I have been commanded to open this thread.

Please post your Comic Book related legal questions and I will attempt to answer them.

Disclaimer: I will not be giving any legal advice that you should take. The information I give is for entertainment and education purposes only. If you have a real legal issue, you should consult a lawyer in your own area of the world.

If you punch someone who folds back the covers of your comics, can you claim extreme provocation by said person?

Yeah, what TS Debutante said, and what are the legal mumbo-jumbos that are keeping DC from publishing well deserved TPBs of The Legion? What's up with that?

You can claim whatever you like. Whether it will be believed is a question left to the trier of facts (Either the jury or the judge in a non-jury trial)

In a Criminal Trial, if you are believed, then you would get off.

In a Civil trial, even if believed, you would still be responsible for any damages caused by your actions (i.e. medical expenses, lost wages) You could have counter-sued for the cost of your damaged comic books and the damages would be off-set. although if your damages were only $2.50 and the other person had damagaes of $1000.00, you would still owe the difference.

There is no legal mubo-jumbo preventing DC from publishing a Legion TPB. As owners of the copyright for the Legion, they can do with it whatever they want. They could stop publishing anything if they wanted to, or they could sell the rights to Marvel, or they could publish a TPB.

Damn, Quis is extra-cute when he applies his book-learnin'!

Could the Siegel Estate's qwest to reclaim their copyright to Superman (and what is the status of that anyway) have any effect on Superboy, and such characters (i.e. the Legion) directly inspired by him?

Here's one for you Quis. Don't know if you know the answer or not.

All of these court shows on TV where, say, the plantiff wins the case and is awarded their $5000 (or whatever). How is that enforced? Do these participants receive a numeration for appearing on the show and then if they lose their case their 'pay' is applied to the awarded amount?

I don't know the status of that case.

Presumably if the Siegal Estate wins, they could claim royalties on the characters derived from Superman. Superboy and Supergirl would be easy to claim, the Legion would be a harder sell. But if they would have to file a new lawsuit if they didn't make a claim for those characters in the initial lawsuit.

I am not sure on exact enforcement procedures and it probably varies from state to state. But basically, if you get a court judgement, and the person doesn't pay, you go to the court and say "Hey! That so-and-so isn't paying" the Court then can order property seized, wages garnished, or throwing the so-and-so in jail.

As for the TV verdicts, I am assuming that both parties sign a contract to abid by the judgement. So I think if the so-and-so doesn't pay, the other one has to go to court to and sue to enforce the contract. Then if the party suing is successful there (basically the so-and-so would have to show that the contract was no good and would not be able to re-try, or as we lawyers say "Take another bite of the apple", the underlying case that was argued before Judge Judy), they go through the same enforcement procedures as above.

I also don't know if the parties are paid or not. Assuming that they are, it would probably be in the contract they sign for appearing that determines what happens to their "Pay" if the verdict is against them.

If you represented Charma's estate and wanted to bring action against those who caused her death, how would you do so?

If I remember correctly, Charma was put into a female prison and the other inmates attacked her and beat her to death, right?

Well, first I would go after the deep pockets aka the government. The actual inmates woould not be worth suing as most likely they would not be able to pay any judgement.

I would argue that the government was negligent in putting Charma in with a population that would result in her being killed or severely injured.

Ohh, and here I thought the answer would be "very carefully!"

Ohh, and here I thought the answer would be "very carefully!"

Ohh, and here I thought the answer would be "very carefully!"

Ohh, and here I thought the answer would be "very carefully!"

Varalent, are you part Craggite?

How long would Holt and Mekt have to have been together before Holt could sue Mekt for palimony in the event of a breakup?

Could be I understand my dad was a rather randy character!

Still with the Charma question: if your goal was reform of the system so similar things wouldn't happen again, would you still go for the money? Is that the only remedy?

Well palimony is just alimony for unwed couples. Some states do not allow palimony, stating "If they wanted the protections of marriage (alimony) then they should have gotten married!"

Alimony itself is really decided on a case by case basis and the length of the marriage (or relationship) is just one of the factors considered. Another factor is the ability of the party requesting the alimony to earn a living. Alimony can be temporary even if the person receiving it doesn't get remarried.

A rule of thumb for the length of the marriage is 10 years. That doesn't mean you autmatically get it if you've been married for more than 10 years and it doesn't mean you'll automatically be denied if married for less than 10 years.


Side note: Rule of thumb - This phrase comes from the old law that a man could beat his wife as long as the stick was no bigger around than his thumb.

Now there's a derivation that I had never run across. Isn't it amazing where some of our most common expressions come from?

In a wrongful death claim, money is the only remedy. Unless we were in the DC Universe where and the government was able to bring Charma back to life.

Now some say that the judgement would go to reforming the system, because now there would be a precedent set where future litigants would have an easier time in suing for similar circumstances. And the loser (in this case the government) would have incentive to change the policy or face other lawsuits for similar things.

In other cases, Injunction and/or specific performances can be requested and granted. However courts are wary of doing so. But will do so, if there appears to be no other recourse.

If your goal is to reform the system, appealing to the legislature would be the more appropriate method of change.

Note: The Mass ruling on Same-sex marriage. The ruling first declared that the prohibition on granting marriage licences to same-sex couples was unconsitutional (Mass Constitution), gave the legislature 6 months to do something, at the end of six months, the case goes back to the Superior court for a new ruling consistant with the opinion. (The original superior court ruled that the prohibition was legal, basically)

What about Space-Palimony?

Why do they even bother doing things like this! The lower court has come to a different conclusion based on the facts presented. I find it unlikely in most cases that the higher court's ruling is going to change the other judges' opinion. So in effect, they are being instructed to rule contrary to their belief or opinion. Seems wrong to me. Just overturn and leave it at that.

Is the law a nass?

It does not count because in Space no one can hear you file a lawsuit.

Well in most cases the Appeals Court (which include Supreme Courts) are there to rule on a point of law, not the facts.

for example, in a criminal trial, the trial judge may allow a witness to testify. On the appeal, one side says that the judge was wrong to allow the witness to testify. If the Appeals Court agrees, then they send the case back to the trial court for a new trial in which that witness does not get to testify. In a jury trial, you would also get a new jury.

Now if the trier of facts is just the judge, the rulling by the appeals court may cause the trial judge to see things in a different light and change his opinion. (Yeah I know, that is not always the case, but it could happen) So in some cases it really is just a matter of form to remand (Thats legalese for "send back") the case back to the trial judge. Also if the trial judge based his finding on a piece of evidence no longer part of the record, then the judge has to come up with a new reason to make his original opinion stand or else reverse him/herself.

Probably but not in all cases.

And it depends on your point of view. The same law that tells a private hotel who they can and cannot refuse a room to (Damn government telling me what I can or can't do on my own property) also tells a person "you don't have to travel miles out of your way and pay a higher fee just because you are (Asian or Catholic or French or (add your own)"

I got one for you... not really a question, more of an exercise.

Being that I am part of the ignorant mass public, I have enjoyed shows like Matlock, Night Court, and Perry Mason reruns over the years. What is your opinion of these shows (assuming you have watched them) and is there any Lawyer television show out there that "got/gets it right"?

For example, my Dad was a police officer when I was growing up; And he hated all cop shows saying how they were never realistic. A cop would never enter the building that way, and certainly wouldn't go in there without backup and the such, etc. The one cop show he thought that came closest to portraying factual police work was Barney Miller.

I guess my point is that I would like to hear a lawyer's take on how lawyers are portrayed in popular tv media.

What if Comet, the Super-Horse broke up with his long-time girlfriend?

Is there such a thing as Palamino Palimony?

Well of the shows you mentioned, I've only watched Night Court and as that was a comedy (and I wasn't a lawyer when I watched it) I wouldn't be looking for accuracy.

I like Law & Order (Although I hate how in the opening they go "Law" and show the police and then "Order" and show the lawyers when the police actually represent Order and the Lawyers Law) In one of the earlier episodes, the older cop (not Jerry Orbach) puts two suspects in the back of the car, leaving the dorr open. He then says he has to make a call and leads the younger cop away. The younger cop asks what's up and the Older cop says "Do you think they have a 'reasonble expectation of privacy'"? I saw this episode shortly after reading the Supreme Court case that coined the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy". I do think Law & Order gets it right (I don't know about the spin off Law & Order shows though)

Now, I caught the end of the Jim Carrey film "Liar Liar" and there they got the rule of law about voiding contracts (in this case a pre-nuptial) wrong. (Just one more reason for me not to like Jim Carrey.

Now just after I took "Property", I went to a Halloween Schlockfest of bad horror movies. One called Thirteen Ghosts (A remake was just released) had a family inheriting a house from an uncle but only if they never sell it. I immediately thought "That's restraint of alienation" (meaning that you can't prohibit anyone from selling property) I immediately then thought "No, no, thats just a plot device to get them to keep the house."

All Palimony questions should be directed to Semi Transparent Fellow. He is the divorce lawyer.

FWIW, I have never seen the show, but I have heard that the mid-'60s series The Defenders was very, very well done and that it was about as close to real world proceedures as it was possible to get.

The show starred a young, pre-Brady Bunch... um, the father, what was his name.

IIRC, it also had a tengentat legion AR as some episodes were written by William Woolfolk.

Robert Reed played Mike Brady

I remember that episode of Law and Order. I believe Paul Sorvino was the "Old" cop who did that. I like your point about who is "The Law" and who is "The Order" too. Law & Order is a funny (not ha ha, but weird funny) show for me... TNT use to run it during the noon to 1:00 hour and I would watch it then, but whenever it is on in prime time, I just can't get interested in it.

Thanks for responding, I appreciate your insight.

I just realized that I am in danger of becoming smarter (only one way for me to go I guess) because of this thread. Who woulda ever thunk it?

Minesurfer,

It is my pleasure to respond.

And for those who want to know about the mis-law in "Liar Liar":

The basic set up is that Jim Carrey' client signed a pre-nuptial agreement that said if she committed adultery, then she gets nothing from her husband. And she did commit adultery. Jim Carrey figures out that she lied about her age and was a minor when she signed it. He then claims that the contract is void. That is incorrect.

A contract that is void, is one that could never take place in the first place. Such as a contract to commit a crime. (No court would enforce an assassination contract)

A contract entered into by a minor is voidable That means that the contract is valid, but the minor can avoid the contract if she/he so chooses. (Contracts made by minors concerning food, shelter and necessities are not voidable) So a 17 year old signs a contract to buy a new Ferrari. He takes the car, drives around, impressing all his friends. He even makes a couple of payments. Then he realizes, how much it will cost him and goes back to the dealership. He can then void the contract (He does have to give back the car) However, Say this 17 year old holds on to the car for two years, making his monthly payments. Now he can't void the contract. Why? Because when he turned 18 and continued to make payments, he ratified the contract and is now bound to it as if he had made it when he was of legal age.

So back to the movie. The client may have signed the pre-nuptial when she was a minor, but as soon as she turned 18, she ratified the contract by continuing to receive the benefits of the contract (i.e. being married to wealthy guy)

It doesn't hurt to reprint this:

Disclaimer: I will not be giving any legal advice that you should take. The information I give is for entertainment and education purposes only. If you have a real legal issue, you should consult a lawyer in your own area of the world.

Quis, since on my homeworld Grrggr, the legal age of being an adult is 16, does that mean that I don't have to pay child support for my daughter Umber, who is 17? Does the fact that she doesn't know that she's my daughter yet affect this? Thanks!

Cobalt,

Well if you have become a resident of Legion World, you become subject to our laws, including the age of majority. (this is based on the idea that if you avail yourself to the benefits and protections of a state, then you are subject to its law. And by Living and working in a state, you do "Avail yourself" of its protections and benefits without any conscious actions on your part. see American Shoe) Assuming that Legion world operates on the basic laws of the US (Very Ameri-centric of me, I know) then you are responsible for child support until Umbra is 18 (the age of majority in the US)

The fact that Umbra does not know you are her father does not affect your obligation and someone else could bring action against you on Umbra's behalf.

Another point came up over on the main board, something about DC issuing a cease & desist for certain fan based sites like the Legion of Super Resources page.

Portfolio Boy asked Scott:

"SO, how long do you suppose before this place (meaning this message board) gets the 'ol C&D?

Has anyone contacted you yet?"

and

He Who Wanders asked:

"I wonder why they C&D'd him (LSR). Listing links to various fan-related sites sounds not only harmless to me, but also beneficial to DC, as it promotes their characters (and DC didn't even have to pay for the service!).

Just what's the difference, legally, between what LSR did and what LW does?"

Since it seemed an appropriate topic for this thread, Can you shed any light on these questions for us? What are DC's motives for shutting down (what I assume to be a) not-for-profit site like The LSR?

First, I am only marginally aware of the LSR and what its purpose was. So, I do not know what the difference is between LSR and LW. Did LSR Sell banner advertisement on its site? If so, then they could be considered making money off of DC's copyrighted material.

Second, I do not know what DC's motives are. Looking at this logically, I see two reasons for a company to request a cease and desist order.

1) The offending party is making money of the requesting party's copyright, patent, or good name.

2) The offending party is not making money off of the requesting party's copyright, patent, goodname, etc., but the resuesting party feels that the actions of the offending party diminishes, sullies, or makes less valuable their copyright, patent, goodname, etc.

So was my answer in the originating thread where this question came up accurate?

That sounds right. But again, I don't have access to the information of why DC did what they did or the court documents filed, so I can only speculate as to the why.

