We had an amazing time at San Diego Comic Con Special Edition. Check out recordings of our panels below.
Friday, November 26 @ 730pm- Ghostbusters: Law for the Afterlife
Saturday, November 27 @ 100pm – A Lawyer’s Holiday Special
The Legal Geeks at Denver Fan Expo
We are presenting at Denver Fan Expo on October 30 and 31st! Here is our schedule if you want to see us at the show!
October 30
GALACTIC LAW IN STAR TREK LOWER DECKS
2:30 pm in ROOM 709 Journey to the Lower Decks for strange new worlds of legal analysis with The Legal Geeks! Defending First Officers who turn into zombies and vengeful gods with the insanity defense! Just what is the liability for creating the murderous hologram Badgey? Can senior officers send ensigns out to run personal errands? And let’s not forget the penalties for disobeying lawful orders. Join our panel of lawyers for their analysis of Star Trek Lower Decks.
October 31
THE WESTVIEW WITCH TRIALS
2:30 pm in ROOM 709 In Wandavision, Wanda subjected an entire town into her sitcom-oriented alternate reality. In this panel, we put Wanda on trial. Is she guilty of kidnapping? Torture? Copyright infringement? Is mind control a crime even if you don’t know you are doing it? Or was she simply protecting herself in the only way she could? Is Vision liable as an accessory to the crimes? Our panel of legal experts (including Phil Weiser, the Attorney General of Colorado) discuss and debate the issues. Panelists: Bethany Bengfort, Durie Tangri LLP Nari Ely, Durie Tangri LLP Josh Gilliland, The Legal Geeks, Mollybeth Kocialski, US Patent & Trademark Office Mark Lemley, Stanford Law School Phil Weiser, Attorney General.
THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL MONSTERS
1:30 pm in ROOM 709 The Classic Universal Monsters set the gold standard for horror films. These movies also raise great legal issues. Could Frankenstein’s Monster be legal competent to stand trial for the death of Little Maria? Is the Wolf Man a Peeping Tom? Would the Creature from the Black Lagoon be an Endangered Species? Is it desecration of a corpse to bring a mummy to life? Join our panel of lawyers to find out the answers to these monstrous legal issues. Presented by The Legal Geeks.
Review of the E-WIN Gaming Chair for Blogging and Podcasting
My career has entailed a substantial amount of document review, blog posts, articles, and presentations over the years. I also have done hundreds of webinars and podcasts. Finding a comfortable chair has been hit and miss, so when E-WIN contacted me about reviewing one of their E-WIN gaming chairs, I was more than interested.
What I Like about the Knight Series Chair
First things first: I love the chair.
I was able to assemble my E-WIN chair in under 30 minutes. The chair has an ergonomic design, which is a quantum leap improvement over my prior chair that was 15 years old. It is supportive of my back, with a comfortable headrest. It’s price being just under $200 is also good to see for those looking for a new chair for their office.
While not as fun as playing video games, I have conducted a substantial amount of document review to identify deposition exhibits in the E-WIN. I found the back support really effective at helping me maintain good posture while constructing searches and issue coding hits.
I have used the chair for both video livestreams and podcasts. I absolutely prefer the comfort and design of the Knight Series over my old chair, using a bar stool, or kitchen chair to record.
The E-WIN has improved my home office and I would like to get one for my firm.
If you are looking to upgrade your office chair with a heavy duty gaming chair that can hold up to 400 lbs, readers of the The Legal Geeks can get 20% off with the code “Legalgeeks”. Check out E-WIN for more.
Defending Scotty for Triple Homicide
Wolf in the Fold is a Star Trek TOS episode that highlights 1) Dr. McCoy is not a psychologist; and 2) lessons in the insanity defense for possession by a disembodied non-humanoid entity.
Scotty Kept Killing Ladies
The relevant facts from the episode include Captain Kirk and Dr. McCoy taking Lt. Commander Montgomery Scott on “therapeutic shore leave” on the hedonistic planet Argelius II, because Scotty developed a total resentment of women after being injured in an explosion caused by a female crew member on the USS Enterprise. Dr. McCoy’s prescription for Scotty was to go to a planet that was a giant red light district. Tabling if this means Dr. McCoy barely passed psychology in med school, our heroes went to a gentlemen’s club where they set Scotty up with a belly dancer named Kara.
Scotty and Kara went for a walk in the fog, while Kirk and McCoy venture to another part of town. After a sudden scream, Scotty was found holding a knife over the body of Kara who had been stabbed multiple times. In the course of the investigation, two other women are killed: Lt. Karen Tracey, while administering an exam with a “psycho-tricorder” on Scotty; and Sybo, the wife of the planet’s leader Prefect Jaris. Sybo was killed during a seance called an Argelian empathic contact, where she identified an entity with an undying hatred of women named Redjac.
