Did General Eiling actually Murder Plastique?

By

-

December 7, 2015

The Flash
Season 1, episode 5: Plastique

In The Flash Season 1, episode 5, Bette, also called Plastique, makes an appearance. It was a fun episode to watch. There’s a showdown between Eiling and Plastique; the villain essentially gets away; and we get to see The Flash run on water. However, at the end of the episode Barry says he watched Eiling murder Plastique. Eiling shot Plastique, but was it murder…or self-defense?

In this corner: Plastique
Plastique turns anything she touches into a bomb. Briefcases. Steelies. Even the clothes the Flash was wearing. She is Away Without Leave (A.W.O.L.) from the her unit, having absented herself from her unit, organization, or place of duty as required at the time prescribed. (Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86. Absence Without Leave).

In this corner: General Eiling
Eiling is Plastique’s commanding officer. As a commissioned officer on active duty, has the authority to apprehend her. (Rules for Courts-Martial 301 (Hereafter R.C.M.)) Further, an apprehension is made by clearly notifying the person to be apprehended that they are in custody, although it can be implied. (R.M.C. 302(d)(1)) Any person authorized to apprehend “may use such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to effect the apprehension. (R.M.C. 302(d)(3))

Did Eiling provoke her into attacking?
No.

General Eiling is a superior officer, so he has authority to apprehend her. Plastique knows she is A.W.O.L. and even says “I’m here to turn myself in.” This is an acknowledgment that she is going to be taken into custody. And Eiling, as an individual authorized to apprehend can use whatever force is reasonable necessary to bring her in.

In an attempt to apprehend her he has used non-lethal tranquilizer darts and flash-bangs up to this point. He also tries to talk her into coming peacefully, by telling her she can save lives if she’ll come back. Plastique responds with “The world will be a safer place once you’re no longer in it” and then she throws six steelies (three from each hand) she has charged to explode towards Eiling and his men. On impact Eiling and his men are thrown to the earth. We don’t know how many are hurt or killed.

U.S. Code §1114 says that killing or attempting to kill an officer, employee, or member of the uniformed services while they are engaged in their official duties will be punished as murder or attempted murder.

Did she actually attempt murder?
Yes. Unlawfully killing a human without justification or excuse through a premeditated design to kill, or the intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, counts as murder under the R.M.C.

Plastique intentionally threw explosives at Eiling and his men. It was an unlawful act because she has no legal justification, such as self-defense, for using that kind of force. It was premeditated because she: 1) went out to get the steelies, 2) knew once she touched them that they would explode, 3) intentionally weaponized them, 4) let Eiling know where she was and then waited for him, and 5) concealed the weaponized items in her hands, instead of keeping them in something like a bag in case they weren’t necessary. Finally, once Eiling and his men were thrown to the ground by the explosions she didn’t retreat, instead she advanced towards him with arms outstretched to finish the attack.

The show doesn’t resolve what happens to those soldiers, we just see them lying on the ground and not moving. Because she has the intent to kill, or inflict great harm, on Eiling, if they were killed in the process she will be guilty of murder based on transferred intent. For now, let’s give Plastique the benefit of the doubt and assume none of the soldiers were killed.

When she throws the balls as General Eiling and the soldiers under his command, that is an overt act intending to inflict grevious bodily harm or kill. She reinforces this with the threat “The world will be a safer place when you’re no longer in it.” An “act, done with specific intent to commit an offense…amounting to more than mere preparation and tending, even though failing, to effect its commission, is an attempt to commit that offense.” (R.M.C. part 4, Article 80) Finally, she doesn’t just make the balls explosive she actually throws them at Eiling and his men. And it’s an act intended to effectuate a certain result, his death or serious bodily injury.

When Eiling shot Plastique was it self-defense or murder?
Self-defense, probably.

Self-defense is a defense to homicide if an individual: (1) reasonably apprehends death or grevious bodily harm is about to be wrongfully inflicted on them; and (2) they believe they used the necessary force to protect themselves from death or grevious bodily harm.(R.C.M. 916(e)(1).

This is a two part test.