Anyone ambitious enough should be able to get a copy of Dc's complaint for the C&D as it would be a public record. You would need to know where it was filed though. And most (if not all court) would charge you copying costs.

And strictly speaking, having pop up ads do count for making money. Even though the site owner might be using the ads to just pay for the site (which would have come out of the site owner's pocket), they are a source of revenue. So, you have enough pop up ads and where does the extra money go?

Actually the pop-ups wouldn't have made money for the site 'owner' which was technically Michael and why he got pegged. They were making money for the owner of the server. But that's splitting hairs and since Michael was responsible for the site he was the one they went after.

He actually shared the letter with everyone at one time on one of the Legion Yahoo groups but I don't recall which. Maybe I'll look around later when I have time and see if I can dig it up.

But the actual concern for DC was that someone other than DC was making money off of their copyrighted characters.

Whew! Just checked the laws of Legion World and the legal age of being an adult is 17! I'm in the clear! Altough I'll never be able to recover from the fact that I missed her childhood, as I did my son Numf-El and my four evil sons that I was forced to destroy...

But that's not a legal question! Here's this one: if my interns at the security office sign a contract that acknowledges the fact that I will consistently hit on them throughout their employment, and then I accidently fail to hit on them one day, can I be brought up on charges for not giving them the proper amount of harrasment that the security office has promised it's employees?

well, you might still owe for pass due child support payments for when Umbra and the others were under the age of majority. It depends on the statute of limitations how long a person can file a claim against you.


Regarding your other question:

See my post on Void Contracts. As harassment is an illegal act, that part of the contract would be considered void, and so you can not be held liable for that part of the contract. I would watch out about actually harassing your employees as you may find yourself subject to a lawsuit for harrassing them .

Thanks Quis ! It's never really harrasment, just steamy love affairs in the Security Office!

Sure, it is all in good fun ... until someone's eye gets poked out!!!!!!!!

Hey Quis, have you ever heard of the band Me First and the Gimme Gimmes? This was just recomended to me, and knowing that you have good taste in music (i.e. They Might Be Giants ), I was curious! Um, I'm out of legal questions for the moment

You really should not be using up the Legion World retainer with these no legal questions. I hear Stu is very dollar conscious.

No, I haven't heard of them. Let me know what you think of them.

Okay that's new. I could try it.

Now would they be able to get me for public exposure or would that be like double jeapardy or seeds of the spoiled fruit or ipso facto or some such seeings how I prevailed in the criminal trial?

The same set of facts can result in different crimes. Generally, all lesser included offense must be tried with the main offense. for example if you come running at me with the Persuader's Atomic Axe, swing, and lop off my right arm, you could be tried for Battery (The intended harmful or offensive touching) and Assault (Causing apprehention of an immediate harmful or offensive touching). Now if you are charged with just Battery, you could not be later charged with Assault.

However, say you grab me and throw me into a Legion Cruiser and fly me from Massachusetts to New York. Massachusetts can charge you under their kidnapping statute. After the trial in which you are acquitted, you loudly proclaim "HA HA HA I Did it!" Then the Federal government can charge you under the federal kidnapping statute, but Massachusetts can't re-try you. This is not double jeopardy, because Massachusetts and the US government are too separate sovereigns.

Ooh, no fair. BUT! If I do not take someone over a state line, THEN I can proclaim "I did it" and not be retried?

Wow, is RJ Brande in trouble. He could be held responsible for taking Shikari across dimensional, universal,galactical, solar systemal, planetary, AND state lines. Plus she's probably a minor.

That old fart, I knew he was a perv.

You still might not want to go all supervillian and yell out in Court after you have been acquitted "BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!! I did it, you fools!"

There might be some sort of statute (Like the federal car jacking statute that doesn't need you to cross state lines) to get you on. (and even if there isn't they would then go over you with a fine tooth comb to get you on something]

As for RJ Brande and Shikari, when did RJ use force or intimidation to move Shikari against her will?

1.) If Legion World (the comic book one) is in Earth's orbit, do they come under Earth law?

The U.P. seems to be like a United Nations (or perhaps the European Union?) i.e. an association of planets each with their own laws but maybe some common declarations or constitution. Whose laws apply on the grounds of the U.N. - American law in NYC, Swiss law in Geneva?

2.) Ra's al Ghul did a bit of damage when he escaped on Legion World, maybe killed some Sci Cops. Could he be sued by a family member of someone he killed? Or sued for property damage? Or would the Legion be responsible since it was their turf and their (M'onel's) decision to bring him there? Or would the Sci Cops be responsible for not guarding him properly?

3.) If Garth and Jan were considered dead, and their estates distributed to heirs, will the heirs have to give it back now? Or is Jan dead but Garth isn't, or vice-versa, or could Garth claim Jan's estate, or vice-versa?

1) Kramer, I assume like you do, that Legion World acts as the UN does in our time. I don't know what laws are applied in the case of a crime or tort being committed on UN Grounds.

2)Certainly the family of any guards killed could sue for wrongful death. The question becomes one of jurisdiction.

Let's assume that Legion World is considered sovereign with their own laws and that the families of the killed guards live in Metropolis. The families could sue in the Courts on Legion World. As Legion World has custody of Ra's, there is no problem with juridiction. But if the Families try to sue in Metropolis, the courts there would have to get jurisdiction from Legion World (through extradition).

Now considering that any assets Ra's has, has been seized or frozen by the UP, mostlikely, Ra's is not a good defendant to sue (i.e. no money to pay the judgement)

As for property damage, it seems that all the property Ra's destroyed was UP/Legion World property, so they would be the plaintiffs. Again seeing as Ra's assets are frozen/seized, it would be pointless to sue him.

As for the families suing Legion World and-or the Legion directly, they would have to show negligence on the part of Legion World.

3) At first I was going to say that this situation of returning from the dead is something that would only occur in comics. But then I thought of a situation where a person has gone missing and the next-of kin have him/her declared dead. (I believe a person has to be missing for at least 10 years to be declared dead) and what happens if they return after being declared dead and their assets distributed. I do not know the answer for this. There seems to be two outcomes: a) the court says "tough luck, mr. dead guy, you shouldn't have been gone so long" or b) the court says "OK Heirs, give back the stuff (or the monetary equivalent)"

As for the unique situtaion of Garth in Jan's body, I would assume that unless Jan put Garth in his will, Garth could not claim Jan's estate. And the determining factor for who gets what would be identity, who is this person. If it is Garth, then he gets Garth's stuff and that's it. If he's Jan, he gets Jan's stuff and thats it.

And here I always thought it was a mess because if the pre-nuptual agreement was voided because of her age, the marriage would have been too? Plus any problems caused by altering her documents in the first place.

Wow, Quislet, I'm impressed!

Could Lana Lang have sued to gain standard membership in the Legion rather than honorary or reserve or whatever they gave her?

She could have sued, but would have most likely lost.

Assuming that the Legion is part of the UP Government and not a private organization, Courts still have found that a position in the government (even low level positions) is not a property right and not something she could have relied on getting. Therefore, Lana could not force the Legion to grant her regular membership.

Any more questions before I break for the holidays?

As a member of the Church of the Last Son, am I obligated to be on Monitor Duty on Christmas Day, even if it's not my turn, so that Christian staff and/or legionnaires may take the day off? And why can't I get Last Son Day off, even if it isn't a statutory U.P. holiday?

I've read a quote by a law professor to a graduating class. "Three years ago, when asked a legal question, you would have had to answer truthfully 'I don't know.' Now after years of hard work and studying, you are fully qualified to answer the same legal question with 'It depends!'"

And that is the answer to your question. It depends. Do you have an employment contract or are you an at will employee. If you have an employment contract, your contract would determine the answer. If it isn't spelled out in the contract, then you would have to negotiate with your employer.

An at will employee does not have a contract. As an at will employee, you can quit at any time without notice. But your employer can also fire you for reason or no reason at all. Despite that there are certain reasons that an employer can not fire an at will employee. These are called the public policy exceptions. They are few though and usually tough to prove. Discrimination is one of the public policy exceptions. You would have to prove the discrimination in order to prevail, which might be harder if your employer provides other reasons for firing you (i.e. down turn in business, insubordination, refusing to perform the work). Also for religious discrimination, you must show that this is a deeply held belief and not just some fly-by-night dealy. (like the difference betweem Muslim women wearing head scarfs compared to a person saying "My church has a holy day this Friday called, um ..um.. um.. Holy Day, yeah that's it, Holy Day and I need it off."}

FC, for your particular problem, your best solution is to work out an agreement with your employer regarding which days you will work and which days you can have off. Unfortunately for you, your employer has the right to set her/his schedule as he/she sees fit (including last minute changes). If in this situation, you decide to refuse to work when you are scheduled or if you don't come in on a particular day, then your employer could fire you . You can then sue for wrongful termination, but as stated, it is difficult to prove.

You always have the option to quit and find employment with a more accomodating employer.

Better yet, buy them out and make 'em work on Christmas but give him Last Son Day off!

Quis, if I don't catch you on the boards tomorrow, I hope you have a wonderful holiday! I'll be gone from tomorrow night until late Sunday and may not have access until I get back home.

Hey! Who's the lawyer here?

Don't make me report you to the Legion World Board of Bar Overseers for practicing law without a licence.

Well, I hope the Fatal Five are hiring!

I slipped and fell in SHAKES. Can I sue the proprietors?

(Please let me know as soon as possible. I also slipped and fell in Café Cramer and the Starfield Lounge, so I want to be able to sue as soon as I can. Oh yeah, and I got scalded by some hot cocoa at chocolatte. Oh, and I got struck by some falling equipment when I was walking through The Beacon (still under construction)...)

Fortunately, we are well covered thanks to Policy Pam. Deal with her until the lawyer gets back.

Pam and I have been-- how shall I put this? Let's just say she's been underwriting me for the last couple of months...

Covering for all your liabilities, is she? :rolleyes:

First, in general you have about three years after the accident in which to sue. So if the fall just happened you don't have to crawl on your injured legs (If that is what was injured) to the courthouse.

As for whether you could successfully sue, it depends. What were the circumstances that caused you to fall? Was it a loose carpet? Some food on the floor that wasn't cleaned up? or was it a some liquid on the floor that you yourself made?

In a slip and fall case you are looking to prove negligence. When looking at whether a person (or a business) was negligent, you have to show that there was a duty of care, there was a breach of the duty, the breach was the actual cause of the injury, and that the breach was the proximate cause of the injury, and that there was an actual injury.

Showing a duty in this case is easy as business owe a duty to not allow injuries on their premises. Whether there was a breach is another question. There we use the reasonable and prudent person standard. The reasonable and prudent standard is what a reasonable and prudent person (or business in these cases)in the same or similar circumstances would do to avoid foreseeable harm to foreseeable people or property. An example of a breach of duty would be if a restaurant didn't promptly clean up a spilled drink because a reasonable and prudent person could foresee a customer (a foreseeable person) slipping on the liquid and hurting him/herself.

Next comes Causation. First, Cause in fact. here the "But for" Test is used. But for the ice cube on the floor, I would not have slipped. But for the the hot cocoa, I would not have burned my tongue.

Then Proximate cause. This is a trickier concept. It goes back to foreseeablility. You can forsee that a piece of ice on a floor could cause a person to slip and fall. Could you foresee that pushing a person onto a moving train would dislodge an unmarked package from his arm which would explode when it hit the tracks (because it contained fireworks) causing a sign 40 feet away to fall and strike a person on the head? Also there is what is called "intervening acts". Say you slip and fall in a restaurant and as you shakenly leave the restaurant and limp across the parking lot, a car sideswips you and takes off. Now your leg is broken rather than sprained. Here, the intervening act of the driver, prevents you from suing the reastaurant even though you can say "but for my slipping on the ice, I would have had two good legs to stand on and have been able to leap out of the path of the car."

Finally, you have to show that you were injured in some way. A doctor's report is good evidence of this.

Now the restaurant can try to show comparative negligence. That is that you did something to contribute to the accident. EX: He ran across the lobby after coming in from the slushy snow covered street. If the trier of facts finds you comparatively negliegent, the amount of money is reduced by that percentage of comparative negligence. Say, you have $10,000 in doctors bills but are found 20% comparatively negligent, then you would only collect $80,000. If you are found to be more then 50% negligent, then you collect nothing.

For your injuries from being at the Beacon's construction site, the defendant can argue that you "assumed the risk" because it is known that construction sites are dangerous places and you assumed the risk of injury when you when onto the site.

As for the hot cocoa at Chocolatte, I am assuming you have in mind the McDonald's hot coffee case. Some points regarding the McDonald's case. First McDonalds had their coffee brewed at a temperature too high for immediate comsumption (this was so that coffee taken away would still be hot when you reached your destination). McDonalds had warnings in the form of other people who had been burned by their hot coffee. And the woman who was burned had 2nd degree burns over a fairly large area of her body, which required her to be hospitalized for two days. So to successfully sue Chocolatte, you would need to show that Chocolatte purposefully made their hot cocoa too hot. We can assume that the McDonalds case would have been sufficient warning about the perils of making their hot cocoa too hot.

Oh my gosh! Thanks for the very informative and very thoughtful advice, Quis!

That's a lot of different factors to keep in mind -- I'm sure the average person has no idea that so many different considerations go into this kind of case.

Anyway, based on your advice, I suppose I probably don't have much of a legal leg to stand on. Based on the idea of "comparative negligence," those businesses could say that I was kind of... under the influence... when the slip and falls occurred...

