; rather, the only punishment should ascribed to the escape itself and no more. This is drawn from many historical treaties like the he 1874 Brussels Declaration, the 1907 Hague Regulations, agreements adopted during the First World War, and the 1929 Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War. So, I would say that the death is permissible and not a violation as the guard was a member of the opposing armed forces and is thus targetable. Just because the POW is detained doesn’t nullify their ability to target enemies in an armed conflict and stymieing this, I think would cause greater issues. 

Conclusion

Detaining members of opposing forces is a natural element of an armed conflict. We know that how we treat those designated as POWs or with other legal statuses can effect how opposing forces will treat our own in this conflict and in conflicts yet to come. This means it is imperative to not only recognize GC III but to try and follow the articles as set out. Understandably this can be hard given varying circumstances of detention. 

The Eldians could have done a much better job in failing to adhere to GC III with their flagrant mistreatment of their POWs and the Jaegerists under their purview. They had the means, the space, and the supplies to easily prevent the violations that were listed and the many that were not focused on. You can see that the failure to provide separate quarters or allowing the threat to multiple lives could lead to harsh reciprocal treatment to their forces by Marleyans if detained. This is exactly what we don’t want. It’s a tit-for-tat that can be avoided. Yet, this kind of maltreatment leaves an open wound that can fester and in the next conflict can make opposing parties more recalcitrant to adhering to the rules and willing to punish their POWs. 

Lastly, is dealing with Falco and Gabi. Morally, most of the world finds children soldiers repugnant and directly considers their conscription to be a war crime. I agree, of course. However, here the task was to overlook this and to understand their detention scenario. Legally, Gabi and Falco got the correct treatment afforded to them as POWs and there didn’t seem to be any direct violation outside of separating the kids. Furthermore, Gabi’s killing of the guard is a natural part of armed conflict and he assumed the risk of death by wearing the uniform. She cannot be punished for it nor if she and Falco were recaptured could they have it used them as an aggravating factor that would make the next punishment more severe. 

The Eldians, despite their rightful grievances against Eren and Marleyans, shouldn’t have let their emotions supersede the legal obligations they owed to those detained. The failure to adhere will only cause more waves in their relationships and shows to us the importance of maintaining clarity and due respect to others. Detention in armed conflict although common is important. It is a reflection on how we show the world how we perceive our enemies and is a way to provide a form of armed mercy. It is not something Eldia nor Marley nor the Jaegerists strive to achieve. It is something that they must achieve time and time again for the sake of future conflict. 

Obi-Wan Kenobi Audio and Video Podcasts

0

Here is our review of Obi-Wan Kenobi, starting with Episodes I and II recorded at Star Wars Celebration.

Episodes I and II

The Legal Geeks

Kenobi Legal Review at Star Wars Celebration

May 28, 2022

Joshua Gilliland, Christine Peek, and Thomas Harper

Recorded live on May 28, 2022 at Star Wars Celebration (over pizza)! Joshua Gilliland, Christine Peek, and Thomas Harper weigh in on the legal issues in episodes 1 and 2 of Kenobi. What are the unlawful business practices of Jawas? Could the Grand Inquisitor close all travel off a planet? And does Kenobi have a duty to rescue Jedi or kidnapped children? Join us for our legal analysis. 

Support the show


No part of this recording should be considered legal advice.
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok @TheLegalGeeks

Episode III

The Legal Geeks

Analysis of Obi-Wan Kenobi Kenobi Episode 3

June 06, 2022

Joshua Gilliland, Gabby Martin, Thomas Harper, and Stephen Tollafield

Can Inquisitors have a hostile working environment beyond hunting Jedi? Did Freck violate any vehicle codes with passengers riding without seatbelts? Was Tala justified in shooting Stormtroopers? Join our panel of lawyers for their legal analysis. 

Support the show


No part of this recording should be considered legal advice.
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok @TheLegalGeeks

Episode IV

The Legal Geeks

Review of Obi-Wan Kenobi Episode 4

June 14, 2022

Joshua Gilliland, Thomas Harper, and Stephen Tollafield

Time to discuss the duty to rescue, interrogating children, and desecration of corpse with Josh Gilliland, Thomas Harper, and Stephen Tollafield. 

