Home Blog Page 39

A World of WonderCon

0

WonderCon 2018 was one of the best cons I have attended since we started The Legal Geeks. The show was very well run, from applying for panels, to registering speakers, and attending the show. The show had excellent panels, a large and well-stocked exhibit hall, and a great sense of fan community.

We had two panels on Friday night: A Star Wars Mock Trial and Lawyers vs Kaiju. Between our panelists and guests, a total of 31 people attended under our flag. I was glad we could provide many geeks the opportunity to go.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Star Wars Mock Trial: Can R2-D2 and C-3PO Sue the Cantina for Discrimination?

Our mock trial was based on the scene in the original Star Wars where the Droids were denied entry into the Mos Eisley Cantina. The Plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction under California law that would require the Cantina to stay open and serve Droids during the pendency of the case. This is a challenging argument, because mandatory injunctions require a change to the status quo, thus are extremely difficult to obtain. The procedural setting for the case was a hearing on a motion for disputed facts for the injunction, which allowed both sides to call witnesses.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The core issue for the Droids was whether they are “persons” under the law and a protected class. Public accommodation laws do not allow for restaurants or bars to deny service to anyone based on their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status. However, artificial life is not listed in the Unruh Act. This was the crux of the case for the Plaintiffs, to prove Droids are “persons” under the law.

Keri Bean from NASA JPL was a court appointed neutral expert who testified as a fictionalized character who was a Mission Operations Engineer at the Mon Cala Propulsion Laboratory. Keri built her own R2-D2 with her husband and is a member of the R2 Builders Club. The Droid was on hand for the hearing.

A few minutes before we began our mock trial.

Ian Gregory Cook is the Commander of the Rebel Legion Sunrider Base, one of the very active Star Wars costume clubs in Southern California. Ian played the role of the Bartender Wuher. Ian’s witness statement was developed from Chuck Wendig’s “We Don’t Serve Their Kind Here,” chapter in From a Certain Point of View. Ian nailed the role and succeeded in portraying Wuher as being sympathetic from the death of his parents by Droids during the Clone Wars.

The mock trial was a reminder how much people love Star Wars. We filled the room for the hearing. It was also validation that people care about the “law” and how lawyers will fight for the rights of others. Below you can listen to the audio from the mock trial.

Lawyers vs Kaiju

I grew up watching Kaiju movies. I fondly remember watching Gamera vs Gyaos as a kid. Still a little haunted by the final scenes in Son of Kong. It was a joy to have a panel where attorneys could take a deep dive into who pays for Acts of Godzilla.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Matt Weinhold from Monster Party moderated our panel. Matt is an old friend from when my family owned Rooster T. Feathers in Sunnyvale. The panelists included Monte Cooper, who is the grandnephew of Merian C. Cooper, the creator of King Kong; Megan Hitchcock, Esq., trial counsel for Esurance; and Jeraline Singh Edwards, Esq. We had a rocking good time weighing on whether Kong was an Endangered Species, if Gamera had a duty to save children, and if the President would need Congressional approval under the War Powers Act to aid Japan in fighting Godzilla. Below you can view the slides and listen to the audio from the Kaiju panel.

Lawyers_v_Kaiju_Final

The Stand Out Panels 

There were many talented and entertaining panels at WonderCon. One lesson from law school on jury memory retention is that jurors forget 2/3 of what they hear. What they do remember is usually wrong. However, memory retention goes up to 80% if the spoken word is coupled with a demonstrative exhibit. This holds true for panels at cons, because the best way to show a visual medium is to leverage the lessons of visual learning to make an impact on attendees.

Julia Lewald of the X-Men Animated series.

The X-Men Animated Series 25th Anniversary panel did an astonishing job with visual graphics. The panel began with the opening of the original cartoon. The slides and images were used to highlight the message of each speaker. For example, the director had worked in over 200 cameos of other Marvel characters over the life of the show. A single slide was used with six images of those cameos as the director explained how he worked them in for approval. They also included images of each character with the headshot of the voice actor. The end result was…uncanny.