Actually, I doubt a restaurant or bar that serves intoxicating beverages can use the fact that you were intoxicated as a defense (Unless you came in intoxicated). Such establishments have a duty to make sure you don't get too intoxicated, possibly based on specific statutes. In that case there is negligence per se. That's why bars cut people off.

About STU's alleged slip and fall in SHAKES:

1. Since SHAKES is subject to California law, he has only one year from the date of alleged injury to file suit.

2. STU is an employee of SHAKES (official mascot), therefore, his alleged injury is an employment related injury. His sole recourse is Worker's Compensation (Bwaaah haa haaa haa - evil laugh). The statute of limitations for WC claims is likely shorter than one year.

3. Third, STU is a well known booze hound. If he fell, there is no doubt that he contributed significantly to his injuries.

4. Fourth, we are well insured. Please submit your claim to our carrier. Their claims adjuster, D. Nyem Awl, will contact you shortly.

Hey Quis just checking the place out!!!!

if my brother is inhabiting the body of a person not related to me, is he still my brother?

STU's status as an employee is questionable. Does he, as offical mascot, receive compensation? If he does not, then he is merely a patron of your establishment and may sue on the tort of negligence.

And depending on the nature of STU's fall, whther he was intoxicated or not may be irrelevant.

Does Mr. Awl work for the firm Dewey, Cheetum, & Howe?

Icey,

Would you like a private tour of my orifices er... I mean offices?

Aren't we all brothers? Oh wait that's philosophy not law.

This seems to be an unique issue never before tried before a court. It appears to be an issue of fact best left to a trier of facts. However a telling fact is that you refer to this person as your brother. Therefore you must, on some level, accept as your brother.

Thanks for the advice, Quis!

I've got another question for ya.

A poster who's lurking here keeps pinching my butt! However, since she or he doesn't actually show up on the "Recent Visitors" line, I don't know who it is.

Can I simply sue Legion World for allowing this sort of appalling behavior to go on? (I think we can assume that the culprit(s) could be any number of the posters here. My butt, after all, is too temptingly pinchable to resist.)

Please help...!

STU,

You seem to be in a sue-happy mood. (I suppose I better be careful or you may sue me too. So I guess it it time for Disclaimer: I will not be giving any legal advice that you should take. The information I give is for entertainment and education purposes only. If you have a real legal issue, you should consult a lawyer in your own area of the world. )

That said, now let's see this allegedly pinchable butt.

Hmmmmmmm!!!!!!! Yes definitely pinchable. Still it wasn't Legion World who pinched it, was it?

You really can't sue anyone (whether a business or a person) for the actions of another. Unless, of course, that person or business actively encouraged, endorsed, or tolerated the said actions and had a duty to prevent said actions from occurring. For example, the owner of a hockey rink doesn't have a duty to keep you warm. even if you personally don't know that hockey rinks are cold. However, most businesses have a duty to prevent sexual harassment (defined as unwanted contact, either physical or verbal, that is of a sexual nature).

That being said, have you reported these butt pinchings to the proper Legion World authority (ies)? If so, what was their response? If they investigated and made efforts to stop this activity (if it is unwanted), then they are off the hook as it were.

Not to butt in on all this lawyer stuff, but maybe STU should just invest in some flea powder and a good vacuum. The "pinching" might go away.

Fat Cramer,

Seeing as you gave practical advice and not any legal advice, we can let it pass.

However, I will have to bill you for taking my valuable time in drafting and writing this response. Oh and for some legal research to make sure that your advice wasn't legal advice.

Hmmm is there any other way I can pad this bill? Oh did I say that out loud? Umm If it pleases the Court, I withdraw that last statement about padding a bill. There, now that it is off the record, it is like I never said it.

I reported it to Nighty. He responded by pinching my butt!

Well, it sounds like you have a case.

If you would like to pursue it, I would be willing to represent you.

My fee is $950.00 an hour. You will also be responsible for paying the expenses of any expert witnesses, legal research, filing fees, postage, and copying. I'll require a retainer of $100,000.00, to be replenished on a monthly basis as needed.

How much is Legion World and/or Nightcrawler worth, by the way?

Oh wait, STU. I just realized as I am on a retainer to have this thread on Legion World, there is a conflict of interest. I can't represent you.

Registering the Legion World domain name: $100

Maintaining the Legion World server: $250

Seeing Nighty flustered and flabbergasted : priceless

STU,

You might want to be careful that Nightcrawler doesn't file a harassment suit against you for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

A court on its own could fine you for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Defined in this case as one meant only to harass.

Oh, I meant seeing Nighty flustered and flabbergasted by other stuff -- not necessarily by a lawsuit.

And I probably won't sue him for pinching my butt anyway. I kind of, well, encouraged it... by wearing such tight jeans.

Quis, since my salary in infinite, I think I can make us both some money by asking you legal questions

First, can a judge tell anyone in the courtroom that their being held for Contempt of Court (if that's what it's really called)?

Here are the various definitions of Contempt of Court that I have found:

From uscourts.gov/glossary.html from courttv.com And from dictionary.law.com So Yes Virginia, there is Contempt of Court. But the judge can't just point to you and say you are in Contempt of Court. Although Judges do have almost absolute authority in her/his courtroom. You do need to be doing something, even a passive something like wearing a "The Judge stinks" T-shirt.

Continuing the contempt of court theme...

1) If I'm appearing in court pro se, may I refer to any lawyer present as 'My learned friend", or would that be considered flipping the bird, since I'm not a lawyer?

2) I've noticed every time I talk to you, it costs me money. But since I'm living in Canada, and all my assets (such as they are) are in Canada, can you collect if I refuse to pay?

Your learned friend, FC

P.S. STU = suing them ubiquitously?

Ubiquitously, Unrelentingly, and Unabashedly!

1) I think it would depend on your tone. Lawyers are a cliquey group (You have to pass a test and pay money to be a lawyer. We call ourselves Doctors having gotten a Juris Doctor degree.) So the lawyer on the other side would probably get annoyed with you no matter what your tone. Now whether the judge thinks it is a contempt of court for you to address the opposing lawyer in such a manner depends on how cliquey the judge is and-or how much the judges likes or hates the opposing lawyer.

2) I could go to a Canadian Court and ask them to enforce the contract between us. That contract being that you would pay for each question answered. Because you are a Canadian citizen , the Candian court would have jurisdiction over you. Even though I am not a Canadian citizen, I would still be able to appeal to a Canadian court, just as you could go to a US court to sue me.

Now if a Canadian court ordered you to pay me and you refused, then the court could hold you in contempt of court. Also the Canadian court would also be able to use it power to seize your assets in order to pay any judgement against you.

Hey, Quis,

Going back to a Legion story of yore, suppose someone sued Brainiac 5 for the damage his creation, Computo, caused. Would they have a good case?

I'm thinking primarly of ADVENTURE # 340-341, here. Though would the postboot Brainy also be liable for damages caused by Computo and Robotica?

let's not read too much into my economical phrasing, my learned friend.

Well, I'll take the easier part first. I think that the reboot Computo and Robotica were declared sentient and autonomous. Therefore, Brainy would not be responsible for any damage done by Computo/Robotica. Much like parents are not responsible for damages caused by their 18 year old (age of majority) children.

Now, the pre-boot Computo was sentient, but not considered autonomous, much like a 10 year old child. I believe that there is no hard and fast rule as to whether the parents of a 10 year old child is legally responsible for damages caused by him/her. Again I believe that in cases where a 10 year old causes damages, the victim will try to sue the parents for negligent supervision of the child rather than for the actual intentional tort of the child. Because unless you are Macaulay Culkin, most parents have deeper pockets than their children.

So, I do think that pre-boot Brainiac 5 would have had to face many lawsuits.

Then I would advise you to not be so economical in your phrasing because someone will take such a statement as an admission. And sometimes admissions can be very costly.

So, Quis, how's the law firm going? You seem to have a lot of business. If I may offer some advice, don't take contingency cases. Get good hefty retainers upfront.

BTW, your advice demonstrates your wide breadth of legal knowledge and sound reasoning. Keep up the good work.

Semi,

Thanks for the compliment. (But please feel free to set things straight if I mis-state something)

Seeing as Thriftshop Debutante requested this thread, I am sending all the bills to her. I think I have properly padded the bill.

Quislet, Esq.


*Gives secret lawyer handshake*

I'm sure you meant you sent your bill in a padded envelope. A fine legal establishment such as yours would never need to pad a bill.

Um Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. a padded envelope so it won't break in the mail.

such as hospital admissions?

Mr. Ranzz,

There are costlier admissions then hospital admissions.

Rest assured that I would not use your admissions/statements against you (except if you tried to sue me for malpractice) However there are others who would use your words against you. Hence my advice to you about being careful in what you say.

For example, regarding your statement that your "brother" is inhabiting the body of another. If you were to attempt to settle your brother's estate, this person who is alleging that he is your brother may attempt to stop you. His lawyer could use your statement to prove that you do not believe that your brother is dead (and therefore should not be probating his estate) and further that this person alleging to be your brother is in fact your brother and that you admit to such a fact. In this case your admission would cost you your share of your brother's estate.

I hope this clarifies my advice to you.

I wish you well.

Quislet, Esq.

oh, quislet, it's not always about the money. why would i want anything of garth's?

Mr. Human Lawyer:

I often feel discriminated against in your human eating and drinking establishments. When the patrons or proprietors see me, they often start screaming scurrilous slurs against rodents and, sometimes, even attacking me.

It's nothing I can't handle with my heat vision or super-strength, but I am curious: do I have any recourse in a human court of law for being treated in this fashion?

I realize that some rodents have poor hygienic habits, but I assure you that I bathe at least as often as the typical human, and I am certainly more intelligent than many humans, as well.

Is it fair to treat me based on an inaccurate stereotype of how some rodents might be?

Signed,
Curious Super-Rat

Mekt (If I may call you Mekt),

In the law, it is always about the money. Well, not always, but it is always put in terms of money.

Re-reading your original question, I do see that it was more of a philosophical question than a legal question.

Whether you accept your brother (whether he is in his own body or his essense is in another's body) is purely up to you. You know your feelings towards him. You know what type of a relationship you want with him.

We don't choose our biological family. We can and do choose who our friends are and who we accept as family.

What makes you think you're in my will? Besides, the security cameras at Legion World already caught you admiring yourself wearing my costume so you'll be lucky just to go back to having a supervised life.

Excuse me, Mr. Doctor Learned Friend, esquire, but I don't see any mention upfront about fees. Now you start charging - isn't that misrepresentation of some sort?

Also, haven't you broken client-attorney privilege by divulging that it was TD who asked you to open this thread?

Finally, you say we should not take any of your advice - yet you're charging for it? And even if some judge orders that we should pay, certainly we should only pay at the rates that lawyers charge for entertainment, which should be about minimum wage, I expect!

Dear Mr. Super-Rat:

I do sympathize with you regarding the discrimination you face. Would that everyone recognized sentience in all it forms and treated all with the respect each deserve.

Unfortunately at this time, Human courts would not recognize you are a legitimate party. Even if you were recognized as a legitimate party, discrimination based on species is not against the law.

I am sorry that I cannot help you in this matter. Please contact me again if you have any other questions.

Sincerely,

Quislet, Esq.

Thanks, Mr. Human Lawyer.

I guess I shouldn't have expected too much from the human legal system. I suppose I shall just have to take things into my own paws from now on when I've been unjustly treated (think heat vision).

Thank goodness the bar around here is so open-minded to sentients of all shapes, sizes, and forms!

Obviously you did not read the very fine print regarding fees. It is plainly visible (for anyone with Kryptonian vision)

A judge usually orders the payment of reasonable attorneys fees (not entertainment fees), which is usually determined by the going rate in the area, the length of practice for the particular attorney, and the complexity of the matter handled. You are paying for my time in answering your questions, not necessarily "advice". If you do not find this thread entertaining, you are perfectly free to go to other threads. And my actual fee for answering your questions is quite reasonable. You may have been confused with the fees I quoted regarding actual representation.

Attorney-client privilege only extends to those matter discussed in obtaining legal assistance. Not everything you discuss with a lawyer becomes privilege. Discussions of a business arrangement between the lawyer and another person is not subject to lawyer-client privilege. If a person came to a lawyer for legal advice about a business arrangement, then that would be subject to the privilege.

You sound like you have an action for either trespass to chattels or conversion here. Both involve the interference with your personal property. Conversion occurs when the property is so damaged that it can't be returned.

i repeat: why would i want anything of garth's?

may i remind everyone that the pamphlets aren't non-fiction.

if they weren't, i'm sure we'd all be interested in why "garth" was reviewing tapes of the men's room.

what's-his-face alleges that i wore a facsimilie of the live wire costume. this is not correct. but even if it was true, and even if it was live wire's actual costume/property, this person would have to prove he's live wire to file a complaint, correct? ha, ha, ha! caught in your own web!

Those Ranzz guys don't need a lawyer, they need a family counselor. Or their mom. Notice how Ayla just stays out of it? Clever girl.

Okay, back to the lawyer stuff. Couldn't Rody the Super-Rat get the SPCA or PETA or just Friends of Rody to appear on his behalf and fight for his rights? If you don't have any rights to begin with, if you're not even allowed in court , how do you get your case heard? (Should we move this to 31st century law? Or just invoke the Law of the Jungle, which would make Stu the Lion the judge....?)