Support the show


No part of this recording should be considered legal advice.
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok @TheLegalGeeks

Episode V

The Legal Geeks

Legal Analysis of Obi-Wan Kenobi Episode 5

June 20, 2022

Joshua Gilliland & Stephen Tollafield

Join us for a discussion on refugees, war crimes, targeting civilians, and the extreme workplace violence in the Empire. 

Support the show


No part of this recording should be considered legal advice.
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok @TheLegalGeeks

Episode VI

The Legal Geeks

Review of Obi-Wan Kenobi Episode 6

June 27, 2022

Joshua Gilliland, Christine Peek, Stephen Tollafield, Bethany Blanton

Legal analysis of Obi-Wan Kenobi episode VI. 

Support the show


No part of this recording should be considered legal advice.
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok @TheLegalGeeks

Interrogating a Minor Princess of Alderaan

0

The Inquisitor Reva captured, shackled, and transported Princess Leia of Alderaan from Mapuzo to Nur. Could any information learned from a custodial interrogation of the 10-year old Princess be admissible in court? 

Federal law requires that when a juvenile is arrested, the arresting officer “shall immediately” tell the child of their legal rights in language they can understand AND immediately tell the juvenile’s parents, guardian, or custodian, that the child was taken into custody. 18 U.S.C. § 5033.

The “rights” that 18 U.S.C. § 5033 include Miranda. The Miranda opinion was the result of a long line of cases that bars the government from using the statements of a defendant made during a custodial interrogation, to prove the case against the defendant, provided the statements were made before the defendant was told of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney.  See, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, at 444 (1966). The goal of this “exclusionary rule” is to prevent unlawful police conduct.

The Miranda Court specifically held:

Accordingly we hold that an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation under the system for protecting the privilege we delineate today. As with the warnings of the right to remain silent and that anything stated can be used in evidence against him, this warning is an absolute prerequisite to interrogation. No amount of  circumstantial evidence that the person may have been aware of this right will suffice to stand in its stead. Only through such a warning is there ascertainable assurance that the accused was aware of this right.

Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436, 471-472 (U.S. 1966).

Assuming the Galactic Empire has similar laws to 18 U.S.C. § 5033, Leia’s parents clearly had not been notified of Leia’s arrest. Considering that Reva had Leia kidnapped in the first place, it is unlikely Reva is going to start following child protection laws at this point in the story. It is also a safe bet no Miranda rights were given to Leia. As such, nothing learned from interrogating Leia would be admissible in court. 

Given the facts that Leia was both in shackles, in an interrogation room, had been transported from one planet to another, it is clear she is being detained. The scene begins with her [rightly] throwing down she was royalty and her father a Senator. Reva’s response to Leia’s “Don’t You Know Who I am” defense was that she had no rights on Nur as a Jedi sympathizer.

Children in custody have Miranda rights just as adults do to protect against self-incrimination and vindicate their right to counsel. Children can waive Miranda rights, but there are specific factors to evaluate. In a denial of a petition to the California Supreme Court, the rules for child waivers are spelled out. The case involved a 10-year old boy who shot and killed his sleeping father. The child was questioned by police, in the living room, with his step-mother present. The questioning was recorded on video. 

In order for a Miranda waiver to be valid, it must be “made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.” The waiver must be made “with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.” In re Joseph H., 200 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (Cal. 2015), citing Moran v. Burbine 475 U.S. 412, 421,  (1986). 

The following considerations must be given to a juvenile’s waiver: age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and “whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights.’ ” In re Joseph H., at *2, citing People v. Nelson 53 Cal.4th 367, 375 (2012).

As Princess Leia is 10 going on 30, she had the intellect and maturity to understand her rights. This is evident from the Princess telling her captor she would tell them nothing, which was within Princess Leia’s right to remain silent. 

Reva deciding to torture Leia is a very big Constitutional no-no.

Darth Vader’s Crime Spree on Mapuzo

0

Darth Vader is scary for a reason: He hurts people. A lot of people. Probably to increase his Force abilities so he can hurt more people.

In Obi-Wan Kenobi episode 3, Darth Vader’s malice for all was on display as he tore through the town on Mapuzo. Vader held a father in the air while Force choking him. When the victim’s son tried to intercede, the boy was Force pushed against the side of the home, and then his neck snapped with the Force. Shortly thereafter, a woman was drug through the dirt street face down by use of the Force. 

