Thank You, Thomas Jefferson

By

-

July 4, 2015

Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence has defined the soul of the United States. We stand for the individual; we stand for freedom; and most of all, we stand for Independence.

President Jefferson is owed an eternal debt of gratitude for composing the heart of the Revolution into words that have defined us as a country since 1776. Instead of attempting to further define the significance of our Declaration of Independence, I ask anyone reading our blog to simply read Thomas Jefferson’s words out loud:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

President Jefferson, thank you for your service to country. You set a high bar for America and lawyers.

When Expert Witnesses Do Not Attain Kolinahr

By

Josh Gilliland

-

July 2, 2015

0

It truly is a no win scenario when a Judge excludes the expert witnesses of two adverse parties. How did this happen?

The case involved customs and the importation of mugs that infringed on certain trademarks. Apparently both experts testified that “the mugs and cups clearly have the same design characteristics including bright, bold colors and a round rim shape,” which the Court hammered as applying to countless other items not relevant to the lawsuit. G.G. Marck & Assocs. v. United States, 2015 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 66, *37-38 (Ct. Int’l Trade June 17, 2015).

Judge Richard Eaton stated the following on both experts’ testimony in footnote 18: Remarkably, each expert chose exactly the same words to express his opinion. No doubt, a human example of Vulcan mind meld. G.G. Marck, at *39, citing Star Trek: Dagger of the Mind (NBC television broadcast Nov. 3, 1966) [emphasis added].

The Court stated that a “person of usual discernment does not need the assistance of an expert to make a decision of whether dinnerware items are in the same pattern. Were this not the case, an expert would be needed to accompany each shopper that enters a housewares store.” G.G. Marck, at *39.

Judge Eaton held that the case did not need the testimony of the expert witnesses, due to the testimony being irrelevant and not useful. G.G. Marck, at *37-38.

What did we learn from this case? First, people do not go shopping for mugs with experts. Second, Judge Eaton is a Trekie. Always nice to see another Legal Geek.

Could Velociraptors Be Used in War?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

June 30, 2015

0

InGen’s military weapons branch in Jurassic World had the goal of producing Raptors to be used by the military. Could Raptors be weaponized like a meat-eating drone? Would the use of Raptors in combat be a war crime?

Oddly enough, it looks like the use of the animals would be legal, but that would likely be short-lived until their first military use.

Animals and National Defense

The military has used animals in the past for national defense. The US Navy has done extensive work with dolphins for decades. US Law allows the Secretary of Defense to authorize the taking of not more than 25 marine mammals annually for national defense. 10 USCS § 7524(a). There are specific requirements on the treatment of “Ensign Flipper” and “Skipper Sammy the Seal,” such as humane treatment. 10 USCS § 7524(b). Moreover, endangered species may not be taken for the military program.

There is the infamous article from Parade Magazine in 1978 that recounted a story denied by the Naval officer it was attributed to, stating:

“Some of the most valuable members the U.S. Navy are dolphins trained to defend American naval bases.

During the Vietnam war, squads of killer dolphins pulled guard duty at our billion-dollar Cam Ranh Bay base, now reputedly controlled by the Soviets. According to James Fitzgerald, former chief of the CIA’s Office of Dolphin Research: “With their built-in sonar, the dolphins detected enemy demolition divers on sabotage missions. They impaled them with long hypodermic needles connected to carbon dioxide cartridges. The frogmen just blew up.’

One of these days the Navy is going to release the account of how “some 60 North Vietnamese frogmen were nullified.’ “

Fitzgerald v. Penthouse Int’l (D.Md. 1981) 525 F.Supp. 585, 595, quoting Parade Magazine, Our Unsung Heroes, Sept. 10, 1978, at p. 8.

Regardless of whether or not “killer dolphins” were used in Vietnam in what sounds more like science fiction than fact, the military has a history using marine mammals for national defense.

Would the Army use Raptors? While there is a General who would be tempted to drop 20 Raptors on an ISIS camp, Raptors are not like dolphins or seals. Marine Mammals are not known for EATING people. There is a high risk that the use of Raptors in combat would end with every human fighting not to be a hot lunch for a Rambo Raptor.

Are Raptors Prohibited Weapons?

International treaties prohibit the use of chemical weapons, poison gases, and biological weapons (See, Geneva Protocol, Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention, Chemical Weapons Convention, and Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court).

There is nothing really on point with animals used for hand-to-hand combat, since we generally see service dogs being used to help soldiers for security, rescue, or bomb detention. History lacks stories of Stalin’s Killer Bear Brigades defeating Nazis at Stalingrad. Military planners have moved long past Calvary riding horses and replaced them with helicopters. As such, modern warfare lacks tales of elephants used as tanks.

This does not mean there cannot be cruelty to animals in war. However, the use of Raptors could be allowed because there is a lack of anything prohibiting it. That being said, as soon as the first iPhone video of a Raptor chewing on a terrorist hits social media, expect that to change in the fictional universe of Jurassic World.