What we are talking about is called Standing or the right to sue in court. Say that when Live Wire died, he had a will that left all his money and the family farm (which was in his name for tax purposes) to Brianiac 5. Gates thinks it is wrong that property should be in the hands of an individual and not part of a collective ownership. So Gates files suit challenging Live Wire's will.

The Court would say that Gates does not have Standing because 1) he was not listed in Garth's will and 2) If the will is thrown out then Garth's property would got to his surviving relatives (which Gates isn't). Therefore Gates would not suffer any harm if Garth's will is enforced.

So Gates refiles his suit on behalf of Ayla. The court would again throw out Gates' suit even though Ayla has standing because Ayla is competent to file the suit herself. Undaunted, Gates files suit on behalf of the trees on the family farm because Brainy plans on cutting them all down. again Gates' suit would be thrown out because the trees, not being sentient, don't have a right to sue.

In order to file on behalf of someone else, you have to show that the person has standing and is incompetent to file for him/herself (like a baby or a person with advanced alzheimers)


Back to Rody: Presumably in the 31st century of the Legion, any sentient being could avail themselves of the courts and Rody would have standing on his own.

The next point in his case is whether it is illegal to discriminate based upon species. Not all discrimination is illegal. There is no law that would prevent me from discrimating against left handed people whose last name starts with Y. So, I could refuse to serve those people in my bar and even require them to leave, but I still could not beat them with a broom stick as I hastened them from my bar. Why? Because as sentient beings, they would then have standing to sue me for Battery.

So, Rody currently needs to frequent only species tolerant establishments.

If a certain Security Officer constantly harrassed a certain rodent for using non-tolerant establishments, could said Security Officer find himself in serious trouble with the law?

It depends.

If the unnamed rodent is a citizen, then the unnamed Security Officer could face a law suit for the harassment as well as internal discipline (if not being terminated) And intoxication would not excuse the harassing behavior

You would have to be more specific in what you consider harassment.

Could you open a real-world law office and call it Super Law Firm of Space, or would the Bar association pay you a visit and suggest that you find a more dignified name? It would be a hoot, but some people have no sense of humour...

I don't think the Bar Association would concern itself over the dignity of the name.

It might be concerned if I called it "The Bribery Law Offices".

But I would suspect that the name "Super Law Firm of Space" would keep a few clients away.

Wow! What a fountain of information is available in this thread!

Thanks, Quis, for answering my question, re: Computo. To continue with Brainy for a moment, do you think he would have gotten off using the insanity defense for the damage wrought by his other creation, Omega? And if so, could they prove he was insane at the time he created Computo?

Is it true that Tusker has you on retainer?

EXCUSE me! "Super Law Firm... of SPACE!" would be the *first* law firm I would turn to if I killed somebody or, like, embezzled all their money!

There are actually three or four different Insanity defenses (some places combine two) and depending on which court you are in, determines which defense is in use.

The earliest is the M'Naghten Rule. With M'Naghten, you have to show that the defendant didn't know he/she was doing something wrong. With this defense, if a person thought that his neighbor was a tree and used an axe to cut him down, then he would get off. If instead he thought his neighbor was Hitler and shot him, he would not have the insanity defense, because he would have still thought he was killing a person and should have known that killing a person is wrong.

The next insanity defense is the Irresistable Impulse defense. Here the defemndant needs to show that at the time of the crime, he/she was under an irresistable impulse to perform the action. Knew it was wrong, but just couldn't stop him/herself.

Then there is the Durham Rule and the MPC Test. Here the defendant has to show a mental defect and then that the mental defect either prevented him from appreciating the wrongfulness of his actions or from conforming to the law.

Regarding Brainy and Computo, I don't see any of the insanity defenses helping him. For the creation of Omega, the last test would appear to be the most promising. We would need a psychiatrist or psychologist to comment on what if any Mental defects Brainy was suffering from.

The insanity defense is not used that often and is a hard defense to prove. I think it is hard to convince a jury to accept the insanity defense because it seems like the defendant is getting away scott free.

I wish! It is a very big retainer.

Then just for you I will name my firm :Super Law Firm of Space" ... although it will be spelt "The Law Offices of Rob ____, Esquire"

This remind me of one of the first cases I read for my Property Class. It involved a fox hunt. Basically, one guy was hunting a fox in the wilds. He took a shot at it, but missed and chased it for a bit. The fox got away, but the guy was still looking for it (or other foxes) The fox then ran right into the second guy, who killed it. The case was actually brought by the fathers of the two guys and was about who actually owned the dead fox.


After reading that, I thought that I should specialize in fox hunting cases and only fox hunting cases. What do you think?

M'Naghten! What an unusual name. The apostrophe and spelling make me think of something Legion-related.

Speaking of Legion-related, I first read this as the "Durlan rule"...

The case is from 1843. I believe that the defendant's name is just a varient spelling of "McNaughton" Here is a link to the opinion of the case. M\'Naghten\'s case

A new question for the esteemed Mr. Esquire...

A few action figure customizers on another board/mailing list I peruse have wandered about the implications of selling (on ebay) their custom figures based on the intellectual properties of others (DC and Marvel most notably).

There have been many rumors like as long as you don't sell more than three customs of a figure within a year, you are not violating any copyrights. This led to the question of whether a custom Bruce Wayne was the same as a custom Batman. Another rumor that surfaced is that you can sell as many as you want as long as you are not mass producing them (like on an assembly line I guess). Some have said that selling one is a copyright infringement, while others have said as long as you don't make so much money that the big companies notice, you aren't violating anything.

As you can probably tell, most customizers have no legal knowledge... Could you share any insights you might have on this topic please.

Sounds to me like Brainy had an "irresistable impulse" to destroy the world.

I've heard this phrase before, and I've often wondered how it can be used effectively to defend someone against, say, murder. For example, I may have an irresistable impulse to go to the restroom, but that's at least a physiological impulse. To have such an impulse to commit murder seems far-fetched to me.

What exactly constitutes an "irrestistable impulse"? Could any super-villain, for example, claim they had an irresistable impulse to take over the world?

Regarding APAs...

I gathered that these didn't veer into trademark infringement lawsuits because DC (or any other company) saw it as a beneficial arrangement: no one was making money from APAs and they served to maintain enthusiasm (therefore sales, therefore money) for the DC product rather than compete with it.

But what about selling old APA issues on eBay, or anywhere?

Quis, care to go over the infamous "Twinkie Defense" for everyone? I remember it fairly well from Criminology Class, but I wonder what your take on it will be...

Well my knowledge of copyright law is very minimal. My understanding is that a copyright is a copyright regardless of how much money youmake off of it.

I do remember hearing of a case (back in the 80s) where Disney sued a nursery school for copyright infringement for having a mural of Disney characters on their walls. (The story also said that Warner Brothers came in and re-painted the walls with the Looney Tunes characters.) Presumably the argument against the nursery school was that the use of the Disney characters on the wall would attract more clients and thus make the nursery school money.


I imagine part of this is whether DC hears about you making and selling custom figures (I also imagine that Bruce Wayne is as much a copyrighted figure of DC as Batman is) So I imagine that if someone makes a few figures for some friends (who pay him/her) You;ll have nothing to worry about. However, when you start putting them on E-bay, then DC will probably hear about it and may try to shut the custom figure maker down (If it is worth the cost of a lawsuit)

As for the APA (I know someone told me what they were but I forgot, I am thinking fan zines) I imagine DC would have a harder time suing someone selling the back issues on Ebay, especially if they never sued the original publisher of the zine for copyright infringement. DC does not have to sue everyone for copyright infringement, however the decision not to sue could set a precident for future cases in which they would want to sue.

I am 99.99% sure that there is no exact definition of what constitutes an "Irresistible impulse". That is a question that is usually left for the Trier of Facts (In most cases a jury, but it would be the judge if it was a no jury trial)

Certasinly the defense would bring on their expert witnesses to escribe the "irresistible impulse". I do believe that when you are talking about an irresitible impulse, it would mean say pulling the trigger of a gun rather than an elaborate plan to lure someone to a deserted area, shoot them, and then dispose of the body.

Therefore, most supervillians would not benefit from this defense.

Well the "Twinkie Defense" is part of a broader defense called "Diminished Capacity", which I think (They say that the day you take the bar exam is the day you know the most law) is just a form of the insanity defense and goes towards whether a person was able to form the intent to commit the crime.

The actual case where we get the term "Twinkie Defense" was from Dan White's trial for shooting and killing SF Mayor Moscone and City Councilman Harvey Milk. White's defense said that he suffered from depression and consumed a lot of junk food. The sugar from the junk food, worsened his depression and gave him diminished capacity. The jury agreed with this explanation. I believe he got a lesser sentence because of it. He didn't get off scott free.

While I believe that there is such a thing as diminished capacity that could mitigate a crime, I have a hard time accepting the "Junk food made me do it" argument.

What you say makes sense to me. A copyright is a copyright, and the rumors I reported sounded like people trying to justify soemthing to me. I told the person that asked the question on the other board basically what you said.

From my experience with DC/ebay on the subject (I have watched other people's custom auctions, but have never sold my work), I think DC has been trying to shut down the custom figure selling based on their properties at the Ebay source.

Let me say that a little better... I think DC is trying to get Ebay to police the custom figure sales, and not trying to go after every individual customizer.

I also wanted to give a quick note of thanks to Mr. Esquire, for giving his time to such a thread.

Thanks.

I've met Dan White's lawyer - very nice guy by the way. He actually received death threats after the verdict in that case. I've also met the prosecutor from that case, and discussed the case with him. He's now retired and also a very nice guy. Much has been made of the so-called twinkie defense, and most of it is inaccurate. A google search of "twinkie defense" will provide further information. Here is a typical exerpt:

"The media, who get paid to keep track of these things, got it screwed up too. She's talking about the infamous "Twinkie defense," a term that entered the national vocabulary two decades ago following a brutal double murder in 1978.

It all started on November 27, 1978 in San Francisco. Dan White, an ex-policeman who had recently resigned as city supervisor, climbed in the basement window of City Hall to avoid metal detectors, walked upstairs to the office of mayor George Moscone and demanded his supervisor job back. When Moscone refused, White shot him twice at close range, then stood over the body and put two more bullets into the mayor's brain to finish him off. Then he reloaded, went down the hall, and killed Harvey Milk, a popular supervisor who was also America's first openly gay public office holder, shooting him five times.

At trial, White's lawyer argued that he was suffering from "diminished capacity," a controversial defense then permissible in California courts. White supposedly was suffering from depression and thus incapable of premeditated murder. As evidence of this, psychiatrist Martin Blinder testified that the formerly health-conscious White had recently become a junk food junkie. Blinder commented that too much sugar can affect the chemical balance in the brain and worsen depression, but didn't blame the crime on bad diet. Rather, he offered junk food use as proof of White's mental state--in other words, Twinkie consumption was an effect rather than the cause of White's problems. But the media and public immediately--and misleadingly--dubbed the defense's argument the "Twinkie defense." "
The Straight Dope

I think you are right in that DC is probably trying to get Ebay to police their site rather than go through litigation.

Definitely DC has an interest in keeping the figurine business for themselves.

I imagine he did get death threats. There was rioting when the verdict was announced.

And it was Supervisor not Councilman. I knew councilman was not correct but couldn't remember what term was used.

When Legion World (theirs not ours) was first created, it was hidden through various means of intentional deception - it wasn't just in a remote corner of the galaxy, behind a large rock. Would they be guilty of avoiding property assessment and taxes, not to mention building codes? (There may be parts of the galaxy in the 31st century without building codes, but I can't believe that any sector will go untaxed.)

Well first we can assume that Legion World was constructed in space. Second, I am assuming that space acts much like the oceans do in our time. That is there is a 12 mile limit out into the ocean that is considered part of a country. Beyond that, it is considered international waters and is subject to no one. I would say that the planets, their atmospheres, and satellites are sovereign, but the space beyond is not subject to any planet's laws.

However ships passing through space would be subjected to the laws of their planet of registry.

Now that Legion World is in Orbit around Earth, that would make them subject to Earth Laws. However, the Earth government could pass a law allowing Legion World to retain their own sovereignty.

With their own sovereignty, Legion World would not be subject to the taxes of any planet. The United Planets seems to work as more like the UN rather than as a ruling body.

Any more questions?

If a creature for which there is dispute over its sentience is killed, would this question require a definitive answer before trial could proceed?

yes or no, depending on what charges are brought against the defendant. (oh I know you want more of an answer than that)

Let's use Proty (Before he was declared a sentient being) as an example. Mano pets one of Proty's kin completely disintergrating him. The prosecutor charges Mano with murder. Mano's lawyer files a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that the Proty was not a sentient creature and therefore the charge of murder is
wrong. (Assuming that murder would apply to just sentient creatures by Legion time. Killing a non-sentient creature could result in violations of other laws. Killing an endangered animal violates a law in the US but is not murder. Killing a family pet could cause a person to be charged with cruelty to animals and a civil suit for Conversion, but not murder.)

The court would then hold a hearing on the motion (no jury) to determine if the charges should be dismissed. The Prosecutor would argue why the charges are correct (and that the Proty was sentient) and the Defense attorney would argue that the charges should be dismissed because the Proty wasn't sentient and therefore could not be murdered.

If the judge finds that Protys aren't sentient, then the charge of murder would be dismissed. The Prosecutor could then bring Mano up on the other charges mentioned. Also the judge could find another reason to dismiss the charge without ruling on whether Protys are sentient or not. If the judge finds that Protys are sentient, then the case would then go to trial provide that there are not any other motions.

