We had an amazing time at WonderCon 2025! Our thanks to Comic Con International for having us present “Yar, The Pirates of Star Wars.” A big thank you to everyone to everyone who attended our panel.
Home Blog
Daredevil Born Again Podcast Episodes
We are very impressed with Daredevil Born Again. Check out our podcast episodes below.
Is Weyland-Yutani Liable for Injuries to Trespassers Who Boarded Their Station?
Disclaimer: This article is for entertainment purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Should you maintain property containing facehuggers, the only legal advice I can ethically give is to hire a lawyer.
Warning, contains Spoilers from Alien: Romulus and Aliens
Fans of the Alien series are likely familiar with the Weyland-Yutani corporation. In Alien, the mega corporation hired the Nostromo crew and ordered them to investigate a transmission it received. In Aliens, the mega corporation built a colony on LV-426 and terraformed it to be able to sustain human life without warning the colonists about what might also be on that planet. In the movie Alien: Romulus, the company salvages material from the wreckage of the Nostromo and stores it on the Renaissance, a research station it owns to conduct experiments on Xenomorphs using what they found from the wreckage.
Twenty years later, a disgruntled group of Weyland-Yutani employees decide enough is enough and want to escape the planet they are living on. The crew hatch a plan to sneak aboard the station Renaissance to steal the cryogenic fuel they need to escape the planet. This being an Alien movie, the crew accidentally releases several facehuggers from stasis and things quickly go to hell. There are some deaths and injuries suffered by the trespassing crew. Will Weiland-Yutani be liable for damages suffered by these trespassers?
When it comes to trespassers going onto another’s property, the landowner is often shielded from liability due to injuries sustained by a trespasser. That said, California Code, Civil Code – CIV § 1714(a) provides: “Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.”
A landowner cannot take any willful acts to protect property, such as setting up booby traps or planting land mines that would cause harm to someone entering the property. A landowner also needs to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to maintain the property. Otherwise, the landowner could be at risk of being liable for damages due to any resulting harm. Even if the person hurt is a trespasser.
So what about Weyland-Yutani’s handling of the Renaissance? The station was clearly abandoned after everyone on board was seemingly killed. On the other hand, the station was difficult to access. In fact, the crew brought a Weyland-Yutani android on board so that they could gain access to the station. The precautions the corporation took to prevent anyone from accessing their property seems reasonable under the circumstances. Weyland-Yutani could also argue that the crew brought the injury on themselves when they accidentally disabled the temperature control, releasing the facehuggers from stasis. Finally, Weyland-Yutani could argue that they abandoned the property. Under these circumstances, a court will likely rule in Weyland-Yutani’s favor here based on any of these arguments.
Weyland-Yutani isn’t completely out of the woods, as the station did have facehuggers on the ship. Although we thankfully don’t have facehuggers on Earth, there are laws regarding the steps owners need to take to protect the public at large from potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that are on their property. California Food and Agricultural Code (FAC) § 31642 requires an owner to keep potentially dangerous dogs at all times indoors or in a “securely fenced yard from which the dog cannot escape, and into which children cannot trespass.” A potentially dangerous dog includes an unprovoked dog biting a person. FAC § 31602(b).
Facehuggers are far, far more dangerous than a potentially dangerous dog, and their presence on the station was a hazard to everyone on board. Although they were technically “fenced in” by being held in stasis, it was only a simple error on the part of the crew that released them, and there were not any other safeguards preventing their escape. Under these circumstances, given the threat that the facehuggers present, it is likely that a jury would hold Weyland-Yutani responsible for their negligence in containing the facehuggers on its station.
Weyland-Yutani may also have other legal problems due to the facehuggers being contraband. In the movie Aliens, the facehuggers were considered contraband that would not make it past customs. This prompted Carter Burke (a Weyland-Yutani employee) to release facehuggers where Ripley and Newt were sleeping in hopes that they would both be implanted, put into stasis for the journey home, and wake up in a Weyland-Yutani lab to have chestbursters hop out.
Aliens took place more than 30 years after Alien: Romulus and facehuggers were still not allowed to be brought into known space. It is unclear what the government knew about what was going on in the Renaissance station, but it is doubtful that the experiments Weyland-Yutani was conducting were legal.
