Home Blog Page 62

Could the Red Skull be Prosecuted for Identity Theft for Stealing Steve Rogers’s Body?

0

Imagine you’ve been given the ultimate power to shape the universe as you see fit, what would you do? World peace, make yourself a billionaire, gain super powers? The possibilities are endless. In Captain America #115 (from way back in 1969) Cap’s greatest enemy the, Red Skull, had managed to acquire a Cosmic Cube and with it all the power of the universe. So what does he do? Well obviously swaps his mind for Captain America’s. While Skull wanders around in Cap’s red, white, and blues, Cap is sent running for his life from all the people hunting the Red Skull. While Skull/Cap and Falcon manage to defeat the Red Skull and win the day in the end, the question remains if the Red Skull broke any laws. Aside from Cap’s famous star-spangled sock to the jaw, can the legal system do anything to him for essentially stealing Cap’s body?

The obvious place to start looking would be the theft statutes, but those deal with taking property. Considering our history with slavery, courts have been touchy about declaring someone’s body property (although you can apparently paten someone’s genetics, but that’s another post). We do have a class of laws that seem tailor made to this situation, the identity theft statutes. But do they really? Let’s start by taking a look at the Federal Law on ID Theft, 18 USC §1028 Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information.[1]

(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section—

(1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document;

(2) knowingly transfers an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority;

(3) knowingly possesses with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents (other than those issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication features, or false identification documents;

(4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States;

(5) knowingly produces, transfers, or possesses a document-making implement or authentication feature with the intent such document-making implement or authentication feature will be used in the production of a false identification document or another document-making implement or authentication feature which will be so used;

(6) knowingly possesses an identification document or authentication feature that is or appears to be an identification document or authentication feature of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance which is stolen or produced without lawful authority knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without such authority;

(7) knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law; or

(8) knowingly traffics in false or actual authentication features for use in false identification documents, document-making implements, or means of identification;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section. [2]

As with all criminal law we first look at the mental state referenced, knowingly. Loosely put, the term knowingly means that one is aware of their actions and the consequences of them. We don’t really need to delve too deeply into the mental states here because it is fairly obvious that the Red Skull intends to switch bodies with Cap, and if the Government can prove intent then they can prove the action was done knowingly. Since Skull has the power of the Cosmic Cube, we can pretty much assume he intends his actions.

Next we see if the Skull’s actions fit any of the 8 prongs of the law, starting with the first one. Knowingly (covered that) and without lawful authority (which we have no reason to assume Skull has) produces an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document. To figure that one out we need to look deeper in the statute to section (d) for definitions and we find that produces has its usual meaning plus alter, authenticate, or assemble (if you didn’t yell Avengers Assemble, at least in your head you might want to rethink reading this). Each of the other terms deal with documents (see section (d)(1) for the meaning of authentication feature) and since we never see Skull handing over any identification documents or signing Cap’s checkbook we can assume this prong isn’t going to work for prosecuting the Skull. We have the same problems with prong 2. Prong 3 looks promising, we can easily assume that Skull has Cap’s wallet and access to all of his personal documents but we never see him show any intent to use them or transfer them so that doesn’t work.

RedSkull_PII_Id_Theft_005

Therein lies the problem with using this statute to prosecute the Skull for stealing Cap’s body. His intent in doing it is to screw with Cap’s head and not necessarily to use anything we typically associate with identity theft (documents, distinguishing features, etc.) to further his plans. He does impersonate Cap and lie to Rick Jones and Cap’s fans but he could have done the same thing by dressing convincingly as Cap. If he had shown Cap’s ID or used his fingerprints then you may have a shot at a conviction. However, none of that is prominent in the story line and so the Skull can’t be convicted under this statute…..