Quis, do you think you'd be able to repress a smile if suddenly someone in the courtroom yelled:

"I'm out of order? You're out of order! This whole damn court is out of order!!!"

Well seeing as I have never really seen the movie that quote is from, I would say yes. Also I have already had to suppress smiles while doing intakes for the legal group I volunteer with. We deal with homeless clients and some have mental health issues.

I do remember from my Trial Practice class having to say "Objection!" for the first time. I wasn't the only one to giggle after saying it.

I do have a couple of stories from my Trial Practice class and will relate them if people would be interested.

Very interested! Trials are better when they're funny and silly !

Well Trial Practice was set up in a courtroom at the law school. Basically we were given case information (witness statements, evidence, etc.) and would be assigned to either examine or cross-examine a witness (played by another classmate)

One of the first witnesses I had to examine was the victim of a purse snatching. Within the case information we were told that when the defendant was captured, the victim was shown his, and only his, mug shot. (Not good for identification purposes). I and a couple of other students went up for questions after class. The professor (a retired judge) said that we would have to come up with another means of getting the identification before the jury. So I thought about it.

When my turn came to examine the witness, I said "Ms. Gale, do you see the man who attacked you on the night in question?" "Could you point him out?" "Your Honor, may the record show that the witness pointed to the defendant"

One of my classmates later said that as I was doing that, he thought it sounded hokey. However the professor made a point about how important in court identifications are and how juries eat them up.

My other big moment in Trial Practice was at the end of the semester. We were to examine and cross-examine an expert witness.

Now by this time in the semester, quite a few of the students were leaving the class as soon as they had done their bit and not staying for the professor's comments. In preparing us for the expert witness, the professor said that as the side calling the expert, you had to establish the witness's credentials (education & professional experience) and that you should go throough it even if the other side would stipulate to the credentials because "juries eat up that stuff".

So, I was the side to cross-exam the expert. When my classmate started in on the asking about credentials, I interrupted and said that I was willing to stipulate that the witness was an expert. My classmate, who hadn't stay in the previous class, said "Great, now I don't have to ask these questions" and started to turn to his other questions. The professor interrupted and again stated how important it was to establish the credentials of the expert witness.

I did maintain my composure, but inside I was like "YES!!!!!!"

Ha, good stories Quis! Trial Practice seems like it was one of the fun parts of being trained as a lawyer, something that I'm sure could use a few more fun aspects

Sits in office, feet on the desk waiting for more clients.

Thumbs through old issues of the Legion

The Lost Legionnaires came back after one year and demanded their back pay. According to them, they didn't know the Legion had been disbanded and were operating under the assumption that they were still on Legion business, fulfilling our mission of bringing peace and security to all sentients.

However, some administration people say that they shouldn't be paid for the time they weren't here; nobody else was. (The people helping to build Legion World and keep it hidden were paid out of R.J. Brande's personal fortune that he had squirreled away in some golden parachute deal with McCauley.) Who's right?

Hmmm an Employment law/contracts question.

Wait: Wasn't the Legion already disbanded before the star gate explosion that got them lost? That being the case, they did have knowledge of their termination and therefore would not be entitled to back pay.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the Lost Legionnaires did not know of the Legion being disbanded. Now we can procede with your question.

First we would have to find out if the Legionnaires were contract employees or employees-at-will. If they were contract employees, then the contract terms would decide the matter. Although I doubt this scenario would have been covered in the contract. But then again, given the resurrection rate for superheroes, it just might be a standard clause in superhero employment contracts.

As an employee-at-will, the employee can quit at any time with no notice needed, but the employer can also fire the employee at any time for cause or no cause.

Now given that they were employees-at-will, the employer, the United Planets, could argue that they were terminated when the Legion was disbanded. That they weren't notified of termination is irrelevant, because they were declared dead. Because the employer was within their right to terminate, they would not be liable for the "back pay".

The Legionnaires don't really have much of an argument. They can not say that they relied on their employment to their detriment because 1) as employees-at-will, they could have been fired at any time and 2) they did not turn down any other offers of employment due to their supposed employment by the United Planets. It could also be further argued that they were operating outside of the scope of their employment in that their employment was to defend the United Planets from danger and they were operating outside of the United Planets and were not working for the United Planet's interests, but their own interest in returning to the UP.

I also don't see a public policy exception in this case. They were not wrongfully terminated due to discrimination or because they were exercising their civil rights.


So, as much as I would want the Legionnaires to be paid, I don't see them being able to put forth a reasonable argument on why they should be paid.

**Purr**

How do we get all Dogs Banned from Legion World?

**Purr**

This would be a matter for the legislature or a popular referendum.

You would need to either get the Legion World legisalture to pass a law banning dogs or you can try to get an amendment added to the Legion World Constitution which would ban dogs.

Either way appears to entail much hard work and no guarantee of success.

Mr. Q, Esq I hope you can keep this confidential. I am a member of a group, and when election time came, the leader nominated me to be the next leader and lobbied on my behalf. Perhaps even strong-armed the other members to vote for me. Some time after that, he invited me to supper; it was all very innocent and friendly. But then he showed up at my quarters late one night and said, "Jazzy, it's time to pay up and put out." I was horrified but felt so pressured to comply with his demands, that I gave in and slept with him. Now my powers are malfunctioning, I believe from the stress of this situation. I'm so distressed. What are my options? Can I file a harassment complaint against him?

Who owns the name "Legion of Super-Heroes"? Yes, DC in our universe, but what about in the Legion's universe?

Suppose half the team had a disagreement over the team's purpose, their compensation, or the allotment of pluberry desserts, and decided to split off from the main group and form their own Legion. For argument's sake, let's say that one of the two remaining founders, Saturn Girl or Cosmic Boy, went with this faction. (We won't include "Jarth" since we don't know what his official status is at the moment.) Which half of the Legion could continue to call itself Legion of Super-Heroes -- the half that "stays" or the half that "goes"? And if both Cos and Saturn Girl both left, could they legally force the others to stop using the name?

I believe that if both Cos and Imra left, the remaining members would have to call themselves "Starship".

Have you seen the stars tonight? Would you like to go out an A-Deck and look at them with me?

Ken

It does sound like you have the makings of a sexual harassment case. You would need to come in and provide more details (your prior relationship with him, the dates of the election and the incident, etc.) Then we can go over what options you have, what your objectives are, and the likelihood of achieving your objectives through the court system or alternative dispute resolution (ADR) like mediation.

I imagine that it is like the ownership of a band's name as suggested by Outdoor Miner.

Unfortunately I am totally unfamiliar with the law that would apply in such a case.

If any of the other legal minds here have the answer, please feel free to post.

Proty II,

Welcome to Legion World. It is always good to see new people around here. There are many great threads to read and post to. The premiere thread to flirt in is Shakes, a fine drinking establishment. (Harbringer pounds out great songs on the piano there) You might also want to try out the Beacon too.

As this is an office, I like to keep the flirting to a minimum. Feel free to ask any legal related question here. I try to answer all questions to the best of my ability.

Disclaimer time: I don't offer legal opinions or advice here. You need to consult a local attorney for that.

The specifics of what power the elected Legion World leader have never been laid out. If the leader were to harrass the founders of Legion World, resulting in his being "BANNED!", could he, as the elected leader, find some way to use his ambiguous power to stop this banning? Do we have the possibility of a potential dictatorship on our hands? Do we need a Legion World Senate?

Well seeing as the Leader's powers are unspecified, it is impossible to state whether he/she has a power to stop said banning.

It would be well advised to remember that in the layers of reality we call Legion World, the ultimate reality is that this is private property and we are here as invited guests and that said invitation can be revoked at any time for any reason or no reason.

Beyond that it is also well advised to remember the word of Ma Quislet. "You can attract more quarks with positive polarity than with a singularity!"

I really prefer fantasy cases, but here's a question from real life.

I drove by a gas station yesterday, and the prices posted on the sign all read 0.0, on both sides. Now if I had gone and filled up the tank, could I have claimed that I thought it was free gas, maybe a promotional deal? Assuming there was a price reading on the meter where you actually fill up, which price would have been considered the right one? What if the price on the meters also read 0.0? Would I be told that I should know that gas is not free, and that the standard price in the region is 78.9/litre?

(In a grocery store, if there is a dispute about price, you get the lower price. If there is a scanning error, you get the item for free. I don't know if that is a law, or just a policy adopted by most large stores.)

I should point out here that Proty II is actually quoting lyrics from the Jefferson Starship number "Have You Seen The Stars", which is undoubtedly in reference to the lame Starship bit I had posted above.

Don't you want somebody to love?

"Suppose half the team had a disagreement over the team's purpose, their
compensation, or the allotment of pluberry desserts, and decided to split off from
the main group and form their own Legion. "

This isn't the same situation, but similar: there were two political parties in Canada, the Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives. Alliance had been a spin-off from the PCs and last year there was a move to recombine. A faction of the Conservatives was absolutely opposed and went to court to try and stop the merger. I don't know the details of the case (and part of the problem was that they got to court too late to really do anything), but basically it worked out like this. If the majority of delegates to a conference voted in favour of the merger, it was okay, regardless of what the leader had originally promised (no merger) or what the constitution said. The majority voted yes, and the new party has become The Conservative Party.

That's not exactly the same name, so "legally" it may avoid problems, but most people never used the Progressive label anyways, just called them the Conservatives - or the PCs (by which "Progressive" would be understood).

So my uneducated guess would be that if the majority of the old group split off, and some judge blessed the whole deal, the new group could do as they please. Or take a name so similar as to be one in the same for the general public. Then the countersuits could begin.

I understand the analogy of the Legion to a rock band, but I wonder if the same situation would apply.

Rock bands are commercial enterprises that usually comprise five or six individuals. When one of them claims ownership of the name (as has happened to Pink Floyd, Jefferson Starship, the Byrds, and more bands than any sane individual would care to count), the matter is often decided by whatever their original contracts specified, or some other indication of creatorship/ownership. Paul Kantner of Jefferson Starship argued that he owned that name because he had used it for a solo project long before the group existed. (He ultimately settled out of court with the then current band members.)

But the Legion as an organization is more akin to the United States Army or the New York City Police Department. I guess the answer to the question of ownership would be similar (e.g., the U.S. government and the city of New York, probably, own those respective names). So, perhaps the government of the United Planets owns the Legion's name.

Which would mean President Winema could fire everybody and hire the Oversight Watch to be the new Legion!

The price on the pump would probably prevail in a dispute over the price. The most persuasive argument for the station owner is that it is known that gas is not given away for free.

IF there is no price listed, a judge would probably decide that the price needs to be the average price in the area.

The thing with the stores giving the lowest price or a mis-scanned item free, does sound like a store policy.

Taking it easy at the office today.

*Put's feet on desk. Takes a sip of that delicious Cramer's Cafe blend coffee. Opens the newspaper and see what's happening*

the Office will be open tomorrow for legalish questions.

Is evidence against evil doers obtained by covert methods acceptable in a court of law?

Is exile a legally recognized punishment?

(Just planning ahead.)

Prior Planning Prevents Poor Punishments!

Dear Quislet,

I'm a Leader who was legally and rightfully elected in a fair and above-board election.

I've done my best to make these boards warm and friendly for everyone -- by welcoming new members, responding helpfully to questions and queries, and opening up my own home for the enjoyment of the entire populace.

Now, the people that I've worked so hard and selflessly to serve for the last couple of months are threatening to depose me, and even worse.

What sort of legal recourse do I have in preventing the greedy, ruthless usurpers from carrying out their foul schemes?

Signed,
I Am Not A Crook

first the standard lawyer response. It depends.

Covert methods may be used, but they must be authorized (usually by a court). And the authorization must be based on probable cause.

For example: Officer A thinks Bad Guy sells drugs out of his home. If Officer A, on his own plants a wire tap in BG's house, then the evidence from that wire tap would not be acceptable, because there is no authorization.

Now say Officer A goes to Judge J and says "I think BG sells drugs. Let me plant a wire in his house." Even if Judge J authorizes a wire tap, no probable cause has been stated to allow the authorization.

Say instead, Officer A says "I think BG is selling drugs in his house. The neighbors have been complaining about strange cars coming and going to the house at all hours. I have seen BG with Sammy the Drug Smuggler on this date, and this date, and this date, and again today." Now there is probable cause that BG is involved in an illegal activity and a wire tap can then be used to gather evidence against BG.

Also police officers are allowed to use deception when questioning a suspect. Such as on "Law & Order" when the detectives tell a suspect that they got back the lab results even if they haven't.


I don't think exile is currently a legally recognized form of punishment. Non-citizens can be deported, but that is not exile. I think in some high profile cases (say ex-leaders of countries), the courts offer the person a choice of voluntarily leaving the country or facing prison or execution. In those case, exile is self-imposed.

Well, STU if these people have engaged in any illegal activity, then they can be charged with those illegal activities. The government in bring those charges must prove by a preponderance of evidence (In some cases like for murder, the standard of proof becomes "beyond a reasonable doubt") that the defendant did commit the illegal activity. The Defendant then can offer evidence that they did not commit the activity or that even if they did, that there were mitigating circumstances.


Just to clarify though, expressing disagreement with government policies or actions and advocating a change in administrations (through legally accepted means) are not illegal activities. Also if a leader exceeds his/her/its authority, then the people have a right to demand that the leader stop doing such unauthorized activities and/or be removed from office.

