Prosecuting Jawas for Robbery and Battery of Boba Fett

By

-

January 4, 2022

Boba Fett escaped the Sarlacc Pit only to have his armor stripped from his body by Jawas..one of whom smashed an ionization blaster butt against Boba’s face.

There is a lot of things with the Jawas’ actions.

The Jawas Committed Robbery

If the sands of Tatooine had laws similar to California, the elements of robbery are easily met for the vexus Jawas. Robbery is defined as follows:

“Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.”

Cal. Pen. Code § 211.

Boba Fett was injured with acid burns after being in the Sarlacc’s stomach. In his weakened state, Jawas discovered him and began removing his body armor. One of them struck him when he resisted. The body armor was Boba Fett’s personal property that was literally on his body. The Jawas took it from him against his will. Smashing Boba Fett’s face with a rifle butt is the textbook definition of “force.” All the elements are met for convicting the Jawas of robbery.

The Jawas Committed Battery of Boba Fett

Battery is “any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.” Cal. Pen. Code § 242. The Jawa who struck Boba Fest with the ionization blaster butt committed a willful and unlawful use of violence upon Boba Fett.

There is the legal maxim that members of a criminal conspiracy are liable for each act of the conspiracy if it was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. In re Thompson, B270387, at *8-9 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 5, 2017).

The Jawas had a criminal conspiracy to take Boba Fett’s armor from his person. The Jawa who struck Boba Fett did so in furtherance of taking his armor. As taking his armor was the goal of the conspiracy, all the Jawas in the conspiracy would be liable for the battery.

Attempted Murder of Boba Fett

The Jawas robbers and battered Boba Fett before leaving him to die in the desert. Was that enough to convict them of attempted murder?

Murder is the “unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.” Cal. Pen. Code § 187(a). First Degree Murder includes a murder that was committed in the perpetration of a robbery. Cal. Pen. Code § 189(a). A person can be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime. Cal. Pen. Code § 663.

If Boba Fett had died in the sand after being robbed and battered by Jawas, they could be charged with First Degree Murder. However, the fact he survived means there was not a death while being robbed. As such, the elements to elevate a robbery to murder are not met. Consider a case from Louisiana, which is not the Dagobah of the United States, but does offer helpful analysis:

A specific intent to kill is an essential element of the crime of attempted second degree murder. A specific intent to inflict great bodily harm is sufficient to find a defendant guilty of murder if the victim dies, but is not sufficient to find him guilty of the attempt if the victim survives. In such a case, the defendant’s intent to inflict great bodily harm would be sufficient only to find him guilty of a battery .

State v. Latiolais, 453 So. 2d 1266, 1268-69 (La. Ct. App. 1984), citing State v. Butler,322 So.2d 189 (La. 1975).

What was the specific intent of the Jawa? If the intent was only to cause harm, the most he could be charged with is battery. However, a prosecutor could argue the intent was to kill based on the circumstances of the encounter: Boba Fett was found severely injured; he offered resistance to having his armor taken from him; he was struck in the face, and then left to freeze in the night or be cooked under the twin suns of Tatooine.

That sounds like an intent to kill.

Bob Cratchit’s Right to Paid Time Off in a A Christmas Carol

By

Josh Gilliland

-

December 24, 2021

0

George C. Scott’s portrayal of Ebenezer Scrooge had a dimension to the character that is sometimes missed: He did not like giving paid time off for legal holidays. After Bob Cratchit asked for Christmas Day off, Scrooge retorted with the following:

“It is not convenient. And it it’s not fair. If I were to hold back half a crown from your pay for it, you’d think yourself ill-used, I’ll be bound. But you don’t think me ill-used when I pay for a day’s wages for no work.”

“Poor excuse for picking a man’s pocket every 25th of December.”

That….really misses the point of having holidays. While there are differences between employees paid hourly (non-exempt employees) vs salary (exempt employees), countries have many recognized holidays. In the United States, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure define a “legal holiday” as follows:

(A) the day set aside by statute for observing New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr.’s Birthday, Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans’ Day, Thanksgiving Day, or Christmas Day;

(B) any day declared a holiday by the President or Congress; and

(C) for periods that are measured after an event, any other day declared a holiday by the state where the district court is located.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6.