Here are a few of the crimes Darth Vader committed: 

Battery

Darth Vader brutalized the citizens of Mapuzo with the Force. The obvious charge against Vader is Battery, which is “… any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.” Cal. Pen. Code § 242. Choking people, slamming others against walls, or dragging individuals through the street is a willful and unlawful use of violence against a person. The elements of “battery” are clearly met.

Torture 

Did Darth Vader commit Torture of both Victim 1 (the Father) and Victim 3 (Woman drugged through the street)? If California law is applied, Torture is defined as: 

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. 

Darth Vader asked no questions of either of his victims. He inflicted pain and moved on. 

Vader’s actions appear to have the “intent to cause cruel and extreme pain.” Case law defines this phrase means to cause extreme or severe pain. People v. Aguilar, 58 Cal.App.4th 1196, 1202 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). Choking the father in the air checks that box; dragging a woman face down through a dirt road is not anyone’s idea of a spa day. The element of extreme pain is met with every bruise, abrasion, and broken bone. 

Inflicting pain for the purpose of revenge, extortion, or any sadistic purpose is not clear from the facts. Vader’s acts could have been for the purpose of revenge for Kenobi being given safe harbor in the town, but that is not clear from the facts. There is no evidence of extortion, because there is nothing asked from any of Vader’s victims. 

“Sadistic purpose” means the “the infliction of pain on another person for the purpose of experiencing pleasure.” Aguilar, at * 1203-04. It is known that Dark Side users can feed off the feelings of anger or pain. Consider Anakin Skywalker confronting Chancellor Palpatine, where the future Emperor stated, “I can feel your anger. It makes you stronger, gives you focus.” Palpatine’s expression is one of ecstasy…very creepy ecstasy.

Was Vader’s harming others to power up with a contact high of fear before confronting Kenobi? If the answer is “yes,” then the elements of torture have been met. 

Murder 

Darth Vader snapped the neck of a child coming to his father’s aid while Vader battered the father. This was clearly murder. California law defines Murder as “…the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.” Cal. Pen. Code § 187(a). Malice aforethought is “express when there is manifested a deliberate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a fellow creature.” Cal. Pen. Code § 188(a)(1).

The killing of the son was unlawful. Even humoring the idea that Darth Vader represented law enforcement, the son did nothing to threaten Vader. Moreover, there is no argument that Force choking someone “just cause” is a lawful act for a state actor that would give a colorable argument that the son was interfering with a police action. There was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to give any indication of wrongful conduct by the father. He was simply a victim in Vader’s way. The child died because he had the audacity to try to help his father. 

The element of malice aforethought is met because using the Force to kill someone is a manifested deliberate act to take a life. Vader did exactly that. 

What to Know Before Adopting a Princess in Star Wars

0

We learned in the Obi-Wan Kenobi series that Leia Organa had a brat for a first cousin. The behavior was likely learned behavior from Leia’s uncle, who was more interested in making a profit than social issues like ending slavery. Going for the ancient insult of “you’re adopted,” the cousin told Leia she was not a real Organa. 

Bail Organa gave his daughter a pep talk after the incident by telling her, “You are an Organa in every way.”

Bail Organa is legally correct. 

Adoption is a very complex set of procedures that focus on reunification with biological parents and not separating siblings, to highlight a few of the policy goals. Once an adoption has been codified, the child takes on the family name of the adoptive parents. As my Wills and Trusts professor described the process, it is like the blood of the parents are grafted onto the child for all legal rights. 

When it comes to the issue of inheritance from parents, it is established law that “the adopted child had rights of inheritance in the estate of his adoptive parents only, he being granted all of the rights of a natural child with reference thereto, but that by the adoption, his rights of inheritance from or through his natural parents were severed and terminated.” Estate of Garey, 214 Cal.App.2d 39, 53 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963).

There is likely a gap in paperwork for Leia’s adoption, since Princess Leia’s birth would be a state secret on Alderaan. One option for explaining a missing document such as a birth certificate, could be if there was a Galactic Safe Surrender Baby Law. Such laws allow for a mother to surrender a child confidentially to a hospital without fear of prosecution for child abandonment. Another is the fact there would be a large number of Clone Wars orphans who lost their parents (such as Din Djarin). Either would be a plausible cover story for Leia’s existence without raising suspicions on her biological parentage. 