Skeleton Crew Podcast Series
Star Wars Skeleton Crew was an absolute joy. Check out our analysis of each episode below.
San Diego Comic Con 2024 Panel Recordings
The Legal Geeks had one crazy summer…including two panels at San Diego Comic Con. A big thank you to all who attended our panels. Below are the panel descriptions and audio recorded at Comic Con.
Lawyerbots, Rollout! Law from the 1984 Transformers Cartoon and Comic Recorded Live at SDCC
Do Autobots need to be registered with the DMV and get a driver’s license? Did Megatron and Ratchet have an enforceable contract? Was it child endangerment to send Spike out on missions? See how law is more than meets the eye with our analysis of the Transformers, featuring Kate Bridal (The Legal Burnouts Podcast), Katrina Wraight, Esq., (Best Best & Krieger LLP), Kathy Steinman, Esq., (San Diego City Attorney’s Office), Michael Dennis Esq., (Crabtree Schmidt), Mark Zaid, Esq., (MARK S. ZAID, P.C.), and Joshua Gilliland, Esq., (Greenan, Peffer, Sallander & Lally LLP). Presented by The Legal Geeks.
Law of The Acolyte – Recorded at SDCC 2024
Can Jedi read a suspect’s mind without violating the right against self-incrimination? What are the use of Force concerns in law enforcement? Is it legal for Jedi detain someone and question them without informing the suspect of their right to counsel and right to remain silent? Do witches have a religious freedom to use the Force? Join us and find out with Circuit Judge John Owens, Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman, Magistrate Judge Stan Boone, Christine Peek, Esq., Stephen Tollafield Esq., and Joshua Gilliland, Esq. (Greenan, Peffer, Sallander & Lally LLP). Presented by The Legal Geeks.
Iron Clad Neutrality: Potential Neutrality Violations at the Five Kage Summit
Introduction
The Five Kage Summit is a pivotal arc within Naruto. During this arc, The Five Kage Summit is convened within the Land of Iron — a historically neutral nation. The five kages, leaders of the major nations, agree to unify their forces to combat the Akatsuki. The Akatsuki, secretly led by Madara Uchiha, has grown from a black ops mercenary group to an organization threatening the stability of the world. After the five nations agree to unite, Sasuke Uchiha, still as a rogue ninja, attacks the five kage with hopes of weakening them. Unfortunately, Sasuke could not weaken the five kage, so the leader of the Akatsuki attempted to have the kage turn over the remaining tailed beasts to complete his plan. The five kage refused to do this, so the leader of the Akatsuki appears to declare war against the nations which starts the Fourth Shinobi World War.
Although this arc sets the stage for the final conflicts within Naruto, there potentially exists some international humanitarian law issues with the summit itself worth exploring. Specifically, this article will do two things: first, it will break down the differences between what international law practitioners call “Geneva Law” and “Hague Law.” It will cover it topically, but a deeper dive from Prof. Kolb at the Lieber Institute at West Point can be found here. Secondly, the article will then apply Hague law and see if the customary international laws of neutrality were violated at the Five Kage Summit.
Differences between Geneva and Hague Law
International humanitarian law attorneys use two different forms of laws, Hague Law and Geneva Law, when dealing with potential issues within the world of armed conflict. Hague law extends from the Hague Conventions in the late 1800s and early 1900s and regulates actions within an armed conflict. Geneva Law extends from the Four Conventions from 1949 and the two Additional Protocols from 1977 and covers how belligerent states in armed conflicts treat individuals removed from armed conflict.
Conceptually, Geneva Law and Hague Law remain separated; unfortunately, there isn’t a clean break between the different realms within modern international treaties and conventions that cover international humanitarian law. They are thrown together in a hodge podge manner leaving the attorney to try and distinguish the two. It is not an easy task. So, how do we tell the difference then between the two types of law? Below are a few approaches that an attorney might use to try and discern the differences.
First, look at the situation at hand. Hague Law is about context and requires us to look at the situation to determine if something is lawful or not. A quick example is determining if something is a legal military object according to Art. 52 and determining if the object has a military use and if destroying it provides a military advantage. We can only determine if it is a lawful target if we have the facts. With Geneva law, there are strict prohibitions that we don’t need context to make a determination that an action is lawful or not e.g. torturing prisoners or attacking hospitals.