Business, Federal, State, and Local Governments, have long recognized Christmas Day as a holiday with paid time off. In a case where a plaintiff claimed her First Amendment Free Exercise rights were violated by a county that had a facially neutral policy of designating Christmas as a paid legal holiday. Edelstein v. Stephens, No. 1:17-cv-305, at *12-13 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 16, 2018). The Court found the plaintiff had not shown any facts of discriminatory conduct, as the law did not discriminate against a particular religion or set of religious beliefs. Id.

Is Scrooge missing the point of the holidays? Where is the peace, love and goodwill towards fellow people? If Scrooge consults with his general counsel, is he on solid legal footing to give his employee a paid day off during a holiday such as Christmas?

Yes, actually, if we look at California state law. According to the California Department of Industrial Relations, California law does not require that an employer provide its employees with paid holiday, that it close its business on any holiday, or that employees be given the day off for any particular holiday.

From the California Labor Commissioner’s Website:

There is nothing in state law that mandates that an employer must close its business on any particular day, if at all. It is up to your employer to select which days, if any, it chooses to be open and closed for business, and if your employer is open on a holiday and schedules you to work that day, there is nothing in the law that obligates your employer to pay you anything but your regular pay and any overtime premium for all overtime hours worked.

https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_holidays.htm

So Bob Cratchit may be out of luck under California law. The law will not stop Scrooge. Tiny Tim will have a sad Christmas, doom and gloom will rule the day, and we may even fall into the calamity contemplated by Ghostbusters of 10 years of darkness and Cats and Dogs living together.

However, all may not be lost. There may be other possibilities, for example many companies still recognize the value in giving employees time off during the holidays. It can improve morale, help with team building, and also encourage loyalty to the company. So even if Scrooge can legally refuse to give his employees paid time off during the holidays, it may still be a wise decision for him to do so. There is also the reality of business competition: companies that refuse to give their employees paid time off during the holidays may soon find themselves hard pressed to retain workers when some competing companies do offer paid holiday time off.

Scrooge’s general counsel may be well advised to tell him: “yes sir, you can refuse to give any paid time off during the holidays, but . . . you may also be visited by a fourth ghost during your life changing experience tonight, the ghost of employees past, or the ghost of employment lawyers strongly urging you to adopt more friendly policies your your employees.”

Perhaps Tiny Tim may yet have a happy holiday.

Happy Holidays to all.

The Legal Status of Pizza Dog

By

Stephen Tollafield

-

December 22, 2021

0

Kate Bishop makes a death-defying rescue of a brave golden retriever in Episode 1 of Hawkeye. The two quickly bond and Pizza Dog/Lucky becomes the best good-boy superhero ever. But given that Pizza Dog is a stray, what ownership interest, if any, does Kate have in her new sidekick?

Generally, animals are regarded as the property of the owner, so lost animals may trigger property law duties and obligations for people who find the lost animal. As an initial observation, this property right in one’s domesticated pets has been around only since the late 1800s. Back then, dogs were regarded as “qualified” property given their limited utility to the owners when compared to livestock like cattle or horses. For example, in 1897, a U.S. Supreme Court case described dogs as having “no intrinsic value” and not useful “as beasts of burden, for draught, nor for food.” Sentell v. New Orleans & C.R. Co., 166 U.S. 698, 701 (1897). I think we can all agree that Pizza Dog has obvious intrinsic value, which calls into serious question the validity of this Supreme Court case authority.

In any event, modern law views dogs as property. So when a person finds and takes possession of lost chattels, the common law creates an implied bailment in the property. Therefore, as of Episode 1 of Hawkeye, Kate Bishop is a gratuitous bailee of Pizza Dog. This is a contractual agreement between Kate and Pizza Dog’s previous owner, and Kate now owes a duty to take reasonable care of Pizza Dog and, if possible, return him to his true owner. It’s questionable whether feeding a dog a bunch of cheese pizza is taking optimal care of him, but at least Kate has provided him with shelter and other basic necessities, including generous pats.

So when it comes to Kate’s property interest, the first question is whether Pizza Dog was lost or whether he counts as abandoned property. If Pizza Dog was abandoned, then the owner has relinquished their property rights and Kate now has title to him.

On the other hand, if he was merely lost or ran away, then Kate’s title is superior to everyone but the true owner. As in most jurisdictions, the remedy in New York to recover lost personal property or chattels from a wrongful possessor is a replevin action, Gates v. Bowers, 169 N.Y. 14, 61 N.E. 993 (1901), so if Pizza Dog is lost, Kate may have to relinquish him if sued for replevin.