Leia is an Organa under the eyes of the law. Bail Organa is absolutely correct Leia was an Organa in every way. 

Egon Spengler Dies, who you Gonna Call: A Trusts and Estates Attorney

0

In the newest installment of the Ghostbusters franchise, Callie, a broke, single mother, finds herself in the small, mining town of Summerville, Oklahoma with her two children, Phoebe and Trevor.  Newly evicted from her apartment, Callie thought her luck had turned around when she received word that her father, from whom she was estranged, had died, and left her property. 

Who was her father? None other than Egon Spengler, a founding member and the brains of the Ghostbusters operation.  

As Callie, Phoebe and Trevor approached the property, they see a barren dirt field, bible verses painted on wood slabs, and an extremely dilapidated farmhouse.  Home sweet home. Or is it?  

Egon’s demise, his absconding with Ghostbuster property, and Callie’s subsequent transformation into Zuul, one of Gozer’s minions, raises the question of who owns Dirt Farm, and the items located on the property. 

Who Died? 

Behind every inheritance—is a dead person. 

Under section 3122 of Oklahoma’s Uniform Determination of Death Act, an individual is dead if they have sustained either 1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or 2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem. 

Here, Egon became a ghost during the film’s opening scene. One could argue that Egon retained brain function because he continued to offer expert guidance to Phoebe as she, her family and friends worked to defeat Gozer once and for all.  As a ghost, however, he no longer had circulatory or respiratory functions. Since Egon was all ectoplasm and no blood, and he did not require oxygen to sustain himself, he was dead under Oklahoma law. 

Callie, on the other hand, did not die when she became Zuul. Although she was possessed,  her human form remained, along with her brain function, circulatory and respiratory functions.  Once Phoebe captured Zuul in the ghost trap, Callie was freed, and life, quite literally, went on. 

Who Owns What? 

Callie is the rightful recipient of Egon’s property regardless of whether he died intestate, without a will, or had some sort of estate plan that bequeathed his property. 

Egon was unmarried at the time of his death and Callie was his only child.  Therefore, she is the sole heir to his estate.  (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 84, § 213.)  Callie, however, mentioned that she was “surprised he left [her] anything,” when speaking to her landlord, which implies that Egon had some sort of estate plan in place.  

In that case, Callie would still be the rightful owner of the property.  The only difference is that instead of being an heir, she would inherit as a beneficiary.  When someone creates a will or a trust, their property passes to the named beneficiaries pursuant to the terms of the document.  (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 84, § 301; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 84, §§ 41, 301; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 60, § 175.2.)  Thus, Callie owns Dirt Farm. 

Though Callie is the sole owner of Dirt Farm, the same cannot be said of the Ectomobile, ghost trap, proton pack, or P.K.E. meter.  During a phone call to Ray Stantz, another founding member of the Ghostbusters, Phoebe learned that the business collapsed when Egon took all the ghostbusting equipment with him to Oklahoma.  A testator may only devise their property.  Because the ghostbusting gear was owned by the business, Egon lacked the authority to unilaterally bequeath it.  If the business were defunct, which was unclear by the end of the film given that the Ghostbusters reunited to vanquish Gozer, each member of the Ghostbusters would have an ownership interest in the property. Therefore, the Ghostbuster equipment belongs entirely to the business, or Callie has only a partial ownership interest. 

What About the Creditors? 

Egon’s friend, Janine Melnitz, informs Callie that there was, “no money,” and “quite a bit of debt,” at the time of his death. 

While beneficiaries are generally not liable for the debts of the decedent, creditors are entitled to repayment from the decedent’s estate.  In this case, there is no money in Egon’s estate to satisfy the debts.  The Court, however, has the authority to order that property, including real property, be sold to satisfy a decedent’s debts.  (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 58, § 381.)  Whether the Court would force a sale which would leave Callie, Phoebe, and Trevor homeless, is a topic for another article. Suffice it to say, should creditors seek repayment, Callie would need to secure funds to satisfy any creditor’s claim, or risks losing Dirt Farm in a court-ordered sale. 

Conclusion

In short, Callie inherited Dirt Farm, and likely has a partial interest in the Ghostbusters equipment.  Given she is currently unemployed and characterized by Phoebe as “bad with her money,” how long Callie will keep any of her newfound “wealth” remains an open question.