Now that doesn’t mean he gets away with it (again aside from getting taken down by Cap and Falcon at the end of the story). Since the body swap happens in New York we can look at the NY Penal Code, specifically 190.78 Identity Theft in the Third Degree, it says:

A  person  is  guilty of identity theft in the third degree when he or
she knowingly and with intent to defraud assumes the identity of another
person by presenting himself or herself as  that  other  person,  or  by
acting as that other person or by using personal identifying information
of that other person, and thereby:
  1. obtains  goods,  money, property or services or uses credit in the
name of such other person or causes financial loss to such person or  to
another person or persons; or
  1. commits a class A misdemeanor or higher level crime.
Identity theft in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

We’ve already looked at what knowingly means in the federal context and it has the same meaning here. What’s different in the NY code is that includes the language presenting himself, which Skull clearly does, and includes obtaining services. During the time when Skull is masquerading as Cap he’s staying in Cap’s hotel room. Thus obtaining services (the hotel room) by fraudulently presenting himself as Cap. So in a New York state court he could be convicted (assuming that you could prove the whole brain swapping thing). I’d like to think that Jack McCoy would be prosecuting him. ID theft in NY is a class A misdemeanor meaning the Skull would be looking at a maximum sentence of 1 year in jail.

RedSkull_Fraud_Charges_001

But that’s not that satisfying, so let’s think outside the title of this post and look at 18 USC 912: Impersonating an Officer of the United States. “Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” Captain America is a member of the US military, so when the Skull pretends to be him and acts as such, he could be convicted in Federal Court and imprisoned for up to three years. That’s a bit more satisfying, but since we’re in comic books we’ll settle for his impersonating Cap to result in the birth of the Falcon as a hero and the creation of one of the most classic team ups in Marvel history.

*Please note that I am not a member of the New York Bar, this is not legal advice to the Red Skull or anyone else reading this.

[1] Full text of the law can be found here https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028

[2] Let’s not worry about this law being passed sometime in the late ’90s and this story being in the late ’60s.

Remember when Batman and Superman were Super-Friends?

0

Jim Dedman from the Abnormal Use blog joined me to discuss Batman v Superman. We are both Gen Xers and shared our understanding of Superman and Batman from the John Byrne’s Man of Steel comic in 1986, Crisis on Infinitive Earths, Frank Miller’s Dark Knight Returns, plus other classic stories.

We also explore the important issue from BvS, what would happen after the attack on Congress? Were all 535 members of Congress killed? What would happen to the House of Representatives, which does not have the options for replacing Senators.

Tune in to hear two geek lawyers discuss all things Batman and Superman.

Comic Talk: Freyja on Trial? SHIELD Experimenting on Prisoners?

0

Jess and I love the Thor and Captain America comics. We review the latest issues, focusing on whether Queen Aelsa had the mental capacity to marry Malekitch, and Odin’s trial of Freyja for defying “the will of its rightful ruler and insurrection.”

I share my thoughts on the 75th Anniversary of Captain America and whether SHIELD violated prisoners’ rights by using a Cosmic Cube to perform reality altering psychosurgery on the inmates.

We also are thrilled for the upcoming Black Panther comic, so tune in for more on our comic talk.

Who Owns the Millennium Falcon?

0

In The Force Awakens, the Millennium Falcon starts out in the hands of Unkar Plutt, who stole it from the Irving Boys, who stole it from Gannis Ducain, who stole it from Han Solo, who originally got it from Lando Calrissian.

Rey and Finn steal it from Unkar, and lose it to Han Solo who *Spoiler* then dies. At the end of the movie Rey and Chewie are flying it.  So, who does the Millennium Falcon actually belong too?Slide3

Because our understanding of the laws of property under the Empire, New Republic, and First Order are so lacking, for the sake of this analysis we’ll assume that U.S. law applies.

The Millennium Falcon makes a brief appearance in Revenge of the Sith, but we don’t know who owns it at that point. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary we’ll assume Lando Calrissian is the first lawful owner of the Millennium Falcon. At one point he engaged in a “game of chance”, defined as “poker, craps, roulette, or other game in which a player gives anything of value in the hope of gain, the outcome of which is determined largely by chance….” (Ohio Revised Code.2915.01) (Hereafter O.R.C). He lost that game of chance, in this case Sabaac, and ownership passed to Han Solo. Or did it?

If the game was not lawfully sanctioned, it would be an illegal debt that is unenforceable under U.S. common law so the Millennium Falcon would still belong to Lando Calrissian. Hence, the comment, “What have you done to my ship?”