But as with all equitable actions, the recovery would be subject to equitable defenses, including unclean hands or laches if the true owner unduly delays their efforts. And these equitable defenses may be of significance given that Kate and Pizza Dog rapidly form a strong emotional bond, and the harm of losing possession may outweigh the true owner’s interest in recovering him. Ultimately, I would argue that the scales of justice tip strongly in favor of preserving the superhuman and superdog connection, and Kate and Pizza Dog can hopefully look forward to a long, happy future of fighting bad guys together.

Peter Parker vs The Daily Bugle for Defamation

By

Josh Gilliland

-

December 20, 2021

0

Spider-Man Far From ends, and Spider-Man No Way Home begins with, news broadcaster J. Jonah Jameson of the Daily Bugle playing a video that depicted Spider-Man ordering a drone attack in London, being responsible for Mysterio’s death, AND then revealed that Peter Parker is Spider-Man.

Peter needs a very good lawyer to sue the Daily Bugle and J. Jonah Jameson.

New York Defamation Law

Defamation is a “false statement about a person that ‘tends to expose the p[erson] to public contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace, or induce an evil opinion of him [or her] in the minds of right-thinking persons, and to deprive him [or her] of their friendly intercourse in society,'” Ava v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 64 A.D.3d 407, 411-12 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009), citing Rinaldi v Holt, Rinehart Winston, 42 NY2d 369, 379, cert denied 434 US 969; see Golub v Enquirer/Star Group, 89 NY2d 1074).

Defamation can be spoken (slander) or written (libel). Libel has two forms:

Libel per se: where the defamatory statement appears on the face of the communication; and

Libel per quod: where no defamatory statement is present on the face of the communication but a defamatory import arises through reference to facts extrinsic to the communication

Ava, at *411-12, referencing 2 NY PJI2d 3:23, at 197, 3:24, at 275; see also Hinsdale v Orange County Pubis., 17 NY2d 284; Cole Fisher Rogow, Inc. v Carl Ally, Inc., 29 AD2d 423, 426 [1968, Stevens, J.], affd 25 NY2d 943).

A statement is defamatory on its face if it “impute the commission of a serious crime . . . or if they affect the plaintiff in his trade, occupation, or profession…” Oluwo v. Hallum, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 51761 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007), citing Sterling Doubleday Enterprises, L.P. v Marro, 238 AD2d 502, 503; Warlock Enterprises v City Center Assocs., 204 AD2d 438, 438.

New York law on libel per se rule on damages and news media organizations require that “damage may not be presumed in the absence of Times malice but must be proved,” which means that a plaintiff does not need to establish either actual malice or special damages before they may recover. Hogan v. Herald Company, 84 A.D.2d 470, 480-81 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982).

Accusing Peter Parker of Murder and Terrorist Attack

J. Jonah Jameson played an edited video from London that appeared to show Spider-Man ordering a drone attack with the command “execute them all.” The video purported to show Spider-Man being responsible for Mysterio’s death. The video was from an “anonymous” source. At no point in the video is Spider-Man’s face visible. Jameson states the video as “conclusive proof” that Spider-Man was responsible for the “murder of Mysterio.”

Jameson’s use of the video implies Spider-Man (and thus Peter Parker) committed two series crimes: a terrorist attack with drones and murder.

The claim that video was “conclusive proof” of Spider-Man committing murder is defamation, because it outright accused him of a crime. The video also imputes Spider-Man ordered a drone attack that could have had mass casualties.

If the Daily Bugle had any lawyers on staff, they should have paused before allowing an “anonymous” source to supply a video that clearly was edited. Publishing the video was reckless at best, intentional at worse.

The action of publishing the video can demonstrate it was done with “actual malice,” which is when a statement is made with “knowing its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.” Dykstra v. St. Martin’s Press LLC, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 31813, 9 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020), citing Suozzi v Parente, 202 AD2d 94, 101-02 [1st Dept 1994] [internal citations omitted].