Quick question - if you ask for a fried egg sunny-side up, and your egg is NOT sunny-side up when it comes and they refuse to replace it, can you sue the establishment for false description of their products?

Most likely not. Even if you could, what would be your damages? The cost of the egg? The filing fees would cost more than that.

You could refuse the proferred egg and refuse to pay for it. Of course the restauraunt would argue that they did prepare an egg for you and therefore you are liable to pay.


Now don't tell anyone I said this because I may get disbarred for it. Not every dispute should be settled through litigation.

I can't believe you said that! Hope no one heard you!

Quis,

As Chief of Security, I have been given the term for life, and I cannot be deposed unless I willingly resign or no longer live on Legion World. Since I haven't resigned, I'm still Security Chief, albeit without an office. The Royal Inquisitor has thus no legal reasoning for acting as Security Chief, and if we, of Legion World, submit to him, we are actuallly validating him and the dictatorship of Stu.

However, one of my powers as Security Chief is to be able to act as a judge in emergency matters of law. If, in theory, Fat Cramer hired you to present all the evidence agaist Stu, could I technically ensure that all the evidence could be used in the trial and then proceed to judge whether Stu must be deposed? Would then we be in the legal boundaries of our jobs?

I don't think so. As Varalant pointed out, I was appointed as Chief Magistrate of Legion World. So it would be my job to preside over any impeachment ("deposed" is the word for an extra-legal removal from office)and to determine what evidence is admissible.

Your power to act as a judge in emergency circumstances would not allow you to preside over an impeachment, as that is not an emergency.

As there is no offical prosecutor for Legion World, I could, in my office as Chief Magistrate, appoint a prosecutor. I could appoint you, but there may be a conflict between your duties as Chief Security Officer and the duties of being a prosecutor.

But, I think that is getting a head of ourselves. I think it must first be shown that there are grounds for impeaching STU. Then if there are sufficient grounds, there would be a trial in which the prosecutor presents her/his case, and then STU presents his.

Quislet, my old friend!

Here's a purely hypothetical question for you:

Suppose certain citizens of Legion World had committed some rather horrendous crimes against another citizen of Legion World in their past lives. Would said victim of such crimes have any recourse against the perpetrators in this lifetime?

I'd just like to know, in case a situation like that ever came up.

Quis,

Thanks for the info! I see now that it would have to be you as judge in any impeachment or major trial case (I had previously thought that you would be one of the lawyers).

As Security Chief, there would be a direct conflict of interest, so I could not act as a prosecutor. My main job would have to be gathering evidence to prove that there is grounds for impeachment.

Thanks!

Dr. Mayavale,

An interesting question. I would say that the Statutes of Limitations would apply in such cases.

All civil and criminal causes of actions have time limits in which actions can be brought before a court. Depending on the type of action, the Statute of Limitations (or time limit) can vary.

But there is also ways of tolling the Statute of Limitations. The most useful tolling for a plaintiff is Discovery. This is when you have been injured but do not know that you have been injured until after the Statute of Limitations has passed. Basically the Statute of Limitations for a personal injury is 3 years. But say years ago, you worked in a coal mine and were not given breathing masks. 10 Years after you retire from working in the mine, you develope Black Lung Disease. The Coal Mine would say that you passed the Statute of Limitations for filing a claim. But the court would allow tolling if you filed your claim within 3 years of discovering you had Black Lung Disease. Clear?

The longest Statute of Limitations is for the crime of Murder (and only the government can prosecute you for crimes. A cause of action for Wrongful Death would have a Statute of Limitations of, I think, about 3 years. You need to check the laws in your area). The Statute of Limitations for Murder is your lifetime. So if you killed someone when you were 18 and at age 99 you confessed, you could be prosecuted for murder (provided you hadn't already been tried and aquitted). But in your scenario, Dr. Mayavale, the person has died and has been reincarnated, therefore the Statute of Limitations would bar you or the government from any legal recourse.

Quis,

How does one go about having a statue declared Hazardous to public health? or safety? or Morality? or ANYTHING that will cause it to be removed from Legion World and Never EVER seen again?

Isn't this thread legally entitled to a place on page 1?

It depends Abin.

First, is the statue in question on public land or private property?

If it is on public land, then you would have to petition the government for its removal. You could use whichever reason you thought would have the most sucess for achieving your desired goal or removal. Even if you are successful, there is no guarantee that another might successfully petition the government (the current administration or a future administration) to reinstate the statue.

If the statue is on private property, you would have to show that the statue violates some statute or code. (for example, if there was a law stating that no statue could be over 6 feet tall or if the property was zoned as residential and there was a regulation prohibiting stauary in residential areas) There would be a hearing, in which the owne of the statue would be allowed to argue for the non-removal.

When will Legion World start issuing marriage licenses for triads, quads, and other groups? My bi quad wants to start booking a wedding chapel and a caterer!

(LW already issues legally recognized licenses for same-sex couples, and has always done so. We're far ahead of the rest of the United Planets on such matters of common sense.)

Greybird,

You seem to have forgotten the Carggite Treaty of 2983, in which the United Planet recognized group marriages as well as inter-sentient marriages. The treaty passed due to the politicing of Tinyo Wazzo of Bgtzl. It was rumored that his daughter had eloped with a Carggite.

So book that reception hall and save me a piece of cake! Cramer's Cafe has great cakes.

Hey Quis, what do you plan to do about the threat of...The Unbillables?

LY Lass,

well the only law I am practising right now is unbillable (pro bono)

For good?

I'll bet Quis hopes it's not for good!

Actually, when we had orientation at my law school, the dean explained what pro bono work was and I sat there thinking "That's what I want to do full time"

As for looking for paying legal work, there are a couple of things that are preventing me from looking.

Will you be required you recuse yourself from your lawyer duties here for the duration of your campaign (and term, if elected)? And if so, who is to be your locum tenens?

Well, I would not be able to make any legal decisions (as in the STU war).

But seeing as I mostly am just providing legal information and not advice, I think the Super Law Office of Space can remain open if I am elected.

Okay, so the LSH and the L. of Sub. H. have always been on good terms (once the LSH knew about the Subs anyway).

If the LSH didn't want their organization's name to be followed so closely by the Subs, though, what would you recommend?

The All-Pinch-Hitters Squad!

I meant legal-wise, sweetie. Quis needs the biz! (*tee hee!*)

Well first you would have to see if the LSH had registered their name as an organization. Mostly RJ Brnade did this.

Then they could file suit against the subs and request an injunction to prohibit them from using that name. The LSH would have to show some harm in letting the Subs continue to use their name. also the longer they allow the Subs to use the name after they first hear about it, the less likely they would succeed in getting the injunction.

I remember a case in RI. There was a pizza chain there called "Pizza Pizza" At the time Little Ceasars used "Pizza Pizza" as their slogan. Little Ceasars successfully sued the other place and they had to change their name. They choice "Pizza Pie-er"

better than "the Sour Grapes"

"The Sour Grapes" - now that would be a great name for the Appeals division of your Super Law Firm.

Nope the Appeals division is called "Second Bite at the Apple"

Then, could the LSH have successfully sued the LSV for the same thing? Now that would be one hell of a Legion story!

Presumably. Although I think the LSV would not care about any judge's ruling or injunction. They are villians after all.

Actually a better story would be to have the LSV go back in time and register their name first and then sue the LSH.

If you could prove they used time travel, that would have to be some sort of prior knowledge thing and therefore invalid. At the very least, too sneaky to be allowed!

Plus they are villians. Can't let villians get what they want, can we?

Quis,

Is it bribary to offer the leader of Legion World a large collection of rare live CD's of "They Might Be Giants" as a peace offering between any annimosity that may have been created during the Legion World elections?

Sincerely,
C of S

As co-leader of Legion World, I have to be careful not to show even the appearance of impropriety. As such, any gifts from any foreign diginitary, I can accept, but they become the property of Legion World. For gifts from family members, I can accept any as long as they would have been normally given as if I wasn't leader. All other gifts must be under $100.00 in value.

Sounds good to me! Here they are Legion World!

*Looks over CDs*

Hey Cobie,

I think you got ripped off. These say "There May be Giants" not "They Might be Giants"

They might be fake. They might be lies. They might be big big fake fake lies!

It's time for a Copyright Minute again, isn't it?

Quit chucklin', lawyer-man, and lay down the LAW!

Sorry, Leap Year Lass, Copyright is not something I am familiar with.

Now ask me about landlord/tenant issues.....

Okay then, what if Dawnstar makes a little Birdhouse In Your Soul? What kinda contract you got for that?

Don't don't don't let's start
This is the worst part
Could believe for all the world
That you're my precious little girl
But don't don't don't let's start
I've got a weak heart
And I don't get around how you get around

When you are alone you are the cat, you are the phone
You are an animal
The words I'm singing now
Mean nothing more than meow to an animal
Wake up and smell the cat food in your bank account
But don't try to stop the tail that wags the hound

D, world destruction
Over and overture
N, do I need
Apostrophe T, need this torture?

Don't don't don't let's start
This is the worst part
Could believe for all the world
That you're my precious little girl
But don't don't don't let's start
I've got a weak heart
And I don't get around how you get around

No one in the world ever gets what they want and that is beautiful
Everybody dies frustrated and sad and that is beautiful
They want what they're not and I wish they would stop saying,
Deputy dog dog a ding dang depadepa
Deputy dog dog a ding dang depadepa

D, world destruction
Over and overture
N, do I need
Apostrophe T, need this torture?

Don't don't don't let's start
This is the worst part
Could believe for all the world
That you're my precious little girl
But don't don't don't let's start
I've got a weak heart
And I don't get around how you get around

I don't want to live in this world anymore
I don't want to live in this world

Don't don't don't let's start
This is the worst part
Could believe for all the world
That you're my precious little girl
But don't don't don't let's start
I've got a weak heart
And I don't get around how you get around

Quixotic Quislet Qontracts. Perhaps that can be your niche in the Legal World?

Oh, I've a few questions to add to the deposition list:

1. Why is the world in love again?
2. Why are we marching hand in hand?
3. Why are the ocean levels rising up?

and what about rogues?

Make that LOVEABLE rogues - big difference.

Because...

It's a brand new album for 1990 - They Might Be Giants' brand new album Flood

Rogues can get all the rouge they want. (As soon as we amend the Legion Constitution to allow it)

to think sentients call me strange.

Hi Quislet!!

You're not serious about the rouge thing, are you? Do you remember Roxxas? Eep! Blush abuse is no laughing matter!!

How could someone not be serious about rouge?

Just reminding people that the Super Law Office of Space is still open

I can't remember this being asked...

Is it true that you can "beat" a photo enforced ticket by claiming that you want to question your accuser (the camera)?

So Quis, what magazines do you have in the actual (as opposed to this virtual version) Super Law Firm Waiting Room...of Space?

I don't think so. The argument to counter that is that just as you can't question a camera, a camera can't accuse you. Besdies, there is someone who must authenticate the photo. That is who you can question.

Seeing as there is no actual Super Law Firm of Space (I don't have the capital to set up one) there are no magazines.

That will not do.

Say, Quis, what advice would you give to aspiring Space-Lawyers?

Well that depends on where they are in their quest to become Space-Lawyers.


To those who are just think about it, I would ask them to tell me why they are thinking about becoming a Space-Lawyer.

To those wanting to take the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test) I would tell them to study logic and reasoning. What helped me was doing the Logic Problems in crossword books. The LSAT doesn't test you about the law, but on your reading comprehension, analytical ability, and logical reasoning. There is also a writing sample where you have to pick a position and "argue" your position. In my writing sample it was a choice between holding a downtown sidewalk sale or a charity auction in order to drum up business for the Downtown Business Association.

For those wannabee Space-Lawyers starting Law School, I would say, first get into a study group. Learning the law can be very isolating. Next, work in some clinic in the field of law that you are interested in. The practical experience is very helpful and can teach you more than some of your classes. (but also find out as much as you can about the clinic first. and if the first clinic doesn't work for you, find another one)

What about the Space part?

What about aspiring Space-Lawyers who were kicked out of space law school? Any advice on alternative career paths?

For the Space part - Don't throw up on your instructor when training in zero G

Well you could become a mediator.

Or you might want to get into farming.

There is also the career path of being frmaed for a crime you didn't commit, wandering the country searching for the true killer, and involving yourself in the lives of strangers each week, solving their problems while getting no closer to solving your own. Or you could become an angel and do the same thing.

Like On-Topic Angel?

When I was reading FC's last post in the Today's Active Topics list I coulda sworn it said "Any advice on alternative career pants?"

Maybe Quis and Lash could confer on that.

Alternative carrer pants - Is that like leather hot pants?

No, it's NO pants!

But if you have no pants, how can I get into them?

Wow! I hadn't even thought of what the well dressed aspiring space-lawyer should wear! Any fashion tips, Quis?

I have to admit I am a *choke* Fashionally challenged gay man! *sob*

I defer to the Mighty Quinn M. for fashion advice.

I am reminded though of a Bizarro comic in which a Roman teacher is instructing some young boys "No matter what, the simple white toga will always be the acceptable business attire."

If there are "White Shoe" law firms for regular law, what is there for space law? White transuit firms?

If a Legionnaire signs a contract using her or his "code name" rather than her or his legal name, does that make any difference?

Quis, in the 31st century, fashion is all about accesories. Funky boots, capes, caps, and earrings that match your chest symbol. Keep that in mind and you will go far, young Padawan.

Everywhere Angela Lansbury visited in "Murder, She Wrote," people seemed to get killed in disproportionately high numbers.