1) Objectively, would a reasonably, prudent person have been under the apprehension they were about to die. It considers height, weight, if you can safely retreat, if your attacker can they blow you up just by touching you. You know, the usual. Plastique knocking Eiling to the ground through an explosive blast, then approaching him while he’s helpless qualifies as apprehension, assuming Eiling has enough awareness to understand Plastique is intent on killing him.

2) Subjectively, how much force was actually necessary to repel the attack? This takes items like intelligence and education into account. Eiling is in a good position to determine what an individual under his command is capable of, as shown by his speech on how she can keep others from dying through her powers. He knows what is necessary to stop her in the event she turns hostile. He knows Plastique can make things explode by touching, he knows she just threatened to kill him, he knows she intends to kill him.

Anything that would disqualify his defense?
Let’s take a look.

Was he the agressor?
Under normal circumstances, drawing a gun on someone makes the person to draw the aggressor. However, here she’s a known fugitive whose very touch is dangerous, and he’s been given the lawful authority to bring her in using whatever force is reasonably necessary.

Even assuming he did not have the authority, he seemed intent on talking her down. And “an initial aggressor” he can still “regain the right to act in self-defense if the other party escalates the degree of force, or if the initial aggressor or the mutual combatant withdraws in good faith and communicates that intent to withdraw.” (United States v. Behenna, 12-0030 (C.A.A.F. 2012) Here, it went from non-lethal talking by Eiling to escalated lethal action by Plastique who threw explosives.

We’re they engaged in mutual combat?
No. He could legally use force, but opted to talk instead. She was not not in a legal position to use lethal force and still threw the first bomb, literally.

Did he provoke the attack?
No, even though no one likes a gun pointed at them.

She was A.W.O.L. and he had the authority to apprehend her using whatever force was reasonably necessary. Although the soldiers with Eiling moved forward at his command they did not make a move to attack. She also knew from the encounter with the doctor they were using non-lethal means of attack. She also listened long enough to know Eiling wanted her to return to duty willingly.

Did he have a duty to retreat?
No.

He was under no duty to lawfully retreat, because he had the necessary authority to try and apprehend her after she went A.W.O.L. And, after she attacked and approached he was not in a position to retreat, he got one shot off and then fell unconscious.

Was he allowed to use lethal force?
Yes, if he determined that she was going to kill him.

A death threat, followed by an attack using explosives, followed by an apparent approach to turn something on him into an explosive counts. That allows him to use force appropriate to the circumstances, even if it is deadly force. (See United States v. Lewis, 65 M.J. 85, 88 (C.A.A.F. 2007))

Was Eiling justified in shooting Plastique?
Probably yes.

After she threw explosives at Eiling and his team, and they were injured and knocked to the ground, Plastique then approached Eiling with her hand out as if she would touch Eiling or the soldiers with him, thereby causing another explosion. He tried to talk her down, she escalated by attacking with explosives then approaching to finish the job, he shot her in defense of his own life and in defense of the lives of others. Seems open and shut case of self-defense, except…

Does the Flash intervening between Plastique’s approach and Eiling shooting her matter?
Yes, if voluntary abandonment occurred.

Voluntary abandonment occurs when a person stops the intended crime because their conscience kicks in. (They can still be guilty of a lesser offense.) It doesn’t occur if they stop the crime for another reason, like they’re unable to complete because something else interferes.

In between the time Plastique approached Eiling, and the time Eiling shot her, the Flash showed up, and tried to talk her down telling her that “You’re not a murderer. Don’t become one now,” (We’re still pretending the soldiers didn’t die) and that’s when Eiling shoots her.

Here Flash appeals to her conscience, and her momentary hesitation would suggest that abandonment has occurred. This is further implied by her statement of “I’m glad you stopped me” after she gets shot but before she dies.

However, because she had made no overt motions, signs, or statements to let Eiling, or others, know she had voluntarily abandoned her course of action, it would probably still be considered self-defense in a court of law. And, it could be argued it wasn’t true abandonment because she only stopped her attack when The Flash intervened to prevent her from completing her crime.