Reckless disregard for the truth is when there is a “high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity[,]” Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc., 418 US 323, 332 [1974]). Alternatively, recklessness can mean the defendant “must have entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.” Dykstra, at *9, citing Prozeralik v Capital Cities Communications, Inc., 82 NY2d 466, 474 (1993), citing Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v Connaughton, 491 US 657, 667 (1989). However, failing to conduct further investigation is not enough to establish actual malice; the issue is the subjective state of mind of the defendant. Dykstra, at *9, citing [citing St. Amant v Thompson, 390 US 727, 731-33 [1968]; Time, Inc. v Hill, 385 US 374, 387-88 [1967]; Herbert v Lando, 441 US 153, 170 [1979].)

Discovery would be important in establishing that J. Jonah Jameson acted with the reckless disregard for the truth or that he knew the video was not an actual depiction of events in London. Requests for production would focus on the source of the video, whether the video was edited by the anyone at the Daily Bugle, and discussions about airing the video. Moreover, the deposition of J. Jonah Jameson would be an opportunity to capture his vindictiveness towards Spider-Man on the record, which would go to showing his state of mind. Or simply make the jury hate him in a trial. On the flip side, if Jameson refused to participate in discovery, there is the possibility of securing a default judgment against the Daily Bugle as a sanction.

The Importance of Actual Malice

Actual malice is needed to successfully bring a defamation claim against a news publisher for public figures. Spider-Man arguably is a public figure, because he has “assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of society,” “occupy positions of . . . persuasive power and influence,” and have achieved “general fame or notoriety in the community.” Matthaus v. Hadjedj, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 30855, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018), citing Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc., supra at 345, 352; see Yiamouyiannis v Consumers Union of U.S., 619 F2d 932 (2 Cir. 1980).

Spider-Man took affirmative steps to “attract personal attention or striving to achieve a measure of public acclaim,” with his crime fighting and saving half of all life in the universe. See, Maule v. NYM Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 880 (N.Y. 1981). However, he took those affirmative steps as Spider-Man, not as Peter Parker.

Peter Parker as a Private Individual

The entire point of having a secret identify while being a superhero is so your family members do not get killed, stalkers do not follow their every steps, and they can have a “normal” life without bomb throwing super villains trying to kill them. The Daily Bugle deciding the secret identify of Spider-Man was of public interest raises serious privacy torts.

The issue of whether Spider-Man was involved in a terrorist attack and murder arguably is one of public concern (provided there is no actual malice). However, the fact Peter Parker’s identify was disclosed and alleged he committed murder thrust Peter into a fight with a news media corporation. Peter could recover for the damages he sustained from bricks being thrown through his window to attacks if he could show the Daily Bugle “acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties” by a preponderance of the evidence. Chapadeau v. Utica Observer, 38 N.Y.2d 196, 199 (N.Y. 1975).

Did the Daily Bugle act in a “grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties” by publishing an edited video that claimed a 17 year old was a murderer? I think a jury would agree.

Review of Hawkeye Podcast Series

By

Josh Gilliland

-

December 13, 2021

0

Join us for our weekly analysis of Hawkeye on Get Vokl.

Review Episodes 1-3

Review Episode 4

Review Episode 5

Review Episode 6

Was SWORD Legally Justified in Ordering a Drone Strike on the Scarlet Witch

By

Josh Gilliland

-

November 30, 2021

0

WandaVision asked an ugly question: Was Director Tyler Hayward of SWORD justified in ordering a drone strike on Wanda Maximoff for holding nearly 4,000 people against their will in the Hex?

There is a strong argument for YES.

Wanda’s Crimes Against Westview

The first part of the analysis is understanding the crimes Wanda Maximoff was actively committing at the time Director Hayward ordered the drone strike.

The first is the False Imprisonment of 3,892 people. New Jersey defines False imprisonment as “…a disorderly persons offense if he knowingly restrains another unlawfully so as to interfere substantially with his liberty.” N.J.S. § 2C:13-3.

Wanda falsely imprisoned 3,892 people. If she had been charged and convicted of the crime, she could be facing approximately 1,946 years in jail and a fine of $3,892,000.

The second is Kidnapping of 3,892 people. New Jersey defines kidnapping as follows:

A. Holding for ransom, reward or as a hostage. A person is guilty of kidnapping if he unlawfully removes another from the place where he is found or if he unlawfully confines another with the purpose of holding that person for ransom or reward or as a shield or hostage.