Second, we look to the prohibition structure to determine if its negative prohibition or a positive obligation. Hague Law focuses on the way war is waged, so allows a lot of leeway for things to be used to allow warfare to be accomplished. The negative prohibitions come in to say that certain things in warfare can’t be used like expanding bullets or poison on weapons. Otherwise, what isn’t stated is completely fair game. Geneva Law, on the other hand, uses positive obligations to tell us that we must do something like providing food to prisoners and to ensure that prisoners are not publicly humiliated. With this in mind, we will now look to the Five Kage Summit to determine if any issues exist at all.
Neutrality Focus
The Law of Neutrality falls under Hague law as it is rooted in Hague Convention (V) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Convention on Neutrality) which was created in 1907 and entered into force in 1910. The text itself is short and is among a collection of conventions that help outline certain prohibitions for state’s during times of armed conflict. The Convention on Neutrality is intentionally specific about what a neutral state is not to permit within its territory and ensures that both neutral state(s) and states’ in conflict respects these prohibitions. Why? First, according to Art. 1 of the Convention on Neutrality, neutral state territory is inviolable which means that the territory is to never be broken or infringed upon. Secondly, broadly interpreted from the Convention on Neutrality, if an alleged neutral state only adhered to these prohibitions for interactions with one state in a conflict and not another, then that state is not neutral. This approach then sets the foundation for understanding the summit.
The Five Kage Summit
The Five Kages agreed to have the summit in the Land of Iron because of its historic neutrality. The Land of Iron has not once participated in any of the Great Ninja Wars and there existed an unwritten rule that the five nations would not engage or meddle with the Land of Iron. Implicitly, this reflects that the Five Nations agree with Art. 1 of the Convention of Neutrality and viewed the Land of Iron’s territory as inviolable. This is crucial because it means that there is no inherent bias towards any of the states who were meeting and that they would be treated all as equals. This allows for us to use the Kage Summit and the states’ actions at the summit to see how states approach honoring neutrality. Below, there will be a few examples from the summit closely examining
The respective nations only sent their leaders and their private guards to the summit which honors Art. 2 which states that belligerent states are forbidden to move troops, war munitions, or supplies through the territory. Although the Leaf Village initially just brought its Kage, a few ninjas belonging to the village, Naruto and Sakura, snuck into the summit which could be argued as a potential violation as they are troops of the state. However, the Leaf leadership could counter this potential issue because they expressly told Naruto and Sakura not to attend the Summit as it would present unnecessary risks due to Naruto containing the strongest tailed beast.
The Land of Iron did not restrict communication of the five nations to their respective members nor put barriers of communication on the participants. If the Land of Iron had restricted or erected barriers, then it would have undermined the goal of unity and would have violated Art. 8 of the treaty. The Land of Iron has to be careful to monitor its treatment to prevent one nation backing out on the basis of alleged preference to one of the other participants. Now, what happens if a fight breaks out?
The Land of Iron’s worst case scenario occurred at the Five Kage Summit. It suffered two separate attacks in a short period of time that prevented quick recovery. The first attack came from Sasuke who sought to take out the raikage. Secondly, arguably the more pivotal, was from Obito who declared the start of the Fourth Great Ninja War after the five Kage refused to agree to his dream of the Infinite Tsukuyomi.
This scenario could have seen the Land of Iron refuse treatment to certain nations based on witnessing their fighting capabilities; however, as a neutral nation who hadn’t fought in previous war, and wasn’t planning to be in this one, provided equal aid to all those who suffered harm from the attacks in accordance to Chapter II of the treaty. Now, some may argue that the Land of Iron failed to protect the individuals in accordance with Art. 1 of Chapter II as they didn’t intern them far from the battle. However, the Land of Iron did the best it could to treat the wounded in accordance to the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Treaty with both battles occurring in quick succession of each other. There wasn’t sufficient time to leave the battlefield nor set up field hospitals. The Land of Iron had to protect itself and all members and did so to the best of its ability.