If the game was legally sanctioned and the Millennium Falcon was used as payment, or partial payment, for a debt lawfully owed, then ownership would pass to Han Solo. (O.R.C. 2915.02 does not prohibit conduct in connection with gambling expressly permitted by law.) Thus the rejoinder by Han Solo to the above comment, “Your ship? Hey, remember you lost her to me, fair and square” asserting that ownership had passed to him.

The Millennium Falcon is considered personal property. For most personal property ownership is often determined by possession, even if the ownership, possession or interest is unlawful. (O.R.C. 2913.01) Because of this Han Solo either has an ultimate claim to the Falcon, having received it as a payment for a lawful debt, or can claim a superior interest second only to that of Lando Calrissian, since his possession is only one step removed from the lawful owner.

The Millennium Falcon is later stolen from Han Solo by Ducain. This allows Ducain to exert a possessory interest over the Millennium Falcon, even though his claim was unlawful.

And it was stolen from Ducain by the Irving Boys, who could then claim a possessory interest over the Millennium Falcon, even though their claim was unlawful.

And it was stolen from them by Unkar Plutt, who could also exert a possessory interest over the Millennium Falcon even though his claim was unlawful.

 

Slide4

And it was stolen from Unkar by Rey and Finn, who could also claim a possessory interest over the Millennium Falcon even though their claim was unlawful as well.

According to the common law to determine the superior claim you simply work your way back up the chain. So Rey & Finn had a superior interest to everyone but Unkar’s, the Irving boys, Ducain, and Han Solo.  Unkar’s interest trumps Rey & Finns. The Irving Boys have an interest that trumps Unkar’s. Ducains’ interest trumps the Irving Boys. And Han Solo has a superior claim to them all.  And he then messes things up by dying. So now who owns the Millennium Falcon?
Slide5

Well, assuming Han Solo died without a will, which seems pretty likely, who owns it will be determined by the laws of intestacy. Han Solo was married to Leia Organa. They were separated, but don’t seem to have made it a formal separation as recognized by the law. They had at least one child (Ben/Kylo Ren) but, as far as we know, neither of them had any children outside of the marriage. As a result, where there is a marriage and all the children are born of that marriage then the whole goes to the surviving spouse. (O.R.C. 2105.06.) So even though Rey may be flying the ship, Leia inherited all rights to the Millennium Falcon and it ultimately belongs to her… assuming Han won it in a lawful game of Sabaac…but he was a great swindler and never one for the rules, so it’s entirely possible it still belongs to Lando.

Daisy Needs a Constitutional Watchdog

0

What is the proper response to domestic terrorism? Daisy Johnson’s answer on the Agents of SHIELD episode “Watchdogs” is, “they gave up their right to civil liberties.” Daisy then proceeds to conduct two unlawful arrests and force confessions with threats of violence to get information from the Watchdog “prisoners.”

Agents of SHIELD highlights the danger of the military and espionage agencies conducting law enforcement. First, no one gives up their civil liberties. Both the 5th and 14th Amendments prevent the government from depriving people of their liberties without due process of law. Second, civil liberties do not apply only when convenient, but to ensure the government does not abuse its power.

Make no mistake about it, the [fictional] Watchdogs are domestic terrorists who killed Federal government employees in order to inflict fear on Inhumans. This squarely puts the Watchdogs in the same category as a white supremacist/anti-government hate groups.

Captain America would not be thrilled with Daisy’s neo-fascist law enforcement response. There is a long list of civil rights cases that specifically prohibit what she did in “Watchdogs.” From Powell v. Ala., 287 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1932) to Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the Supreme Court spent decades establishing people arrested by the government have a right to counsel. Forcing confessions with physical abuse is also antithetical to civil liberties.

Supreme Court Justice Black stated in Gideon, “The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours.” Gideon, at *344.

Daisy trampled on those rights of the Watchdogs, in addition to conducting unlawfully arresting the suspects without first stating they were under arrest for specific crimes, as required by the 4th Amendment.

There is an argument that Daisy had a valid “public safety exception” to Miranda for the second Watchdog she captured, as Fitz had an implosion device embedded on his neck. As a reminder, the Miranda Court specifically held:

Accordingly we hold that an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation under the system for protecting the privilege we delineate today. As with the warnings of the right to remain silent and that anything stated can be used in evidence against him, this warning is an absolute prerequisite to interrogation. No amount of  circumstantial evidence that the person may have been aware of this right will suffice to stand in its stead. Only through such a warning is there ascertainable assurance that the accused was aware of this right.

Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436, 471-472 (U.S. 1966).

The Public Safety Exception states that “overriding considerations of public safety” could justify a failure to provide Miranda warnings before initiating custodial interrogation. New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, at *651 (1984). Given the fact Fitz would have imploded, taking with him enough area to collapse a building into a large ball, a Court would find a valid exception to giving Miranda warnings. However, that would not give Daisy the license to rough up a suspect for information.

That does not at all excuse Daisy’s earlier conduct of ignoring the Constitution. If SHIELD is conducting law enforcement instead of the FBI, then SHIELD should follow the law, instead of waging war on it.

Flash Single-Handedly Stopped Civil Rights Violations on Supergirl

0

The Supergirl/Flash crossover was everything a geek would want in seeing two super-heroes meet for the first time. There were confused introductions, gleeful banter in one hero being around another super-hero, and teamwork. Neither the Flash nor Supergirl saw the other as a threat. It’s like when geeks meet at a comic convention and discuss the comics they love.

This episode was a much-needed antidote after Batman v Superman. Supergirl and Flash could have broke-out in song and it would have been heartwarming. If the writers ever need a reason for Supergirl to sing, just pull from Final Crisis with Superman singing Darkseid out of existence. Perhaps a musical vibration that only Kara can hit could open a portal to Earth-1 for an annual cross-over.

The Flash did more than just help Supergirl stop Livewire and Silver Banshee; Barry Allen gave National City the technology to safely arrest super-villains by suppressing their superpowers. This most likely was The Boot rifle seen in The Flash.

This very short dialog means that the DEO will no longer be holding metahumans in a secret prison without a trial. Supergirl’s villains have been held in major violations of their Civil Rights, including:

The writ of habeas corpus, which requires a person in custody to be brought before a Court;

The 4th Amendment, which protects people from arbitrary arrests;

The 5th Amendment, which protects people from being deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

The 6th Amendment right to counsel;

The 7th Amendment right to a trial; and

The 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Holding human beings held prisoner in solitary confinement, in glass cells, without a bed or bathroom, without access to a lawyer, or even a trial, screams so many Civil Rights violations that not even Silver Banshee could hit all the notes. Yes, Earth-Supergirl did not have any facilities set-up to handle such individuals, but thanks to Barry Allen, our heroes will not be aiding in massive Constitutional violations after saving the day.

BvS Review: Why Blame Superman for General Zod’s Attack?

0

Batman v Superman is 2 hours and 33 minutes of film where a substantial portion of the U.S. population blames Superman for the destruction caused by General Zod’s attempt to wipe out all life on Earth. A United States Senator goes so far in a committee hearing to proclaim that Superman was responsible for a Wayne Enterprises employee who lost his legs during the Battle for Earth against Zod.

There are multiple problems with the finger pointing at Superman. First, Congress is not a Court. Congress has every right to conduct an investigation, hold hearings, and even hold someone in contempt for refusing to answer questions, and pass a law. However, a Congressional committee is not a court of law. The issue of whether there is any liability is to be determined in a court.

Superman had zero duty to rescue the Earth from General Zod. None. As a matter of law, there is no general common law duty to rescue someone unless there is a “special relationship.” Rhodes v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R., 172 Ill. 2d 213, 232-233 (Ill. 1996). A person who could rescue a small child, but does not, could be savagely attacked on social media with hash tags as a “ruthless monster,” but that person would have no liability for the child’s death. Wicker v. Harmony Corp., 784 So.2d 660, at *665 (La. App., 2001). Society does encourage people to help others with “Good Samaritan” laws, which have the “broad goal” to “prompt aid by people under no duty to act, who otherwise might be dissuaded by the prospect of ordinary tort liability.” Miglino v Bally Total Fitness of Greater N.Y., Inc., 20 N.Y.3d 342, 348 (N.Y.2013).

