What Are the Charges Against Howard Stark on Agent Carter?

By

-

January 8, 2015

Agent Carter started with a bang as a fun Marvel spy-thriller. There were many great geek references from Roxxon to Leviathan. Keep up the good work.

The story centers of Howard Stark having his “Bad Babies,” advanced weapons so dangers that they are kept locked in a vault under his house, stolen. This results in Howard Stark being grilled by a Senate Committee on his technology, invoking some comparisons to Senator Owen Brewster antagonizing Howard Hughes in real-life 1946 as a wartime profiteer.

The only legal term verbally charged against Howard Stark for Stark technology getting in the hands of US enemies is treason. This certainly is the most serious charge against Stark, but there could have been others.

Treason is “levying War against them [The United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” United States Constitution, Article III, Section 3.

Treason is the most obvious charge against Stark and providing advanced weapons to a hostile foreign power would certainly qualify. However, there are two other laws Stark could have violated that do not require the foreign power to be an enemy; providing the information to ANY foreign power would violate the law.

Howard Stark could have been charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917, which prohibited the providing any information relating to national defense with the intent to injury the United States to a foreign nation. The peacetime punishment for such a crime was 20 years and in times of war, 30 years. Espionage Act, June 15, 1917, 40 Stat. 217, § 2(a). Alternatively, as seen in the Rosenberg case, death.

Stark could argue his “Bad Babies” were not created for the US government to be used for national defense, but given the destructive power of the implosive weapon, probably would not be effective if a foreign power got its hands on the technology. Moreover, given Stark’s close ties to the SSR and US Government, it is arguable that anything Howard Stark creates is for national defense.

Stark could also be charged under the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, which provides against providing foreign nations any “Restricted Data” with the intent to harm the United States in prison for life and a $100,000 fine in present day. 42 U.S.C.S. § 2275. “Restricted Data” means all data relating to the “(1) design, manufacture, or utilization of atomic weapons; (2) the production of special nuclear material; or (3) the use of special nuclear material in the production of energy, but shall not include data declassified or removed from the Restricted Data category pursuant to section 142 [42 USCS § 2162].42 USCS § 2014(y).

It is not clear what exactly are all of Stark’s “Bad Babies,” other than one of the weaponized implosive devices the size of a baseball could cause all matter to collapse into a large sphere. While it would require a physics expert, there has to be some nuclear fusion to create that sort of gravity weapon. This sort of weapon arguably would fall under the Atomic Energy Act, which would be further charges against Stark.

Arkham Asylum: A Rogues’ Gallery of State Liability

By

Josh Gilliland

-

January 7, 2015

0

Arkham Asylum is a massive Federal lawsuit waiting to happen on Gotham. The rogues’ gallery of legal issues in the first episode of Gotham since the mid-season should give all the fictional elected officials pause.

Generally speaking, the inmates could end up in Arkham if 1) they were on the streets as a danger to themselves or 2) arrested for a crime and found to be not competent to stand trial. There are of course other situations, but given the “hospital” is supposed to be for the criminally insane, those are the likely candidates.

As a preliminary matter, the prisoners could be in Arkham from a judicial determination. Alternatively, inmates could be involuntarily committed to Arkham if two treating physicians submit separate applications under penalty of perjury that the inmate containing a statement of the facts upon which the allegation of mental illness and need for care and treatment are based (assuming Gotham is in New York state). NY CLS Men Hyg § 9.27.

After arriving at Arkham Asylum, Doctor Lang should have had a doctor who was on the psychiatric staff examine each inmate to also determine if the individual was in need of involuntary confinement (assuming those inmates were not in Arkham by Court order).

History has many horrific cases of mental hospitals that were torture chambers. In order for a prion to have conditions that amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” that violates the Constitution, the conditions must be “barbarous” or “shocking to the conscience.” Cooper v Morin (1977) 91 Misc 2d 302, 398 NYS2d 36, mod, in part on other grounds, affd, in part (1978, 4th Dept) 64 App Div 2d 130, 409 NYS2d 30, mod on other grounds (1979) 49 NY2d 69, 424 NYS2d 168, 399 NE2d 1188, reconsideration den (1980) 49 NY2d 801 and cert den (1980) 446 US 984, 64 L Ed 2d 840, 100 S Ct 2965.

Arkham Asylum being 200 years old, abandoned for a decade, dirty, having inadequate lighting, not enough doctors, not enough guards, and lacking the means to treat those confined there, should rise to the level of “shocking to the conscience” and amount to “cruel and unusual punishment.” The icing on the liability cake was an former inmate infuriating the staff as a nurse and dispensing medications.

Here is the Civil Rights violation giveaway: if the “hospital” looks like a medieval dungeon, it most likely violates the US Constitution.