Closing Arguments for Season 1 of Daredevil

By

Josh Gilliland

-

June 30, 2015

0

Daredevil is a very unique comic book adaptation for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. First, Wilson Fisk was not a villain out for genocide, but urban renewal through government redevelopment projects after the events of Avengers. Second, the hero is a lawyer with enhanced senses after being blinded with ninja skills. Sets a high bar for all lawyers besides following all our ethical obligations.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino, Novelist and Political Consultant Gerry O’Brien, and I dive into the many issues of Daredevil, from trial advocacy, New York City campaigns, to RICO.

We’re Going to San Diego Comic Con to Discuss Star Wars Law!

By

Josh Gilliland

-

June 28, 2015

0

July 12 marks the third anniversary of The Legal Geeks. We are celebrating with our FIRST San Diego Comic Con appearance. We are presenting Tatoonine Law: The law of Star Wars on July 9 at 730 PM in room 26AB with US Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal.

Are you curious about the ownership history of R2D2 and C3PO? What are the rights of a clone? Can a Medical Droid can commit malpractice? Then go to San Diego with us and learn the ways of the law.

Termination of Streamers’ Employment Raises Contract Questions

By

Roger Quiles

-

June 27, 2015

0

Following the recent League of Legends East Coast Convention, eight streamers were fired from the popular group of live-streamers known as Team2G. For those unaware, live-streamers are individuals who stream themselves playing video games online for profit through services like Twitch.tv. The terminated streamers had allegedly violated their contracts by failing to attend the entirety of the convention and for “excessive partying.” However, many of the circumstances surrounding the streamers’ termination are unclear. Allegedly, the streamers had never signed an employment contract and were only informed that such a contract existed upon termination, when the team manager stated that she had signed the contracts on their behalf. If true, such actions raise questions as to whether the terminations were appropriate and whether valid contracts actually exist.

Most states treat employment as “at will,” meaning that an employer can terminate an employee at any time and for almost any reason. The employer cannot terminate the employment of an employee on the basis of membership to a protected class, like race, sex, national origin or age. However, the terms of an employment contract can specify the circumstances by which an employee may be terminated. Should such language exist in an employment agreement, then any deviation from the specified circumstances would be improper. Although the manager for Team2G cited contractual violations as a reason for termination, the very existence of an employment contract, and its terms, could be questioned.

The streamers allege that they have never seen, much less signed, an employment agreement with Team2G and that they were only verbally instructed as to how many hours they were required to stream per month. In order for a valid contract to exist, there must be an offer, consideration, acceptance, and mutual assent to the contract’s terms. Such a discussion about hours of work may lead to a valid oral contract, assuming that consideration was also discussed. Performance of the verbal obligations would further exemplify the existence of said verbal contract. Yet, the streamers were allegedly informed that written employment agreements did exist and that they were signed by the manager on their behalf.

If Team2G’s manager did sign the streamers’ contracts on their behalf, then it is likely that no valid written employment agreement actually exists. Concerning the written contract, the offer would be the opportunity to work for Team2G and the consideration would be the stated payment for the streamer’s services. Normally, acceptance and mutual assent are exemplified by signing a contract after reading and understanding the contract’s terms. Assuming that the manager signed the contracts on behalf of the streamers without their explicit consent, and the streamers had no knowledge of the existence of the contract or its terms, it likely cannot be argued that the streamers accepted the contract and assented to its terms. Due to those defects, it would be difficult to uphold the alleged written contract as valid. Therefore, the oral contract between the streamers and Team2G would likely govern. As the oral contract does not contain restrictions on termination other than that provided by Federal and State law, Team2G would likely be able to legally terminate the streamers’ contracts.

Unfortunately, the Team2G situation is not atypical. Many individuals in the gaming industry work as players, streamers, and content creators without valid, written contracts. The lack of contracts, and knowledge of one’s legal rights pertaining to oral contracts, has allowed professional gamers to be taken advantage of by scrupulous business owners. In the Team2G situation, a written contract may have offered the streamers some protection by defining the scenarios where they may be terminated. Despite its sizeable industry, professional gaming is still in its infancy and has yet to embrace the legal standards that other industries take for granted. Until professional gaming adopts the basic legal standard of utilizing contracts for employment agreements, and ensures that said contracts are legal, professional gamers will continue to be taken advantage of.

Roger Quiles is an attorney from New York City with a practice focusing in business, entertainment, and eSports law. A die-hard gamer since Super Mario Bros., Roger now represents professional gamers, tournament producers, and the businesses that serve them. Up, up, down, down, left, right, left right, B, A, Start.

(Photo used under creative commons from Eurritimia)

Inside Out of Jurassic World

By

Josh Gilliland

-

June 26, 2015

0

It is time to talk about the summer hits Jurassic World and Inside Out. Jess takes on the issues of Inside Out while I take on the issues of Jurassic World. Can parents let their child walk to school in a big city? What is the liability for a dinosaur attack? Moreover, why would middle class parents getting divorced have at least five attorneys working on the case?