The other panel that used images very successfully was Jack Kirby’s Centennial Artwork Extravaganza. Pages of original artwork silently played while the panel discussed the legacy of Jack Kirby. The Iron Giant Anniversary panel also made great use of imagery, including a sizzle real of the artist’s graphic novel Silver.

Lost in Space Preview 

Netflix’s first episode of Lost in Space was out of this world. Great effects, twists, and complex family dynamics. The first episode has multiple legal issues to explore, which we will cover when the show officially goes live on April 13, 2018. Highly recommend everyone watch the first episode, as they have made something very new while capturing the charm of the original series.

A World of Wonder

WonderCon is now one of my favorite shows. We greatly appreciated the opportunity to present and were humbled by the number of people who attended our panels. I was even stopped by a young man dressed as a Death Eater, who asked if he could take his photo with me. He had seen us before at San Diego Comic Fest. I am glad we are making the law accessible and fun for others.

Popular Tatooine Cantina Hit by Lawsuit from Droids

0

By Suralinda Javos, Outer Rim Bureau Reporter

MOS EISLEY, March 21 – Chalmun’s Cantina, a popular Tatooine watering hole known for serving weary spacefarers and scoundrels alike, has been hit with a major lawsuit in Galactic Federal court. The civil suit was filed jointly by R2-D2, an Industrial Automation R2 astromech unit and C-3PO, a Cybot Galactica 3PO unit.

The droids allege that the Cantina threw them out as they entered the bar with their humanoid companions. Attorneys Christine Peek and Megan Hitchcock of the Corellian Firm Organa, Dodonna, & Ackbar, LLP are representing the droids. After filing the suit, both attorneys publically decried the actions of the Cantina. Speaking to a small crowd gathered outside of the Mos Eisley Galactic Federal courthouse, Attorney Peek declared, “We are honored to represent Artoo and Threepio in this matter and look forward to getting our clients and all droids the justice they deserve—the right to be served just like any other being.”

The Cantina has retained Attorneys Steve Chu and Thomas Harper of the mega Coruscant law firm Palpatine, Vader, and Valorum, P.C. to defend it against the suit. Their firm recently made galactic headlines after defending the Empire against a bevy of lawsuits stemming from the Jedha mining disaster. When reached for comment about the suit, Attorney Chu stated, “These two globs of grease have clearly short circuited. Our firm looks forward to vindicating the Cantina’s interest in serving the patrons of its choice—namely sentient customers who can actually pay for and consume a frosty mug of Jawa Juice.”

The case is of major interest to droid rights advocates, who have long rallied against what they describe as patently unfair and unequal treatment of droids across the galaxy. Similarly, a wide variety of galactic business associations are also closely watching the case, which could lead to monumental changes in business practices.

Kier Beam, a renowned galactic droid expert, will testify on behalf of the plaintiff droids, while bartender Wuher, will testify for the Cantina. The case will be heard before the Galactic Federal Judge Stacie Beckerman, who has docketed the case for March 23, 2018 at 5:00p.m. in courtroom 207.

Coming to WonderCon 2018? Join The Legal Geeks as we present the mock trial of R2-D2 & C-3PO v. The Cantina! The mock trial will be held on Friday, March 23rd at 5:00p.m. in Room 207 at the Anaheim Convention Center. Attorneys will argue their respective cases before a real judge as the fate of the droids hangs in the balance. Droid lovers and haters are all welcome!

Poe Dameron: Ace Pilot & Resistance Criminal? (Part 2)

0

Poe Dameron, the intrepid Resistance hero, didn’t exactly start off The Last Jedi on the best of terms. In fact, Poe seems to have a hard time grappling with the concept of military authority throughout the entire movie. Poe’s open defiance of Leia’s retreat order would have been enough to put him in deep bantha poodoo. But Poe, not content to stop at just one death penalty crime, decides to lead an uprising against Vice Admiral Amilyn Holdo later in the film.

For those in need of a refresher, Poe becomes increasingly frustrated with Admiral Holdo’s leadership as the Resistance flees the First Order fleet. Unable to safely jump to light speed, Holdo keeps the fleet just out of range, but makes no apparent move to escape or engage the threat. After realizing that Holdo has ordered all personnel to evacuate aboard unarmed and unshielded escape craft, Poe decides he’s seen enough. He and several other pilots draw blasters on Holdo and take over the ship.