Redjac turned out to be Jack the Ripper, a disembodied non-humanoid entity that possessed people in order to kill orders to fed off their fear.
The Insanity Defense
Proving Lt. Commander Montgomery Scott was not guilty by reason of insanity would require showing that he 1) had a severe mental disease or defect; and 2) as a result of that defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. 18 U.S.C. § 17.
There are no reported insanity defense cases of disembodied non-humanoid entities taking control of an individual and causing them to murder others. Sadly, there are insanity defense cases where the victim was stabbed to death. In one case, the trial court refused to allow a jury instruction for the insanity defense. The trial court was reversed, because the defendant had submitted substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that “at the time the crime [was] committed [Defendant] suffered from such a diseased or deranged condition of the mind as to render [Defendant] incapable of knowing the nature and quality of the act . . . [or] distinguishing between right and wrong in relation to that act.” State v. Luerkens, No. 15-2188, at *10 (Iowa Ct. App. May 3, 2017). This evidence included expert testimony that the defendant was suffering from clinical depression and evidence that the defendant did not have memory of killing the victim. Luerkens, at *3-5.
In the case of Scotty, there is clear and convincing evidence of insanity. In the hearing held aboard the Enterprise, the medical devices confirmed Scotty was being truthful when he claimed not to remember what happened to Kara and Lt. Tracey. Moreover, the crew was able to establish the existence of Redjac, which transferred itself to the ship’s computer and briefly possessed Prefect Jaris. This is ample evidence to show that Scotty had a mental defect due to possession and did not understand the wrongfulness of his action while possessed by the entity Redjac.
As for the death of Sybo, it was established that Redjac killed her while in possession of another person, not Scotty.
The larger issue of needing counseling for his PTSD from an explosion and then killing two women under the control of Jack the Ripper is never addressed, but does highlight the need for having licensed mental health professionals onboard starships.
Justice Trek
I love Star Trek. I grew up watching Trek and have continued to watch every series. I am not the only lawyer who fits that description. To celebrate the 55th Anniversary of Star Trek, we asked California Supreme Court Associate Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, Circuit Judge John Owens of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and US Magistrate Judge Mitch Dembin what Star Trek means to them, their first Trek memories, how Trek has inspired them, characters they identify with, and their thoughts on legal issues from Star Trek.
Let’s boldly go.
Lower Decks Season 2 Podcasts
Lower Decks: Strange Energies and Kayshon His Eyes Open
Lower Decks: We Will Always Have Tom Paris
Lower Decks: “Mugato, Gumato.”
Lower Decks – An Embarrassment of Dooplers
Lower Decks Review – The Spy Humongous
Lower Decks Review – Where Pleasant Foundations Lie and I, Execretus
Lower Decks Review – “wei Duj”
Lower Decks Review – “First First Contact”
How to Sue the Time Variance Authority
Don’t be fooled by the charm of the 1970s style décor and School House Rock style Artificial Intelligence guided tour, the Time Variance Authority has serious liability issues with its entire “workforce” being Variants with erased memories. For those Variants who learn of their prior lives and what was taken from them, how can they sue the TVA? This raises complex problems of where, and when, to sue the Time Variance Authority for their civil rights violations.
Possible Causes of Action Against the TVA
The Time Variance Authority could be sued for violating the civil rights of those they kidnapped from their timeline, erased their memories, and then forcibly employed those individuals in perpetuating other crimes upon others. While there is no private right to action for kidnapping, the TVA could be sued for assault, false imprisonment, and a laundry list of other torts. Nelson v. Payne, No. 19-cv-1380-pp, at *8 (E.D. Wis. Sep. 29, 2020).
The lawsuit would be similar to a 1983 action for those who cause under color of law, “… any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution…” 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The TVA arresting people screams “color of law,” coupled with police riot uniforms and show trials without defense attorneys. However, the TVA is not functioning under laws from any State or US Territory. That said, signage in English with courtrooms that look like they were built at the end of the Ford Administration certainly raises issues on why a victim could be mistaken in thinking there were being prosecuted by a government agency.
Venue and Jurisdiction
The civil procedure requirements in brining a lawsuit include determining the proper venue for suing the TVA. Just what court would have proper jurisdiction?
A plaintiff may file a civil action in a Federal Court where:
1) Any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;
2) Where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
28 U.S.C. § 1391
Filing suit against the TVA where a Variant was taken would be the easiest way to identify the proper venue, because that is where “a substantial part of the events…giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(2).