Did Plastique act in self-defense when she attacked Eiling?

No.

She had no reason to think she would be killed or suffer grevious bodily harm in the moment where General Eiling was trying to talk her into coming back. Further, although the soldiers had weapons drawn, they had previously used non-lethal attacks and there was no reason to suspect that had changed.

Even if Eiling was the aggressor, she escalated the situation from words to lethal attacks when she used the explosives, which would disqualify her from a self-defense as an actual defense. Further, he was within his legal rights to attempt to apprehend her based on her being A.W.O.L.

And Dr. Well’s, who put Plastique up to the attack, just rolls away?
No. Talking someone else into committing a crime doesn’t mean your innocent of the crime.

The night before the confrontation occurs, Plastique seemed like she was going to walk away from the fight when she was at S.T.A.R. Labs. Dr. Wells rolls in, gives her the sheep dog speech and, says “Kill Eiling. One last mission and then you go home.” Based on that, she decides that she is going to kill General Eiling so that he will stop “attacking her flock.”

Here’s the thing, “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” (R.M.C. part 4, Article 77(1)).

What is a principal? That’s any actor who is primarily responsible for the crime being committed.

Dr. Wells counseled her to go out and kill Eiling. Eiling is an active, commissioner officer in the U.S. Military, on military business (tracking down an A.W.O.L. soldier). When Dr. Wells puts the idea in her head, using language she’ll understand, and she then acts upon it, he has induced her into action. When Plastique then acts on that inducement, Dr. Wells can likely be held responsible as a principal in the commission of the act. He didn’t directly try to kill Eiling but he talked Plastique into doing so, and you’re not allowed to do that.

So, Barry’s wrong. It wasn’t murder. Eiling acted in self-defense. But if he’s looking for someone to finger for murder he might want to look a little closer to home.

Not the Younglings (Again)!

By

Josh Gilliland

-

December 5, 2015

0

Growing up is hard, but for a Force Sensitive child in the Star Wars universe, it means being hunted by the Empire. In the Star Wars Rebels episode “The Future of the Force,” our heroes protect human and Ithorian infants from the Seventh Sister and Fifth Brother.

The treatment of Younglings has been problematic since The Phantom Menace. It appeared the Jedi would take children from their parents who were strong in the Force. It is not clear that the parents always consented to their children to be raised by the Jedi or if it was mandated by law. From a certain point of view, it appeared the Jedi adopted Younglings, severing parental rights to their children. The Jedi effectively put Plato’s Republic in practice with the Community of Women and Children, with the state raising the children to serve the collective good.

Severing parental rights without parental consent is a complicated process. Courts must find parental custody would be detrimental to the child by clear and convincing evidence. Cal Fam Code § 3041. Raising a Force sensitive child might have its challenges, but the Jedi would need more than “The child could turn to the Dark Side,” in order to take away parental rights without consent.

Star Wars Rebels sent a very different message. The Inquisitors Seventh Sister and Fifth Brother were abducting Younglings strong in the Force. Just as there are always two, the Inquisitors committed at least two crimes: kidnapping and child abduction.

Kidnapping is the forcible taking of a person. Cal Pen Code § 207. Child abduction is the taking of a child by someone who does not have a right to custody of that child. Cal Pen Code § 278. One Court explained the difference between the crimes as follows:

There is a fundamental difference between kidnapping, Cal. Penal Code § 207, and child abduction, Cal. Penal Code § 278, in terms of the person targeted by the offense; the first is a crime against the person being kidnapped, the second against the parents of the child abducted. If there is evidence that a defendant’s conduct is aimed at both, there is no reason why he or she should not be prosecuted under both statutes.

In re Michele D. (2002) 29 Cal 4th 600.

The Inquisitors committed both crimes in “The Future of the Force.” The human Youngling was forcefully taken from her grandmother. The grandmother had legal custody of the child and the Inquisitors had no legal right to custody. Taking the Youngling was child abduction from the grandmother and kidnapping of the Youngling herself (plus assault, battery, and possibly murder).