Superman_10_ClubA duty to rescue can be created between individuals by 1) statutes; 2) contractual relationships; or 3) impliedly by virtue of the relationship between the tortfeasor and a third party. Bobo v. State, 346 Md. 706, 715, 697 A.2d 1371 (1997).

Superman did not have a duty to rescue the Earth from General Zod under any statute, contractual relationship, or through his relationship of being on Earth. Moreover, the US Military did not draft Clark Kent, so Superman had no obligation to place himself in danger in confronting Zod.

Superman volunteered his services to the US Government, first to surrender himself to Zod, and then to aid the military in the defense of Earth. When a “volunteer who, having no initial duty to do so, undertakes to come to the aid of another . . . is under a duty to exercise due care in performance and is liable if (a) his failure to exercise such care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) the harm is suffered because of the other’s reliance upon the undertaking.” Foremost Dairies v. Cal. (1986) 190 Cal.App.3d 361, 365, citing Williams v. State of California (1983) 34 Cal.3d 18, 23.

General Zod planned to terraform Earth into a new Krypton. The massive environmental change would have been an extinction level event for all human life on Earth. Zod’s plan was stopped by the US military on a suicide mission in Metropolis and Superman in the Indian Ocean.

Blaming Superman is the complete allegory of blaming immigrants for crimes committed by their native countries. Holding Superman responsible for Zod is like holding Albert Einstein responsible for Adolph Hitler. It is simply wrong.

Superman engaged Zod in mortal combat after the destruction of the Kryptonian warship. Zod’s personal promise to butcher humanity resulted in a slugfest that toppled buildings. Current law does not have situations were thousands are killed by the acts of two individuals engaged in a fight to the death for all life on the planet. Looking at every step of the fight, it would be difficult to state that Superman failed to exercise reasonable care that increased the risk of such harm.

Some might argue that Superman should have forced General Zod away from a populated area for their battle. While that is a fair argument, it is easier said then done if there is a super-powered alien hell-bent to kill people. The fight between the two Kryptonians was a fusion of the Battle of Britain with the street-to-street fighting of Mogadishu. Avoiding non-combatant casualties only works when both parties want to avoid collateral damage. Zod was not of that mindset.

Batman_King_Clubs

Batman arguing Superman was too dangerous to live would be like saying Einstein was too smart to live, thus a danger to all human life because he might invent a weapon, thus needed to die. This is faulty logic and someone as intelligent as Bruce Wayne should not engage in one-dimensional thinking. It would have made more sense for Batman to act like he did in The New Frontier in confronting Martian Manhunter for the first time.

Batman v Superman had serious flaws in its treatment of class DC characters. The execution of Jimmy Olsen as a CIA operative in the opening act was offensive. A character who has been the loyal friend, comic relief, and someone for children to identify with for 75 years, should not, in the director’s words, be shot in the head “for fun.”

BvS_HappyHeroes

It does make sense that Superman would have guilt over the deaths of thousands of people from Man of Steel. By way of comparison, Superman II did not have Christopher Reeve’s Superman go into therapy after killing Zod in the Fortress of Solitude (nor did Lois Lane show any remorse after decking Ursa and watching the Kryptonian plummet to her off-camera demise). There was also no sulking for the extensive property damage to Washington, DC, the death of the astronauts on the Moon, or anyone else harmed by Zod. Instead Superman helped repair the White House, apologized for being away, and made a vow to the President, “I will not let you down again.”

Superman_Lego

Superman has been the symbol of hope since the character was first created. Superman is the classic immigrant story of someone who comes to the United States to escape certain death, who in turn saves America from dangerous threats. We have war memorials by the thousands dedicated to such people who lacked any super powers.

Warner Brothers needs to take a lesson from the successful TV shows with DC heroes. Both Supergirl and The Flash are popular adaptations of the characters that have avoided neck-snapping decisions, peppered with executions and terrorism.

All that being said, Ben Affleck did a great job as Batman. He is a geek who loves the character. The creative missteps of the film belong to the director Zack Synder, not Affleck.

Wonder Woman was awesome. Gal Gadot was fantastic portraying Diana Prince as the warrior who made the right decision to fight for others, who also enjoyed a good fight. Looking forward to seeing Gal Gadot in her own film.

Wonder_Woman_4_Clubs