There is a very strong case against Doctor Lang and Arkham for his refusal to treat “Frogman” for his injuries from electric shock therapy. If someone is in prison, then the State must provide medical care to that prisoner, “”because the prisoner is unable by reason of the deprivation of his liberty [to] care for himself” Garcia v NY City Police Dept., 2014 NY Slip Op 31351[U], *14 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2014], citing Estelle v Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 [1976].

Doctor Lang’s caviler statement that “Frogman” was still breathing and to simply “keep him comfortable,” demonstrated a total lack of providing any medical care needed for the injuries the “Frogman” sustained.

Arkham Asylum should strike terror into the heart of the Gotham City attorney. It literally is a massive lawsuit waiting to happen.

Finally, as for Cat taking the sick Poison Ivy to Barbara Kean’s penthouse, there is no doubt that entering the property was trespassing. However, Cat and Ivy could argue the necessity defense. Barbara on the other hand, from her drug use, bipolar behavior, and thinking the voice of a child to be a paramour, probably could be held involuntarily based on the evaluation of two doctors as a danger to herself.

Join Us to Live Tweet the Agent Carter Premiere

By

Josh Gilliland

-

January 3, 2015

0

Join Jessica and I on January 6 as we live Tweet the Agent Carter West Coast premiere at 800pm PST. What legal issues will Agent Carter and Howard Stark confront? Follow us @TheLegalGeeks, @eDiscMatters, and @BowTieLaw for our analysis.

Stay Safe for 2015 on New Year's Eve

By

Josh Gilliland

-

December 31, 2014

0

I am a safe and boring conservative. My mother was a paramedic and I heard my share of horror stories of fun on New Year’s Eve gone terribly wrong.

This does not mean New Year’s Eve should be spent reading historical memoirs, just that I wish everyone to start 2015 without the need of doctors, medical care, insurance claims, or lawyers.

How will I spend New Year’s Eve? Cooking a nice dinner and dessert. However, many people will go out. There are many great places to see fireworks and awesome shows. Back while I was in college, my family owned Rooster T. Feathers Comedy Club. We always had two packed New Year’s Eve shows with people celebrating the New Year on the East Coast and then the West. Just if you go out, please have a designated driver or use Uber if you will celebrate with a drink.

Now, what will be on my playlist tomorrow night? Here is my “Safe and Conservative” New Year’s Eve musical selection.

Can Daredevil Ethically Accept Iron Man’s Gift of Sight?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

December 30, 2014

0

Tony Stark in Superior Iron Man #3 took a page from the Beyonder’s Secret Wars II playbook and tried buying Matt Murdock by giving Murdock sight. Just as the Beyonder learned, Matt Murdock is too ethical of a lawyer to be bought off with his vision. In this case, justice literally was blind.

Tony Stark claimed he gave Murdock a tailored strain of Extremis as a “gift.” However, Murdock’s vision was only temporary and would require “constant boosters” for Murdock to retain his sight. Would such a “gift” be proper to an attorney? Alternatively, could Stark give Murdock his sight back as a retainer agreement?

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil

California attorneys have a duty to “support the Constitution and laws of the United States and [California]” and not “to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding from any corrupt motive of passion or interest.” Cal Bus & Prof Code § 6068(a) and (g).

Stated otherwise, lawyers must not only follow the law, but they cannot take a case to help their clients break the law.

The Gift of Sight

Matt Murdock would be unable to represent anyone with an adverse interest against Tony Stark if Murdock accepted “Extremis-Vision” as a gift. Additionally, it is difficult to not find Extremis to be a controlled substance or a form of medical treatment that should be regulated by the FDA (or prescribed by a licensed doctor). At best, Stark would be practicing medicine without a license, and at worse, would be a new form of drug dealer addicting San Francisco.

If Matt Murdock were accepting regular boosters from Tony Stark to retain his vision, this would make representing someone who wanted to sue Stark over Extremis near impossible. This would create a conflict between any prospective client and Murdock because of his dependence on Stark.

Lawyers cannot represent a client, without written consent, where the lawyer has a personal relationship with a party or witness (Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct, Rule 3-310(B)(1)); or where the lawyer has business, financial, professional or personal relationship with a person that would be “affected substantially by resolution of the matter” (Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct, Rule 3-310(B)(3); or the lawyer has a personal interest in the subject matter of the representation (Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct, Rule 3-310(B)(4)).

If Murdock were dependent on Tony Stark for his vision, there is really no denying that Murdock would have a personal interest in all potential litigation against Tony Stark. As such, Murdock would be in an ethically challenged position to accept Stark’s “gift” and represent anyone adverse to Stark.

Moreover, if Extremis is a controlled substance or unlicensed medical treatment, Murdock arguably being a party to Stark’s criminal venture would be considered an act “involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption,” that could be grounds for disbarment, if such actions were a felony or misdemeanor. Cal Bus & Prof Code § 6106.