The Inquisitors attempted to take the Ithorian infant from his mother, making their actions attempted kidnapping and child abduction (and actual assault and battery on the mother).

Our Rebels were well within their right to rescue the Younglings under the “defense of others.” Granted, they did sort of carjack that speeder flown by the Ithorian, but we’ll let that one slide with a necessity defense.

War of the Purple Roses

By

Josh Gilliland

-

December 4, 2015

0

Jeri Hogarth on AKA Jessica Jones was the poster child for everything horrible with attorneys. She bribed a juror at the beginning of her career, was having an affair with her secretary Pam, and was ethically challenged in arguably acting against the best interests of her client Hope with the press. Then there is the entire issue of secretly taking the aborted fetus of her client for experimentation. Some lawyers own restaurants on the side; Jeri apparently did bio-medical research.

Jeri’s wife Wendy sought a divorce from Jeri, likely based on Jeri’s adultery with Pam. Adultery is one of the specifically enumerated reasons for a divorce under New York law. NY CLS Dom Rel § 170(4).

Wendy demanded as a divorce settlement to have first 75% of Jeri’s income, and then ultimately 90%, in exchange for not disclosing old emails that contained evidence of Jeri’s jury tempering to the New York State Bar, which would result in immediate disbarment for Jeri upon conviction.

Problem: Wendy was demanding 90% of Jeri’s income to cover up a crime. This would make that provision of the divorce agreement void, as one cannot contract to cover-up a crime. This also poses serious ethical issues for Wendy’s lawyer, who effectively was helping threaten criminal liability as consideration for a divorce agreement to take an unconscionable amount of money.

A divorce agreement where one party has to provide 90% of their income to the other would fall under the class meaning of “unconscionable,” because “no man in his senses and not under any delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair man would accept on the other.” Murray on Contracts, section 96, citing Hume v United States, 132 U.S. 406 (1889), quoting from Earl of Chesterfield v. Janssen, 2 Ves. Sen. 125, 155 (Ch. 1750).

Wendy demanding 90% of Jeri’s income would be extortion under New York law, which is defined as when one person compels another to deliver them property in order to avoid 1) accusing the victim of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against them, or 2) expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule. NY CLS Penal § 155.05(2)(E)(iv) and (v). Courts as a matter of public policy do not enforce illegal bargains and as such, would not enforce a divorce agreement founded upon extortion.

Is Wendy entitled to a divorce from Jeri? Yes. Should Jeri be disbarred if she is convicted of jury tampering? Yes. Can Wendy extort Jeri for 90% of her assets in exchange for not reporting Jeri to the bar in a divorce agreement? No way. The Courts are not an instrument to enforce illegal deals for revenge.

Leia’s Lightsaber? A Question of Loss and Larceny

By

Kean Zimmerman

-

December 2, 2015

0

As the time for the premier for The Force Awakens draws near, excitement is brewing for those new and familiar with the series. For decades many fans have speculated on the comings and goings of the characters from the original Star Wars Trilogy. With the canon now being rewritten, The Force Awakens hopes to take us to places in the galaxy far far away that have never been seen before. Screen shots from the movie trailers hint at the return of many familiar characters. Of course this just leads to more questions, but one question that has been left unanswered for decades deals with an object rather than a character. That object is the lightsaber wielded by Luke and Anakin Skywalker. Yes, fans might want to know where that lightsaber is, but for that matter, who actually owns the lightsaber? For that answer the lightsaber must be analyzed through the intricate lense that is property law.

As you might recall this was the second lightsaber Anakin built. His first lightsaber was destroyed on Geonosis during the events of Attack of the Clones. From the Clone Wars series there is no depiction of him making the new lightsaber, but there was an episode showing younglings crafting their own Jedi weapons. For the sake of this analysis, we will assume that Anakin made his second lightsaber in a similar matter. However, this does not mean that the Jedi Order may claim ownership over the weapon (think crafts that you bring home from summer camp, but more dangerous). This would mean the lightsaber is Anakin’s personal property. This means that Anakin has the true legal title to the lightsaber.