B. Holding for other purposes. A person is guilty of kidnapping if he unlawfully removes another from his place of residence or business, or a substantial distance from the vicinity where he is found, or if he unlawfully confines another for a substantial period, with any of the following purposes:

(1) To facilitate commission of any crime or flight thereafter;

(2) To inflict bodily injury on or to terrorize the victim or another;

(3) To interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function; or

(4) To permanently deprive a parent, guardian or other lawful custodian of custody of the victim.

N.J.S. § 2C:13-1.

Wanda held 3,892 people to facilitate the commission of a crime, specifically false imprisonment to play out her fantasy world. There is an argument she was also terrorizing her victims, but she might not have been knowingly causing that harm.

Use of Force on the Scarlet Witch

Lethal Force is justified when an officer “has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a serious threat of physical harm, either to the officer or to others.” Wells v. City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, Civil No. 1:09-CV-219, at *9-10 (E.D. Tenn. July 14, 2011). Moreover, when a suspect has taken hostages, the suspect have demonstrated a propensity for violence and unpredictability. Clay v. Williams, No. 17 C 6461, at *24 (N.D. Ill. May 31, 2020).

Wanda placed an entire town under an energy field that altered reality to suit her fantasy of a domestic life based on classic sitcoms. While there is debate over at what point Wanda went from having a nervous breakdown from her personal loss to knowingly holding nearly 4,000 people against their wills, Director Hayward could argue there was probable cause he believed Wanda to be a serious threat of physical harm to others.

Would firing on Wanda been a good idea? There is a strong argument for “No,” because it was unknown what would happen to the Hex if Wanda was killed and if that would have harmed the Wanda’s victims. While there is justification to fire on Wanda, the wildcard of endangering the lives of everyone in the Hex would argue against taking the shot.

The Legality of the TVA Arresting Sylvie

By

Josh Gilliland

-

November 13, 2021

0

“Crimes Against the Sacred Timeline.” What exactly does that mean? Would a 7 year old understand what was happening to them if charged with such a crime?

In the Loki episode “Nexus Event,” we learned that the TVA entered Asgard and arrested the young Loki, future Sylvie, while she was playing with a Viking ship, presumably Asgardian soldiers, and a wolf (possibly Fenrir) and stated in game play that they had saved Asgard. Loki’s playtime was interrupted by the TVA placing her under arrest for “Crimes Against the Sacred Timeline.” She was forcibly taken from her home (and unknown to her parents) to be put on trial.

There is a lot wrong with that.

Arresting Children

Texas [naturally] has specific code sections on arresting children. A police officer can arrest a child if there is probable cause the child has engaged in 1) penal code violations; 2) delinquent conduct indicating a need for supervision; or 3) probation violations imposed by a juvenile court. 54.01. Tex. Fam. Code § 52.01(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C).

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. This is code for “Give the kid Miranda rights in terms they can understand.” This is because it is radically unjust to deny a child their human rights.

None of that happened with Loki. Safe bet Odin and Frigga would not have been ok with fascist time cops arresting their child to be sentenced to nonexistence.

Loki on Trial

A child must be competent to stand trial, which requires them to be able to consult with their lawyer and assist in preparing their defense. If a court has doubt the child is competent, the proceeding is to be suspended. Cal. Welf. and Inst. Code § 709.

Would young Loki be competent to stand trial? She would understand she was taken from her home, but would be totally clueless on the TVA, the charge against her, and if she even had a defense attorney, would have a hard time assisting in her defense. Not because she was not bright, but because there is a significant “What the Hell is Happening” factor with being “arrested” by the TVA.

Legality for Executing Children

Civil society is horrified at executing children. The United States Supreme Court has held that children are constitutionally different from adults for the purposes of sentencing, because children have diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 471, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2464 (2012) [citations omitted]. Children are still developing their character and are more vulnerable to negative influences (code for bad home life or mass incarceration). Id.

If a state is going to execute a minor, “great care must be taken to ensure that the minor truly deserves to be treated as an adult.” Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 824 (1987). There must be a specific inquiry on the “age, actual maturity, family environment, education, emotional and mental stability, and . . . prior record” in determining a minor’s criminal culpability. Id.

What did Loki do to get arrested? Play with toys and want to be the hero? Save the day? That does not scream death sentence. It does offer a spin on the Pygmalion Effect, that if you treat someone as a villain, she will become one.