The Unholy Retainer

Lawyers cannot be retained to help commit crimes. No evil corporation can ask their general counsel on how to avoid murder chargers for willfully poisoning donuts or knowingly selling exploding clothes. Attorneys have the duty to uphold the US Constitution and laws of their states. They will not help people commit crimes.

Tony Stark could not argue his “It’s not hard to be God, because I have been playing human” speech to Matt Murdock was protected by the attorney-client privilege for three big reasons.

First, while Stark might argue giving Murdock his vision was a retainer agreement for Murdock’s legal opinion, Murdock did not accept representation. A retainer agreement is when a client pays a lawyer a sum of money to secure representation. Banning Ranch Conservancy v Superior Ct., 193 Cal App 4th 903, 916-917, 123 Cal Rptr 3d 348, 357-358 [2011].

While restoring someone’s sight would be a very non-traditional retainer, there is nothing directly on point saying it would be valid or impermissible as an alternative fee.

Tony Stark’s discussion with Matt Murdock did not at any point actually request legal advice. As such, even if Stark claimed he was a prospective client asking for Murdock’s legal assistance, Stark did not actually pose a legal question to Murdock. As no legal advice was sought, there were no attorney-client communications.

Finally, even if Stark did pose a legal question to Murdock, it would not be protected under the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. Cal Evid Code § 956.

The entire point of the discussion was Stark stating he was above humanity. Given the fact Stark effectively was offering Murdock “hush-money” to join Stark’s venture in addicting people to Extremis, the content of these discussions could be disclosed to law enforcement that Stark was a threat to others or arguably taken into custody on a 5150 hold for psychological evaluation.

Christmas Wishes for 2014

By

Josh Gilliland

-

December 23, 2014

1

What geek wishes do Jess and I have on our Christmas lists? Check out our video or podcast on everything from North Korea, to responding to data breaches, to Agent Carter, multiple TV shows and movies that start with the letter “A,” and our course Star Wars The Force Awakens.

What is Christmas without A Christmas Carol? I decided to read out loud from the Dickens classic. Rehearsing would have been a grand idea.

Can Daddy Sue Santa Claus for Kissing Mommy?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

December 19, 2014

0

I saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus. Under the mistletoe. She even tickled Santa under his beard.

Christmas Time is for the children. The idea of a child walking in on their mother kissing Santa Claus has to be traumatic. Was Santa Claus bringing the child gifts as a way to buy their love while seducing their mother? What is Santa’s evil purpose for kissing the child’s mother? Who is Santa to judge who is on the Naughty List, based on his own conduct?

The only way the situation could be worse for the child would be further learning their parents and Santa have an odd polygamous relationship.

What of the father? Could Daddy sue Santa Claus for being the paramour threatening his marriage to Mommy?

Daddy could sue Santa Claus if the family lived in Hawaii, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, or Utah, because those are the only six states left that allow the common law cause of action for alienation of affection. Fitch v Valentine, 959 So 2d 1012, 1036 [Miss 2007].

The other forty-four states have eliminated the tort of alienation of affection as a matter of public policy, either by statute or court opinion. (See, California Civil Code § 43.5, which states no cause of action arises for alienation of affection).

According to the Supreme Court of Mississippi:

Alienation of affections is the only available avenue to provide redress for a spouse who has suffered loss and injury to his or her marital relationship against the third party who, through persuasion, enticement, or inducement, cause or contributed to the abandonment of the marriage and/or the loss of affections by active interference.

Brent v. Mathis, 2014 Miss. LEXIS 557, 6-7 (Miss. Nov. 6, 2014).

Daddy could argue that Santa Claus bringing Mommy gifts, with discovery possibly revealing that Santa himself planted the mistletoe, could have been the “persuasion, enticement, or inducement,” that caused Mommy either to abandon her marriage to Daddy or Daddy’s loss of her affections by Santa’s active interference in their marriage.

Now, what about the poor child who walked in on their mother kissing Santa Claus? Under the November 2014 holding from the Mississippi Supreme Court:

“…[C]hildren do not have standing to sue for alienation of affection, because the children do not have a “colorable interest” in the alienation of one parent’s affections toward the other, nor do they suffer an ‘adverse effect’ from a defendant who is the cause of that alienation of marital affections.”

Brent, at *15-16.

Stated otherwise, the tort of alienation of affection exists to protect the “marital relationship, not the familial relationship as a whole.” Brent, at *8.

The legal options for the victim father could only be sought in a half of dozen states, while the child is completely without legal recourse for Santa’s seduction of Mommy to destroy their family. The best solution if marriage counseling fails, is for Daddy to divorce Mommy, secure custody of the child, and write a tell all book on how he was on the losing side of a love triangle with Santa called The Real Naughty List: Santa Claus’ War on Nice Guys.