(In fact, the murder rate in her tiny hometown of Cabot Cove, Maine, was something like 65%.)

Would the authorities have any reason to investigate this itinerant angel of death?

I would assume that would be covered much like actors who use and are known by a stage name.

I do believe that they would probably end up investigating her although she seems to have an in with the local police.

However, I don't think the police would have sufficient probable cause with which they could obtain a search warrant for her house or other property.

The Supreme Court recently threw out the Pledge of Allegiance case on a "technicality," because the plaintiff in that case couldn't sue on behalf of his daughter (he didn't have full custody of her, I think).

What are the chances that someone who does have custody of his or her child will bring bring a similar lawsuit sometime soon?

And how do you think the Supreme Court will decide it? From Scalia's recusal and the opinion of the three other Justices (Rehnquist, Thomas, and O'Connor?) in this last case, it seems like at least four of the Justices would be inclined to keep the Pledge. Will one of the other five swing over to that side, or will the Pledge be found to be unconstitutional when this type of case goes back to the Supreme Court?

It is always hard to determine how a vote will go with the SC. O'Connor is usually one of the swing votes.

This definitely seems like a "duck" ruling.

Personally, I think the words "Under God" should be taken out. They were not in the original Pledge. And I think that the intentions of Congress at the time of the inclusion of "Under God" shows that the inclusion was religiously based, which would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Will another parent or parents challenge this? Possibly, but I don't think it will happen in the immediate future.

Hey hey, Quislet is "Member of the Moment" at the moment!

Here's a mini-statue I made to honor the occasion.

So Quis, let's say someone destroys a comic book you own. You sue. Sometime between the day it was destroyed and when the case is heard in court the market value of the book very suddenly and dramatically changes. If the case goes your way and the judge wants to order the defendant to cover the loss, how does she figure the dollar amount?

And could there be some compensation for the mental anguish?

Quis,

Let's say that the Green Goblin grabs my girlfriend Gwen and hurls her to her death off a bridge. I try to grab her with my web shooters (bare with me), and actually help kill her faster by snapping her neck.

Am I liable? What if I'm in a masked costume and run away? Does that make it worse?

When you file your complaint, you have to state a dollar value for the damages you are seeking. If between the time you file your complaint and the trial the value goes up, it is a matter of "tough luck" for you. If the value goes down, then it is "tough luck" for the defendant.

You can always have the charge of mental anquish.

I believe that the damages for mental anquish are determined by the trier of facts (aka the jury or the judge, if it isn't a jury trial)

Well there are several conponents to this hypothetical.

First there are criminal charges and possible civil charges.

It would be up to the Prosecutor to decide if criminal charges would be filed against you. If you were charged, you would probaly argue that the element of intent is missing and therefore the prosecutor has not proven his case. Then it would be up to the trier of the facts (Jury or judge if no jury trial) to decide your fate.


Now in a civil case (probably wrongful death brought by Gwen's estate and/or family) they can argue that you were neglegent in your attempt to save her and thus you would be jointly liable with the Green Goblin. If GG had actually thrown Gwen from a height that would not have killed her, your use of the web shooter would be considered an intervening act and GG would not be held liable.

And in any case, running away does look bad and wouldn't help you in a court of law.

Hmmm.....

I think it is time I redecorated in here. Paint the walls a nice soft pastel. Get a new window treatment. Some mirrors to reflect the light and really lighten up the place.

I wonder if the Mighty Quinn M would stop by for some decorating tips.

Quis, the first item on your list should be to get a hot receptionist. He should flirt with all the clients and be named something like Chad. It'll really help business.

So, what's the potential sentence for spiking a lawyer's drink with ProFem then?

It sounds like you've already done some major remodeling and redecorating, Quislette!!

Hmmm....


I think I should get at least five receptionists. The job is very demanding and I am not sure one would be up to the task.

Hi Quislet!!

Do you have to take continuing education courses to keep your credentials? What are Space-Lawyer Seminars like?

I think I am supposed to do continuing ed, but haven't done anything yet.


Quinn, I am planning on having 5 hunky guy receptionists. Would you consider managing them for me?

I am afraid I am going to have to be stern and stuff, Quislet!!

If your Space-Lawyer license lapses then there is no Super Law Firm!! This is one case where you can't build your outfit around the accessories!!

Legion World IS a continuing education!

Well, it is to me.

are you the sole practitioner of the super law firm?

Yes, I am the only one here.

I am good at least until December of this year

You're always good.

OK, here's a question for ya:

Do you think the U.S. is becoming more litigious? One often hears about cases on the news that seem completely frivolous.

STU, I'm suing you for implying that!

I do think that the US is becoming more litigious, but not because of friviolous lawsuits, but because people are more aware of their rights.

As far as frivolous lawsuits go, for some of them, if you see all the facts, they cease to be frivolous. The most famous frivolous lawsuit was the Spilt McDonald's coffee case. However, in that case it was found that 1) Mcdonalds kept their coffee at 175-180 degrees F while coffee is servable at 135-140 degrees F; 2) McDonald's had been sued over 700 times before in the previous 10 years over coffee burns;and 3) The woman who got burned was opening the lid of her coffee to add cream & sugar, She was in a parked car (not driving as it is sometimes stated), & She suffered third degree burns on her thighs & groin areas requiring a hospital stay of 8 days.

The huge punative damages (which were later greatly reduced) actually were only 2 day coffee proceeds for McDonalds.

(Hope the Super Law Firm of Space is not closed for summer vacation!)

While I have no desire to curtail individual liberties, I would like to take the appropriate measures to limit axe-hurling to specified, clearly marked zones of Legion World. These axes flying hither and thither are dangerous! In fact, I believe Stoopid Cat's tail is 2 inches shorter than it was a week ago - although that's his legal problem.

How could I proceed? Money is no object.

Well instead of prohibiting barbarians outright, you might have a weapons check, in which all weapons are surrendered at the door (you could also make it a magical check in which all weapons are magically shifted to another uninhabited dimention while the customer is in the cafe). Also, you are free to bar individuals if they have a history of being disruptive or causing damage.

Oh, I mis-read the question.

Within Legion World itself, you could have certain areas re-zoned as Axe-hurling free zones. As long as there are areas in which axes may be hurled, this would not be considered discriminatory or an unconstitutional curtailment (as opposed to a de-tailment for cats) of individual liberties.

Maybe his secret Manx heritage is finally asserting itself.

Quislet:

When you have a few minutes, please review the "Making Triplicate Girl (Triad, whatever) More Effective" thread in The Legion forum. I would appreciate any insights you would care to share.

just how firm is space-law?

Nice. Too bad they aren't animated to bang the gavel

Well, the law, whether in space or not, has to be balanced between being fixed and firm and being flexible. If the law is too changable, then people can't base their actions on it. But if it too fixed, then it will become obsolete and not be able to take into account new situations and circumstances.

I imagine space-law, being in a new area, is pretty flexible rather than firm right now.

I would be more than happy to manage them for you Quis!

Well so far all I have is one of Faraway Lad's spearmen. But you can manage him if you'd like. Feel free to hire any receptionists you think will improve the office's image.

I'd like to apply for the job!

Do you think I'd enhance the professional image of Quislet, Esq. & Associates?

Quislet - under LW law, is there a penalty for excess bumping?

Oh definitely!

Although, if you are interested, I can offer you another position.

Well after spending 8 hours in the Legion World Law Library, I thought I should start to look to see if there is an answer to your question.

From what I can tell there is no penalty for bumping nor is there a limit to the number of times a person (or alt id) can bump. The closest thing I could find was an obscure law stating:

Whosoever bumpeth and grindeth on a day ending in "y" shall be sent to the home of the leader of Legion World for a period of one night and a day to perform said routine for whomever the leader wants

I hope this helps.

My bill is in the mail.

Why couldn't you have discovered this when you & I were Co-Leaders!

Varalent,

We were both so busy then I'm surprized we found time to perform all those underwear inspections.

Quis,

If someone were to decide that they have too many bills and just left the country and hid in Mexico for a few years, what would happen to them if they were caught?

-C, from Mexico

Well, that would depend on this person's creditors. Most likely they would continue to try to collect the debt. There are no laws to stop them from writing or calling you..er I mean this person in Mexico.

They could also file suit to change the debt into a judgement, which would extend the time they have to collect. Generally, the creditors would have 7 years from the last activity on the debt with which to file suit. They could file suit in the country you... er I mean the person originally lived and attempt to attach any property the person owns there. If the properety is attached, at some point it can be sold and the money used to satisfy the debt. Also the creditors could sue you.. er I mean the person in Mexico. Believe it or not, but they have courts in Mexico. By living in Mexico, you...er I mean that person gives the court personal jurisdiction over him/her. The Mexican court could attach any property you own there and/or garnish your wages. Also the creditors could take the judgement from the original country and request that the Mexican court enforce it, which the Mexican court may do depending on any treaties between Mexico and the original country.

Quis,

I have reason to believe that powerful members of the current government are conspiring to get me fired, because I am going to become a father soon. Isn't this discrimination? Aren't my rights being threatened by this villianous knave?

Cobalt Kid

Quis,

I have reason to believe that certain members of the security team are conspiring to put mind-control chips in people's heads. If you feel the need to agree with them on anything, drop a note to the Office of the Leader, and we'll see about getting that chip removed...

SoM

Haven't you become a father ENOUGH this past week? Holy Super Moby-Dick of Space, Batman!

See, even Kippers agrees! My job security is being threatened b/c I'm a father!

Quis,

Does this sound like a threat to you? If so, say the word and I'll have him arrested.

-Cobalt

I'm more concerned with your Pampers budget.

Quis, the only threat here is from him trying to prevent your mind being fully restored. Concentrate. Overcome that chip!

-SoM

Now he questions your ability to act on your own free will? Your judgement?

Quis, can you, myself or any others sue over these accusations?

No, I'm saying that you're preventing him [and others] from acting on their own free will.

My reasoning for this is that, after the fracas with you at the weekend, I felt compelled to leave you alone over it. My higher brain functions and huge mental capacity rebelled however, and I peformed various scans on myself - AND FOUND A CHIP.

Of course, I had it removed immediately, but then it was signed "Cobalt Kid".

You've overstepped your boundries here Cobalt Kid. If I have to stop you alone, I will.

Liar!

Either someone placed that chip inside your head, or you're lying about it!

Someone placed that chip inside my head alright, and it was all in the name of "Security"!

Well, then I'd like to know who it was myself! But I can guarantee it wasn't me.

May I see the chip?

What, so you can destroy the only evidence of your perfidy?

Dost thou think of me as an idiot?

Alright already! This is a place of business here. If you are just going to bicker back and forth, you can both leave.

Where's that spearman Faraway Lad gave me? I think his name is Bruce.

Cobie, there is no specific protection against discrimination based upon parental status, so all the government needs is a rational basis for the discrimination (discrimination meaning being treated differently that others in the same or similar situation). However as you have a contract (you do, don't you?) for the position of Security Chief, you have your contractual rights. However, It would seem that SoM does have the right to re-organize the government structure which would allow for the appointment of a Security Minister who you would then report to. Unless there is some clause in your contract.

SoM, The fact that the chip you extracted from your head has "Cobalt Kid" written on it does not prove that the chip is Cobalt Kid's or that he placed it in your head (even if it is his chip). I would advise that you be careful that you don't violate any sentient's right to personal autonomy while searching for additional chips.

Quislet can I sue the father of my (so far 13 - more on the way) children, born of an unwedded union, for child support and vandalism to my pristine virtue?

You can sue on behalf of your children for child support. The father has an obligation to support his children. However if you are not married to the father, then you do have to prove paternity if he denies being the father.

As for the "vandalism" charge, that would depend on whether you consented to the "vandalism" or not.

QUISLET!

I got an elections fraud case for ya!

you interested?

Mr Quislet,

As a result of some underhanded shenanigans at the recent Legion World Sadie Hawkins Dance, I now have a Daughter, Opal Janell Quank.

However the mother of that beautiful baby girl is attempting to deny me my parental rights and has been publicly running around with other men. (not that I care much about the second part, but it is smear material)

I have decided to sue for custody of my daughter, and I would like to retain your firm to represent me in this battle. I also plan to retain the esteemed Semi Radiant Fellow, and any and all other Space Lawyers on legion World.

If you are willing to represent me please obtain a restraining order Post-Haste!

P.S. As the Official Legion World janitor, I have a long standing High Paying Job, plus I know where all the other posters money cashes are, so money is no object... So SIC HER!!!!!!!

Please provide more details.

Hey Quis... ain't ran into you in awhile. Just checking in to say Hi.

"Hi."

How's it going? You don't happen to be a Red Sox fan do ya?

To get this back on topic (so you can bill it of course), what are your impressions about the movie, "The Firm"? Do you think it would have been better had it been set in space?

Mr. Quank,

Congratulations on the birth of your daughter.

First, you do not want a restraining order. You want the court to award you sole custody. You also want to get custody immediately. For that you would need to file a motion to be awarded temporary custody.

To get sole custody, you need to prove that the other parent is unfit to raise the child.

To get temporary custody, you would need to show that the child is in danger. Even if you get temporary custody, the other parent can request visitations until her/his parental rights are terminated.

If you can't show danger to the child, you still have parental rights. And as such you can also request that the court grant you visitation rights.

Please see my receptionist, Bruce the Spearman about signing a retainer agreement and payment of the retainer. We will need to have a conference to discuss whether you can get sole custody or if a joint custody arrangement can be worked out.