Poe’s actions stirred up a fierce fan debate in the weeks after the movie. Some fans stood with C-3PO and declared his actions to be an unacceptable mutiny, while others decried Holdo’s leadership and thought it justified Poe’s efforts. Despite my hopes and dreams, we probably won’t get to see a deleted TLJ scene where a Resistance JAG officer analyzes the legality of Poe’s mutiny. That sad omission leaves us to break down his actions amongst ourselves.

Seriously, do NOT give Holdo an excuse to ram a MC-85 star cruiser into you at light speed, because she will do it in a heartbeat.

The Last Jedi represents the very first Star Wars film to mention not one but TWO military crimes specifically by name: mutiny and desertion (you can imagine my beaming smile as I sat in the theater).

Mutiny is a crime unique to the military, with no real parallel in any other criminal code. Generally, a mutiny is a forcible or passive resistance to lawful authority, including a revolt against a superior officer. Both the act of mutinying and the efforts to criminalize it have a long history. Virtually every military on the planet has dealt with mutiny, from Great Britain to the United States. Poe Dameron certainly was no trailblazer in this field, because there has even been a mutiny in space.

Coincidentally, C-3PO said the same exact thing when he reported Poe Dameron to authorities.

For centuries England regulated mutiny through “Articles of War,” which codified military conduct in times of war. Today, the U.S. military regulates mutiny through the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which is enforced both in peacetime and wartime.

Mutiny can take several forms under the UCMJ. Under Article 94, mutiny can be committed not through violent means, but also by refusing to obey orders or refusing to perform a duty. Historically, some mutiny codes required that there be some sort of conspiracy amongst more than one service member. That is not the case under the UCMJ, as a single soldier can commit a mutiny under certain circumstances.

Since Poe and Friends™ decided to use blasters in their escapades, we’ll focus on the part of Article 94 involving mutiny through violence. Surprisingly, only two elements need to be satisfied to commit the crime:

(1) That the accused created a violence or disturbance; and

(2) That the accused created the violence with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority.

Unfortunately for Poe, he managed to commit a textbook mutiny during The Last Jedi. As to the first element, Article 94 defines “violence” simply as the exertion of physical force. The Code defines “disturbance” as the interference with a state of peace or order.

Poe might argue that no violence happened because no one shot, touched, or harmed Holdo. While Poe might dodge that part of the statute, his actions undoubtedly caused a disturbance. Drawing down on your superior officers O.K. Corral style in front of an entire landing bay of personnel is one of the purest ways to meet that element. His actions halted the evacuation efforts and prevented a number of superior officers, including Commander D’Acy, from performing their duties.

Little known Star Wars fact: Obi-Wan was also referencing feeling the legal disturbance caused by Poe’s mutiny.

As for the second element, proof would need to exist that Poe intended to create the disturbance to seize and hold military authority by force or without right. Prosecutors sometimes face an uphill battle proving intent because it can be incredibly hard to prove what was going on in someone’s head. Here, Poe wasn’t exactly the galaxy’s most brilliant criminal, as his loud mouth put everyone on notice about exactly what he intended to do.

Poe managed to telegraph his intent long before he drew a blaster on Holdo. While other officers accepted Holdo’s new rightful role as commander, Poe made no secret of his displeasure with her authority, openly questioning her decisions. After realizing Holdo was evacuating personnel, Poe declares that she is a coward and a traitor in front of other personnel. His words collectively establish his displeasure with Holdo, which help prove that he intended to seize military authority from her.

Poe also makes the mistake of openly discussing his plan to take over the bridge in front of C-3PO, AKA the galaxy’s biggest snitch. As if all that weren’t enough, Poe declares exactly what’s on his mind as he seizes control from Holdo (in front of dozens of other witnesses, no less).

Poe Dameron, a newly demoted Captain, was vastly outranked by Vice Admiral Holdo and therefore had no inherent authority to take over the ship. Poe also had no command authority, as Holdo was the rightful successor in command to General Organa. By holding Holdo hostage to take over the Raddus, Poe’s actions therefore absolutely met the second element of the crime.