After Anakin and Obi-Wan’s battle on Mustafar, Obi-Wan took the lightsaber with him before entering into a self-imposed exile on Tatooine. At no point does Anakin give the lightsaber to Obi-Wan, therefore Anakin still retained rightful title in the lightsaber. It is not clear if Obi-Wan meant to take it for himself or if he knew that he would give it to either Luke or Leia. Either way, this was arguably still an act of larceny. Connecticut law defines larceny as:

A person commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-119 (2015).

Since Obi-Wan cut off Anakin’s legs and arm immediately before taking the lightsaber, it seems a likely conclusion that Obi-Wan intended to deprive Anakin of the lightsaber by taking it and leaving Anakin to smolder in the lava of Mustafar.

Meanwhile, Obi-Wan has been exerting dominion and control over the lightsaber. He kept it with him on Tatooine during his exile, and nineteen years after the events of Revenge of the Sith, Obi-Wan presented the lightsaber to Luke Skywalker, saying that it belonged to his father. At this point, Luke was under the impression that his father was already dead. To his knowledge then, there was no other owner of the lightsaber still living. He took the lightsaber from Obi-Wan as a gift, not knowing that the true title of the lightsaber still resided with his living father. Connecticut defines a gift as follows:

A gift is the transfer of property without consideration. It requires two things: a delivery of the possession of the property to the donee, and an intent that the title thereto shall pass immediately to him. Coppola v. Farina, 50 Conn. Sup. 11, 13, 910 A.2d 1011 (2006).

There are two elements that must be satisfied. First, that the possession of the lightsaber transfer to Luke, and second, the intent that the title immediately transfer to Luke. While the first element was satisfied, the second could not be fulfilled as Obi-Wan never had the title to the lightsaber. As such the gift fails, however, Luke is still in (unlawful) possession of the lightsaber.

Fast forward to the events of the Empire Strikes Back in which Luke has his hand cut off by Darth Vader (Anakin Skywalker) and is deprived of the lightsaber. However, shortly after this he learns that Darth Vader is his father. Upon this revelation, he is aware that his father, the true owner of the lightsaber, is alive. Darth Vader has a valid claim against Luke for the return of the lightsaber. In terms of criminal conduct though, it is unlikely that Luke could be charged with receipt of stolen property. In the state of Connecticut “a person is guilty of larceny by receiving stolen property if (he/she) receives stolen property knowing that it has probably been stolen or believing that it has probably been stolen.” Conn. Gen. Stat.§ 53a-119(8). In this instance, Luke had no reason to think that the lightsaber had been stolen since he was convinced that his father was dead. Granted Luke probably should have asked a few more questions regarding the provenance of the lightsaber, but this does not make him liable. As a result, though Darth Vader would have had a claim, there would likely not have been a criminal claim against Luke.

Regardless of the claims against him, Luke lost the lightsaber in an undisclosed location on Cloud City. If he was still exerting dominion and control over the lightsaber, he would be on notice to return it to its true owner. Luke, however, was not in possession of the lightsaber after learning that his father was still alive. As such, he was not necessarily responsible for returning it at that point.

Moving then to the events of Return of the Jedi. After the death of Darth Vader, Connecticut intestacy law suggest that his personal property would then belong to his living heirs. In this case, the two living heirs would be Luke and Leia Skywalker (since Padme, their mother, is also deceased). See Conn. Gen. Stat.§ 45a-438. However, there is an argument to be made that Luke contributed to the death of Darth Vader by weakening him before his confrontation with Emperor Palpatine. Albeit Darth Vader acting on his own to save his son, this does not change the fact that Luke intentionally acted to harm his father. But for Luke’s lightsaber duel, Darth Vader may have been able to fend off Emperor Palpatine. More importantly, after the exchange Luke drags his father’s body to a hangar in an effort to leave the second Death Star. In the end, Darth Vader asks Luke to help him take off his mask. Luke acknowledges that this will kill Darth Vader. Although Darth Vader claims that this is inevitable, Luke still takes off the mask knowing that it would lead to Darth Vader’s death. While some jurisdictions recognize “right-to-die” legislation, Connecticut is not one of them. As a result, Luke may be charged with murder. In Connecticut, “A person is guilty of murder when, with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person or causes a suicide by force, duress or deception . . . .” Conn. Gen. Stat.§ Sec. 53a-54a.