The clearest example would be for Ravonna Renslayer (formerly known as Rebecca Tourminet in her original life), since it was revealed she was from Fremont, Ohio in 2018, where she was a high school principal. Fremont, Ohio is located approximately 36 miles from Toledo, so filing suit in the Northern District of Ohio, specifically in the James M. Ashley and Thomas W. L. Ashley U.S. Courthouse, would be the proper venue for litigating the claims against the TVA.
Suing the TVA requires showing there is jurisdiction, either general or specific. As the TVA does not have a physical office in Ohio (and in order to avoid the multiverse of madness for stream of commerce analysis of time travelers), we will focus on specific jurisdiction. In such cases, courts look at “the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” Olivia v. Airbus Ams., Inc., No. 1:19 CV 1701, at *5-6 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 25, 2020), citing Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014) (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 775 (1984)).
To establish specific jurisdiction over a defendant, a court must find “(1) purposeful availment of the privilege of acting in the forum state or causing a consequence in the forum state, (2) a cause of action arising from activities in the state, and (3) a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable.” Id, citing Schneider v. Hardesty, 669 F.3d 693, 701 (6th Cir. 2012).
We should not even entertain “purposeful availment,” because the TVA entered Ohio with the intent to kidnap one of its citizens. While the TVA might claim it was conducting a form of “law enforcement” in the name of “maintaining the Sacred Timeline,” the United States does not recognize religious fanatics kidnapping and murdering citizens from cults, foreign countries, or self-appointed rulers of time. There will be no “qualified immunity” to protect the TVA from liability.
Specific jurisdiction over the TVA is proper because 1) the TVA caused the consequence of “removing” Tourminet/Renslayer from her timeline; 2) the kidnapping Tourminet/Renslayer occurred in Ohio, plus setting off a “reset charge”; and 3) jurisdiction over the TVA is reasonable because they entered Fremont, Ohio and assaulted a resident of the state.
If there is a challenge to the reasonableness of suing the TVA in Ohio, the following factors will be analyzed by the Court:
1) The burden on the defendant to litigate in the state;
2) The interest of the forum state;
3) the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief; and
4) the interest of other states in securing the most efficient resolution of the controversy.
Shaker Construction Group, LLC v. Schilling, Case Number: 1:08cv278, at *13 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 18, 2008)
As the TVA can travel to any point in time and space, there is little burden on them to defend the case in Ohio. Moreover, Ohio has an extremely high interest in protecting its citizens from being kidnapped and “pruned.” This should go without saying, but those who have had their lives erased have a right to being compensated for their loss. Finally, other states will want to have the same relief for any of its citizens who have been taken by the Time Variance Authority.
The Element of Time for Jurisdiction and Venue
An odd wrinkle in time for suing the TVA is the matter of “when” the injury occurred. If a Variant was taken in 2018 and returned in 2021, suing at the point of return is logical. However, if someone was taken in the early 1990s, should they be returned to that point in time and sue? If that is the case, the entire practice of law gets a huge reset charge to deal with. Courts rely on precedent. Human beings also live in linear existence, so Variants returning to earlier points in time (or present day for those individuals), would cause blips in time. For example, if there were lawsuits against the TVA in 1858, 1955, and 2021, the concept of precedent twists into an inverted Mobius strip. Cases arising from the same set of facts do not get scattered across decades to be litigated at the same time. A lawsuit from 1848 that should be litigated from the same set of facts suddenly is precedent for a court in 2021. That…is not how our system is designed. It would be far less complicated if there was Multi-District Litigation against the TVA at the same time, not scattered across all of time and space.
Service of Process for a Defendant Outside of Time and Space
Serving the TVA raises multiple problems. A defendant must be served with a summons that is directed at the defendant, names the court and parties, with the name and address of the plaintiff’s attorney, and be signed by the court of the court with the court’s seal. None of that is a challenge in order to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (B), (C), F), and (G). The real mess is just how to actually serve the TVA.
Defendants are normally served under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 by a person over 18 years of age by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint personally to an individual, or at a person’s dwelling, or authorised agents. For corporations that includes a managing or general agent. None of that is doable with the TVA, since they exist outside of our understanding of reality.
The plaintiffs are not without options. Federal Courts can allow for alternative service of process, such as by publication. Given that the TVA is monitoring the “Scared Timeline,” service by publication would get the immediate attention of the TVA. There is also the likelihood the TVA would know of all discovery, motion practice, and the resolution of the case, which would give the TVA a real unfair trial advantage.