Leia goes into a coma for all of 5 minutes and Poe goes off and pulls a blaster on her successor.

 

Unfortunately for all the Poe-Bros™ out there, Captain Dameron has little in the way of a defense for his actions. The UCMJ doesn’t allow subordinates to violently overthrow their commanders just because they disagree or don’t like the strategy. Chaos would reign supreme if that sort of thing were allowed in the ranks.

At its core, Poe was upset because Holdo didn’t keep him in the loop on military decision-making like General Organa had done. Based upon very limited information, Poe ultimately jumps to conclusions about her overall plan and its danger to the Resistance. In the real world, subordinates aren’t entitled to all the details of a military operation. Security concerns often demand that information be compartmentalized—the fewer people who know all details of a plan, the less risk to the entire mission.

For all of Poe’s greatness in a cockpit, his actions were incredibly reckless. Holdo kept the details of the evacuation secret for good reason. Serious consequences flowed from Poe’s actions, as the Resistance plan ultimately leaked to the First Order, leading to the destruction of nearly all of their escape craft. Poe may not have liked how Holdo was leading, but that was not a legal defense to his actions.

In the end, Poe is probably in the clear for other reasons. After all, the 8 or so people left in the Resistance are barely enough to fill a space cruiser, much less convene a court-martial. In the absence of true justice, we can assume that Leia delivered another resounding slap and let Chewie issue him a scathing reprimand (in Shyriiwook, of course).

Did the Hogarth, Chao & Benowitz LLP Employment Contract Violate the Law?

0

The fictional law firm of Hogarth, Chao & Benowitz LLP required their attorneys to sign a “medical disclosure” clause to inform the firm of medical conditions that had the potential to affect job performance. Once Jeri Hogarth’s partners learned she had ALS, they tried to force her out of the law firm with a severance under the pretense it was their fiduciary duty to protect the law firm. See, Jessica Jones, season two, episode, AKA Sole Survivor.

There is a problem with this “medical disclosure” clause designed to terminate lawyers: it is illegal as hell.

New York law states that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any employer to discharge anyone from their employment because of disability or predisposing genetic characteristics. N.Y. Exec. Law § 296. Forcing employees as a condition of employment to disclose health information that can then be a pretext to fire anyone goes to the heart of protecting anyone with a “disability” from being discriminated against. There was no effort to make any reasonable accommodations for Hogarth, just remove her from the firm.

Case law has held that an employer’s failure to make reasonable accommodations for an employee is “the very societal ill which the relevant anti-discrimination statutes were designed to combat.” Jacobsen v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 988 N.Y.S.2d 86, 100 (2014). In a case where a police officer with Crohn’s disease that was in remission was dismissed from work, the Court found that the discrimination violated New York’s Human Rights Law. There was no evidence that the police officer could not perform his job, even if treatable symptoms occurred. Antonsen v. Ward, 569 N.Y.S.2d 328, 328, (1991).

There was no evidence that Jeri Hogarth was no longer competent to practice law. She did not have any symptoms at the time her partners confronted her. Their plan was to dismiss her from the firm, which is discriminatory conduct based on someone’s disability. As such, the contractual requirement to disclose medical conditions required the disclosure of health information that would otherwise be protected, and used as a license to discriminate against those with medical conditions.

The irony is there were valid reasons to terminate Jeri Hogarth. She had committed jury tampering, which is grounds for disbarment; asking Jessica Jones to rough up Wendy as inducement to sign a divorce agreement was a crime; having an affair with her secretary Pam was an HR nightmare waiting to happen; attempting to use Killgrave to secure Wendy’s signature on divorce papers resulted in Wendy’s death; the illegal purchase of a hand gun later used in a homicide; and the use of cocaine and three hookers are all multiple crimes. Throw in Jeri’s practice included criminal defense, patent litigation, and estates, which are all highly specialized practice areas. It would be like a doctor who is an orthodontist, vascular surgeon, and pediatrist. Sure, it is possible, just highly unlikely. Moreover, Jeri’s malpractice insurance had to be expensive.

Instead of going after Jeri for any of her serious ethical breaches as grounds for termination, Chao and Benowitz picked discrimination against someone with a disability as their beach to die on. Not the best legal strategy.