The reason Luke’s actions are relevant to the lightsaber ownership is due to the fact that Connecticut has a slayer law. A slayer law prevents certain individuals from inheriting property if they caused the death of the person leaving the estate. In Connecticut, if Luke is found guilty of murdering his father (or being an accessory to his father’s murder) then he is prohibited from inheriting or receiving part of the estate from the victim (i.e. his father). Conn. Gen. Stat.§ Sec. 45a-447(c)(1). According to Connecticut law, the residual estate would then pass to Anakin’s other heirs. Conn. Gen. Stat.§ Sec. 45a-447. This means that the Connecticut Superior Court could determine he is guilty of murder, but a conviction would not bar him from inheriting the lightsaber. Only when he exhausts all of his appeals would he be barred from inheriting. Sulser v. Winnick, Conn. Super. LEXIS 2137 (2007).

If Luke were to be found responsible for Darth Vader’s death, then the statute would leave Leia Skywalker, Darth Vader’s only other living heir, to inherit their father’s entire estate (which may consist of shares in a now imploded Death Star). Whether or not Leia is aware of this, the true title to Darth Vader’s lightsaber would go to Leia. The unique nature of the lightsaber may prohibit Leia from wielding it like her brother or father. Certain laws may require the lightsaber to be registered for Leia to possess it, or the law could require Leia to have a permit for the lightsaber. This is likely not the case as it would equate lightsabers to handguns under Connecticut law. However, Connecticut still finds a knife with an automatic spring release from the handle with a blade longer than one and one-half inches to be a dangerous weapon. See Conn. Gen. Stat.§ Sec. 29-38. A lightsaber surely has a similar release function with a saber length of longer than one and one-half inches. While this law does not make mere possession of the lightsaber illegal, carrying the lightsaber in a vehicle or on one’s person would certainly be illegal with few exceptions. Although Leia may have title to the lightsaber, she could be prevented from taking it with her for weekend getaways in the Millennium Falcon.

[SPOILERS AND SPECULATION]

This leads us to Star Wars VII. While images show Finn (John Boyega) holding what looks to be the lightsaber in question this has not been definitively confirmed. How he received or acquired the new lightsaber will impact the necessary legal analysis. In the hands of Finn, we see the memorable blue glow of the lightsaber that has not been seen (in the film timeline) since Luke learned of his parentage in The Empire Strikes Back. While the lightsaber’s current location is yet to be seen, its fate will likely play some role in the plot of The Force Awakens. Leia has the legal title to that fabled piece of property, but she may not even realize it. In the end, no one can legally obtain ownership of the lightsaber in question without Leia transferring title.

Can the President Draft Supergirl?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

December 1, 2015

0

It is not everyday that the President of the United States sends a lawyer to conscript Supergirl into military service, but when it happens, a father and daughter team does it. Let’s just say Lucy Lane needs an ethics lesson after preparing a memo for Kryptonian mandatory conscription that sounds like slavery.

How was Supergirl enslaved? General Lane proclaimed Supergirl was needed for a “mission” to test a weapons system. Moreover, the President had signed an Executive Order mandating Supergirl’s compliance, which required her to fight the android Red Tornado as a weapons test.

There are so many things wrong with this fact pattern that an attorney would be gleeful at the opportunity to sue the US Government in a 1983 action for violating Supergirl’s Civil Rights. As a preliminary matter, someone might argue, “Supergirl is not human and in the United States illegally, therefore, the government can do what it wants to her.”

This argument would be false. Anyone who is an “illegal alien” is still protected by the Constitution, and cannot be deprived of their liberty without due process of law. Just because someone might be illegally in the United States, does not give the Government license to violate their Civil Rights.

Supergirl being conscripted by Executive Order would mean there was a law upon which the President issued the Executive Order. See generally, Utah Ass’n of Counties v. Bush (D.Utah 2004) 316 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1184.