Conclusion
The Land of Iron reflects the sterling standard for how a neutral state should act in times of armed conflict. The Land of Iron favored no particular state and adhered to both the text and spirit of the Hague Treaty. Although there were some dangerous situations, the Land of Iron did its best to treat all members equally and no violations occurred.
Did the Jedi Order have the Right to Recruit Osha?
Disclaimer: This article is for entertainment purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Should the Jedi show up asking to test one of your children, the only legal advice I can ethically give is to hire a lawyer.
Warning, contains Spoilers from The Acolyte
So how do the Jedi get new recruits? We first learn a bit about the process in The Phantom Menace when Qui-Gon Jinn reveals that Force sensitive recruits are identified at an early age. The recent show The Acolyte further develops this by showing how potential recruits are tested, which includes a blood test, and a test that was basically the same test that Peter Venkman uses in Ghostbusters, minus the shocks.
Those that pass the tests could then potentially join the Jedi Order. Since the Jedi have rules against attachment, they try and recruit candidates before they have developed many attachments, which means they are looking for those who are very young. But how young? We know that a 20ish Luke Skywalker is viewed as being too old to begin training, as is a ten year old Anakin Skywalker, and an eight year old Osha. So the ideal candidate seems to be probably not much older than four or five years old (for species that have more or less a human life span. It is a little different for recruits like Grogu.). A legal question arises: when a candidate is making a commitment to the Jedi Order, who is actually making the commitment?
Under California law, a minor doesn’t have legal capacity to enter into a contract. California Code, Family Code section 6710 gives a minor the power to disaffirm a contract. Section 6711 precludes the minor’s right to disaffirm an obligation where such obligation was entered into under express authority or direction of a statute. Given the rigors of training involved with becoming a Jedi, it is unlikely the Jedi Order would want a youngling to be able to disaffirm the commitment easily.
The most likely way the Republic would have addressed this issue is to require the consent of a parent or guardian. Further, the consent would have likely been required in writing. Why would the Jedi want it in writing? One needs to consider the commitment that the recruit is making. Upon joining the Jedi Order, a recruit cuts off all ties with the life they had before joining the Jedi Order, which means the parent or guardian is unlikely to ever see or hear from their child again. This is an enormous sacrifice, and it is likely that in the history of the Jedi Order, one or more parent or guardian attempted to disavow their consent and demand that the recruit be returned to the recruit’s family. If the Jedi produces the written consent, it is very likely that the courts would side with the Jedi. Sure, the parent or guardian could argue the Jedi used an old Jedi mind trick to get them to sign against their will, but given the deference the Jedi enjoyed during the Republic Era, it is unlikely that the parent or guardian would get very far.
The Acolyte supports the theory that the Jedi need some form of consent from the parent or guardian. When Sol is testing Osha, and he realizes that her mother, Aniseya, has directed her to fail the test, he encourages Osha to stand up to her mother and make clear her desire to join the Jedi Order. If the Jedi didn’t need Aniseya’s consent, they would have likely taken Osha with them to Coruscant without discussing it further with witch coven. Instead, they wanted Aniseya’s consent for Osha to join the Jedi Order.
So assuming that consent is necessary, and that it is required to be in writing, did the Jedi actually get Aniseya’s consent for Osha to join the Jedi? Not in writing. Even if the Jedi could convince a judge to ignore the writing requirement, they would still have potential problems convincing a judge. Mother Aniseya did tell Sol that she was going to let Osha join the Jedi Order. Is that enough? If the issue of consent came before the court, Sol could testify what Aniseya provided her consent orally. The problem with this is that such a statement is potentially hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 802.
Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3)(A) provides an exception where the declarant says a “Statement Against Interest”. Basically a statement that “a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability”. Neither Aniseya, nor the witches coven wanted Osha to leave, so admitting that she would have let her go is clearly against hers and the witches’ interests. The problem is the other part of the test from Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3)(B), which requires the statement be supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness. Aniseya didn’t make this statement until after Sol had run her through with his lightsaber. Even the most Jedi friendly judge would likely question the trustworthiness of the statement given the circumstances.
Based on the circumstances it is unlikely that the Jedi Order got the proper consent to recruit Osha into its order. On the other hand, considering how things ended with the coven, it is unlikely there was anyone with capacity to challenge Osha’s recruitment.