Star Wars and Kaiju Panels at WonderCon 2018!

0

Join us for our first appearance at WonderCon with two panels on March 23! Our first panel is a Star Wars Mock Trial that asks the question, “Can R2-D2 and C-3PO sue the Cantina for discrimination?” The second panel is Lawyers vs. Kaiju, where our panel of attorneys will determine who pays for Acts of Godzilla and other monstrous legal issues. Our full show schedule is below.

Star Wars Mock Trial – Can R2-D2 and C-3PO Sue the Mos Eisley Cantina for Discrimination? Friday March 23, 2018 5:00pm – 6:00pm, Room 207

Would a court rule that a droid is a “person” and protected by public accommodation laws?

United States Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman will hear arguments from Megan Hitchcock, Esq. and Christine Peek, Esq. (McManis Faulkner) representing R2-D2 and C-3PO, and Steve B. Chu, Esq. and Thomas Harper, Esq. (Army JAG officer) representing the Mos Eisley Cantina, to decide whether the droids can sue for Bartender Wuher’s refusal to serve them. Keri Bean (NASA JPL and R2-D2 Builders) will testify as a droid expert on whether droids are “alive.” Gordon Tarpley portrays C-3PO. Organized by Joshua Gilliland, Esq. (The Legal Geeks).

Lawyers vs. Kaiju: What is the Liability for Monster Attacks? Friday March 23, 2018 7:00pm – 8:00pm, Room 207 

Is King Kong protected by the Endangered Species Act? Does Gamera have a duty to save children?

Attorneys Monte Cooper, Esq. (Orrick and grandnephew of Merian C. Cooper, the creator of King Kong), Megan Hitchcock,Esq. (Esurance), Jeraline Singh Edwards, Esq. (Law Offices of Jeraline Singh Edwards), and Joshua Gilliland, Esq. (The Legal Geeks) do battle over John Driscoll’s liability for Kong’s rampage across New York, whether the United States has a treaty obligation to defend Japan from Godzilla, and much more. Moderated by Matt Weinhold (Monster Party).

Clients Should Not Ask a PI to Murder Anyone

0

Jessica Jones season two kicks off with a murder for hire issue in AKA Start at the Beginning. Jessica’s client is a pizzeria owner who hired Jessica to investigate whether the owner’s boyfriend/employee was having an affair. After confirming that the boyfriend was cheating on his pizza-momma, the pizzeria owner asked Jessica to kill him for playing “You’re not the regular pizza boy.”

Jessica correctly identified this request as solicitation for murder and told the client “no.” Another term is “murder for hire” and the pizzeria owner could be charged for Criminal Solicitation in the Second Degree, which is when a person, with the intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a class A felony, then asks that person to engage in such criminal conduct. N.Y. Penal Law § 100.10. As such, a district attorney would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the pizzeria owner actually intended the pizza boy be killed. People v. Kass, 874 N.Y.S.2d 475, 479 (App. Div.). As Jessica rejected the murder for hire offer, there could not be any conspiracy charges, as no conspiracy to commit murder was formed. N.Y. Penal Law § 105.15.

The pizzeria owner’s statements to Jessica were party admissions under the rules of evidence. As such, Jessica could testify to those statements in court over any hearsay objections that the pizzeria owner’s statements were out of court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted. The pizzeria owner’s statements showed intent for the pizza boy be killed under her belief that Jessica as a vigilante killed people. While Luke Cage and Danny Rand were the Heroes for Hire, Jessica does not commit Murder for Hire.

On a very odd note, the pizza boy was indignant that he had been caught cheating, blaming the owner for having him investigated. The pizzeria owner rightly could have fired him for misuse of company resources for using pizza delivery as a cover for an affair. As a cheating deadbeat, she was well within her rights to throw him out.

Star Wars Law at Nerd Nite

0

I had the privilege of speaking at Nerd Nite East Bay on February 26, Nerd Nite San Diego on March 6, and Nerd Nite San Francisco on May 19, on Star Wars. All three presentations were recorded live. While the presentations have some of the same topics, each Nerd Nite is 70% different. Check out the links below for each recording.