What bill of attainder was enacted specifically targeting super powered individuals or Supergirl specifically that was the basis of the Executive Order? The United States Constitution specifically prohibits bills of attainders, so any legislation authorizing the President to “order” Supergirl into service would be Unconstitutional on its face. USCS Const. Art. I, § 9, Cl 3.

The President could not invoke any Military Selective Service Act provision to draft Supergirl, because only men have to register for the Draft, which is not subject to an equal protection challenge. 50 USCS Appx § 453; Witt v. Dep’t of the Air Force (9th Cir. 2008) 548 F.3d 1264, 1278-1279. Supergirl not being a male, was not required to register for “The Draft” when she turned 18. As such, there would be no legal authority to “draft” Supergirl under the Military Selective Service Act.

The 13^th Amendment specifically prohibits slavery in the United States. The military ordering Supergirl to fight an android for a weapons test on its face would violate the 13^th Amendment’s prohibition on involuntary servitude. There was no offer of employment, no request, but an order for the Girl of Steel to enter mutual combat with an android to “test” it. This is simply no legal basis for such an Executive Order to command someone to be used in a military weapons test.

Jessica Jones Podcast 1: Tales of Insanity Defenses and Law Firms

By

Josh Gilliland

-

November 25, 2015

0

Check out our first Jessica Jones podcast, where we jump into issues of how lawyers work with private investigators, why super-heroes would be great process servers, and the challenges of attorneys who are both civil litigators and criminal defense attorneys. We also discuss whether Hogarth, Chao & Benowitz LLP is a mid-sized law firm or “Big Law.”

Let’s not forget while discussing work life/balance, you can briefly hear Jessica sing!

We Made the ABA Journal Blawg 100 for the Third Time!

By

Josh Gilliland

-

November 23, 2015

0

2015 just might be my favorite year. We presented at San Diego Comic Con, were nominated for a Geekie Award, AND NOW have made the ABA Journal Blawg 100 for the third year in a row.

I want to thank all of our readers and the Editors at the ABA Journal for selecting us for the Blawg 100. There are many excellent legal blogs. It is a very high honor to make the Blawg 100. I thank you all from the bottom of my heart and are very glad you enjoy The Legal Geeks.

Jessica Mederson and I started The Legal Geeks with the goal of discussing all of our geek loves and the law.

On this journey, we have meet judges, lawyers, and law students who also love all things geek. With us often are our good friends Judge Matthew Sciarrino and Gerry O’Brien, who have shared their insight on everything from Kree politics to Batman being a state actor. This year has also been special, because we have been joined by attorneys Roger Quiles, Megan Hitchcock, and Brad Blanchard, who have contributed guest posts on geeky legal issues from video games to Back to the Future, to The Arrow.

2015 has had many high points for us. Jessica and I have presented on Star Wars with Judge Paul Grewal at SDCC; I had the chance to podcast with my friends at Monster Party; Steven DeKnight, the executive producer of Daredevil, Retweeted two of my Daredevil posts on attorney ethics and self-defense; and I have been privileged to speak at comic conventions on the Constitutional issues in Agents of SHIELD and Agent Carter.

It is very reaffirming to me to see people pack a room to discuss Con Law, because it means “normal” people care about the law. On top of that, it has been a surreal experience when people have recognized me on the exhibit hall floor and stop to say hello. This has been a really fun year and thank you to everyone who joined us for the adventure.

So, thank you ABA Journal for helping make 2015 a fantastic year to remember.

To the future, because the best is yet to come.

About the ABA Journal:

The ABA Journal is the flagship magazine of the American Bar Association, and it is read by half of the nation’s 1.1 million lawyers every month. It covers the trends, people and finances of the legal profession from Wall Street to Main Street to Pennsylvania Avenue. ABAJournal.com features breaking legal news updated as it happens by staff reporters throughout every business day, a directory of more than 4,000 lawyer blogs, and the full contents of the magazine.

About the ABA:

With nearly 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is the largest voluntary professional membership organization in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law.