Ummm Quis?

I gave two sacks of Valentian Walking Money to your cute receptionist and I'll be ready for the conference as soon as he moves the point of his spear away from my back...

That's not his spear...

I think he was just excited to see your...um...sacks...

It... Isn't... ???

Mr. Quank,

If you are quite through with Bruce, please come into my office.

I have been doing some research while you were paying your retainer. I don't see that the mother of your child has denied you access to your daughter.

Might I suggest that before we initiate any court proceding you first talk to the mother. I have some private conference rooms suitable for just such personal conversations. I also provide mediation services and think a fair and reasonable plan for raising your daughter can be worked out between the two of you.

I wouldn't stop suddenly on your walk back to the Conference Room. Sounds like you've already got enough relationship troubles without giving the Spearman the wrong idea...

I don't think he understood what the money was for...

Dear Quislet,

Umm...I don't quite think anyone grasp the situation. That father has not been denied access to the child, I just find the man to be a pig, you see he cheated on his wife with me. I feel that this man is unfit to raise a child and as I stated before: I'm the Lady of the Lake, I'm a demi-goddess. I'm powerful, I run my own dimension which has a nice island. I train priestesses. I can provide the ultimate protection. And I'm rich.

And this isn't my first child, I have had 34 other mortal children that all lived out happy and prolonged lives.

Er...since I couldn't reach you, we've settled out of court in the meantime. Reboot may now need some... creative assistance in justifying LW expenditures during the inter-administration audit, but that's no longer my affair.

sorry to have bothered you.

My Dear High Priestess Viviane,

I am not the one who would make the decision regarding custody of yours & Mr. Quank's child. That would be up to the judge.

Also as Mr. Quank paid me a retainer, I cannot offer you any advice as that would be a conflict of interest.

I have offered my services as a mediator (no conflict here because the parties and not the mediator makes the decision). I am sure you and Mr. Quank can work out a joint custody arrangement that will work out best for your child.


I will say that in all custody disputes, the standard for the decision is the best interest of the child.

No bother at all.

I basically here to say that I do not fear the law, I am it.

Quislet, with the bankruptcy of the Twinkie (and Wonder Bread) company, will there be a new junk food chosen to replace the Twinkie Defense?

Funny you should mention that. It has been a topic that is being fiercely debated among the legal community. (A physical altercation erupted at the annual ABA meeting. Gun fire was almost exchanged in Texas)

There are those who feel that the new Junk Food Defense should have a similar shape to the Twinkie and therefore proposed the Taco Bell Defense. The detractors think that judges, when they hear "the Taco Bell Defense", will think of Taco Bell's slogan "Run for the Border", become confuse, imagine the case involves immigration, and deport the defendant.

The other side feels that the new name should involve a similar type of junk food and therefore proposed the Ho-Ho defense. (A sub group wanted the Devil Dog Defense, but that was nixed by Attorney General Ashcroft). The detractors here feel that using the Ho-Ho Defense will cause judges to schedule all trial for December 25th and that will interfer with the lawyers' vacations to St Bart's over the holidays.

BTW: Did you know that Twinkies were originally supposed to be banana flavored, but due to shortages during WWII, the banana flavoring was dropped.

Legal defenses - what fun!

Is that serious about the banana flavor? Yuck!

Actually, for awhile in the 1960's Twinkies WERE banana-flavored as opposed to the modern vanilla-on-vanilla.
The current Scooter Pie Speeding defense, Ring-Ding Disturbing-the-Peace counter-strategy, and Ho-Ho Solicitation appeals are all being offered as the successors to the Twinkie defense. The gunfire supposedly offered in the Texas ABA meeting was in fact found to be Butterfinger BBs.

However, the Texas incident was later revealed to have nothing to do with the Twinkie defence, and everything to do with the fact that they hadn't pulled a trigger in a few hours

*waits for people to try and hit him*

Quis, on the advice of my better half I am dropping the planned court actions against HighPriestessViviane. If the retainer I gave Bruce doesn't cover costs please bill me.

I new Abin wasn't the villain I hoped he was (will I ever get to blast someone and not get in trouble for it?)

Only if it is self-defense or the defense of others. You cannot have provoked the attack that you are defending yourself against.

Also you can't use excessive force. For example if you are the Persuader and Ma Kent (The Silver Age Elderly Ma Kent) suddenly started hitting you with her fists, it would not be self-defense to use your atomic axe on her. But Ma Kent could use a shot gun against the Persuader if he attacked her.

I hope this information is helpful for you in your quest to "blast someone".

Agh, I fondly remember when Quis handed me a warrant for the Royal Inquisitor's arrest, and I was able to use excessive force to bring him in with Fat Cramer and Blockade Boy.

Quis, do you still hold the same position in the Government as you did during Stu's term as leader? If not, should I inform the next leader that you will be available for it?

And is R.I. still rotting in the dungeon?

He was until Space Ranger broke him out a few months ago during the short lived Alt ID rebellion. Space Ranger still has to answer for that, which is why he's temporarily not a security officer.

The Inquisitor has sent letters and notes to Legion World repeatedly, although he hasn't stepped foot in the city--otherwise we'd catch him. He's continued to elude my agents out in the field right now.

However, it's been evidence has proved that he was responsible for the whole 'chip in the head' plot that SoM was worried about, and he may have been attempting to get revenge at Blockade Boy, yourself and me. Like last time, I'd like to see him try

(How can I ever forget how you weakened him with your poetry, FC?)

As an ex-co-leader I am much too busy writing my memoirs.

Please see my receptionist Bruce the Spearman for the prices of being mentioned and the prices of not being mentioned.

PS: Cobie you only used proper force. If you had used excessive force, you would have been charged with battery.

"For playing, he charges twenty-five dollars an hour."
"How much does he charge for not playing?"
"Fifty dollars an hour!"
...
"For rehearsing, he charges one hundred dollars an hour."
"How much does he charge for not rehearsing?"
"You couldn't afford it!"

Quis, I think this amount will sufficient to be mentioned in your memoirs. And this extra amount will make sure it's in a good way

As always, I'll still defer to you when I am no longer sure if I've gone to far in my role as Security Chief. Which is kind of a rarity though

Checking in on the office for post 3500.

Congratulations, Quis.

Congrats Quis! I'm sure I'll think of some weird question for you soon enough...

Congrats Quis!

YAY! for Quis!

Way to go Quis.

Quis, I'm writing a brief and all I really want to say to opposing counsel, is "F*** you, it's not my client's fault that you committed malpractice. Hope you get sued big-time a******.!" Can you think of a nice way to say this and make the judge like me at the same time?

Do you really want to put it nicely?

As for the judge, I suggest a bouquet of flowers and a box of chocolates. Just hope the judge isn't a diabetic with hayfever.

Sage advice as usual, counsel.

My definition of diplomacy is being able to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.

Congrats on 3500, Quis!

Plus, it's cool to be online at the same time as you.

Quis,

I got a bad elvabird egg omelette from Breakfast at Tiffany's. Any chance I could end up with all of Miss Spiffany's daddy's dazzle gems?

Misty

Probably not all of the dazzle gems.

You would most likely get your medical expenses paid for. And then you could put in for "pain & suffering". Depending on how much actual pain & suffering you had, would help the trier of facts to determine how much compensation you should get. For example, if all you suffered was a queasy stomach but managed to keep the elvabird egg omelet down, you'd probably only get a glance at a dazzle gem. If on the other hand, the omelet caused you to go into convulsions and you had to go to the hospital for a couple of days, you might get a couple of dazzle gems. Now, if you had died as a result of eating the omelet, your family could have cleaned up.

Certain LWers have broken my heart.

Can I sue?

You can always sue. Whether you will be successful is another story.

From a quick glance, you can no longer sue for breach of promise to marry. However, you can sue to recover gifts given for the engagement.

Dear Super Lawyer.....of Space


If the head of the sexcurity office gets drunk and fires all the staff on a whim in one night can they claim compensation for the loss of their jobs.

And as a supplementary question. Can he REALLY use security office funds to pay child maintenance like he claims he can.?

Quis, since I witnessed what really happened, would my testimony, if it didn't line up with Myriad's, be of any use in deciding the outcome of this case?

Well, I've never paid a dime for any of my children, since they all usually end up older than me for some reason...

That depends. Do they have an employment contract or are they employees at will? Basically, if you don't have an employment contract you are an employee at will.

If you have an employment contract, the terms of the contract will governs the termination. If you violate any terms of your contract, you would be considered in breach of the contract and you might actually owe your employer money. If on the other hand, the employer fires you in violation of the contract, the employer is in breach and would probably owe you at least the money you would have earned for the contract length.

With employees at will, the employer can fire the employee at any time for any reason* or no reason with no notice needed. Conversely, the employee can leave the job for any reason or no reason with no notice.

*there are public policy reasons that can trigger a wrongful termination claim. One such one is if the employee got fired for not attending a political rally the employer wanted all employees to attend. There may also be statutory reasons, such as anti-discrimination laws that prevent an employer for firing an employee because of her/his race, religion, or national origin. (Of course only a really stupid employer would say, "I'm firing you because you are a Baptist", but an employee could prove disparate treatment, such as being fired for something a non-Baptist did, but didn't get fired for)

I would have to know if he has an employment contract and if that was a negotiated term. It is also possible that there is a provision for such an expenditure in the General Laws of Legion World. Otherwise, it does sound like embezzlement.

That would be a question for the trier of facts (either the jury or the judge, if there is no jury). The trier of the facts does decide which testimony is believable and which is not.

Cobie,

You are mistaking me for the trier of the facts. My role here is to educate people on points of law, not to make decisions.

Hey Quis. You still answering questions? I've got a trademark one that I could use your help with.

If someone has a trademark on a term (let's use Legion World as an example) can I trademark LegionWorld (exactly as spelled)?

LL,

Unfortunately I never studied trademarks & copywrites. So I have no answer for you.

A non-lawyer answer though: I do know of Fox v Franken where Fox News wasn't able to claim a trademark for "Fair and Balanced" Franken also won because his book was considered satire. (Also Donald Trump wasn't able to trademark "You're Fired") However Legion World & LegionWorld are not really common words or phrases. I also know of a pizza chain in RI (Back in the 80's) who called themselves "Pizza Pizza" Little Ceasars successfully sued them and they had to change their name. They changed it to "Pizza Pie-er".

Trademark law is tricky, so don't rely on the above. I know they have a separate bar exam for patent law (not sure if that also includes trademarks)

I can't speak to the copyright issue. However, my thought is that you might open yourself up for a tradename infringement claim due to the similarity of the names that could reasonably lead to confusion in the marketplace. It's been a long time since I did any of that type of work, but I do recall a trial I did where "Chronicle Publishing" sued "Chronicle Publications" for tradename infringement and prevailed. However, on the issue of damages, the jury found none.

I wonder if Brainiac 5 won't be needing your services soon.

If he's the "adult" in the new Legion, and enticed or encouraged Lyle - obviously still under parental authority - to run away from home and join a group of questionable legal standing - couldn't Lyle's parents take him to court for child endangerment or something? What can parents do if their underage kids run away and join a cult?

Legally parents have custody of their children until they are 18 or the custody is taken away from them. Custody has two parts. Physical custody and legal custody. Legal custody is the right to make decisions for the child. In a divorce situation, both parents could retain legal custody while one gets physical custody.

So, Lyle's parents could sue for interference with custody. Lyle however could counter sue for emancipation. If he can show that he voluntarily left home and is self-sufficient, then he can terminate the custody himself.

Hey Quis, How ya doin? Hanging in there after the World Series celebrations?

I have one for you ripped from 'Today's Headlines'. I was watching Good Morning America this morning and saw a report on a mom out in Washington state (definitely Pacific Northwest of the US, if I'm not remembering the correct State).

Anyway... it seems like the mother of this 16 year old girl eavesdropped on a phone conversation. The conversation was between the daughter and her (no-good) boyfriend. It seems detectives were around to the house earlier asking the mom questions about the boyfriend, whom they suspected in a series of purse snatchings (to make this germaine to your office, lets call them Space Purses).

Anyway, the daughter was talking on the phone to her boyfriend but left the door to her bedroom cracked and the mother easvesdropped. The mother later testified against the boyfriend, based on what she heard of the conversation. This testimony got him convicted.

The State Supreme Court threw out the conviction (unanimously) because of the State's right to privacy laws. The Judges said that the daughter's right to privacy (even though it was in her mother's home) superceded any parental rights the mother had.

My question to you is... could the mother have her child sign a waiver of these privacy rights while inside her home, upto the age of 18? I realize that a 16 year old probably isn't going to sign that waiver, so I was thinking that the parent could get an eight or nine year old to sign it. I know that a minor can't enter into a legally binding agreement without parental consent, so the mother would have to sign the waiver as well, on her minor child's behalf. What are the chances that this waiver, signed by the minor child and parent, would hold up under legal scrutiny?

If you care to comment on parental rights vs. a child's right to privacy, I'd be interested in hearing that too. Especially as it pertains to the physical presence of the parent's home and property.

Well, I would want to read the opinion by the State Supreme Court and have to check out that state's right to privacy law before I could really comment.

I doubt that such waiver (which is kind of like a contract) would be enforcable. The reason being (IMO) is that a minor would not be able to understand the ramifications of such a waiver. It is this lack of understanding that is why minors are able to avoid contracts (the parental consent is really just another name on the contract that the creditor can enforce the contract against). Back to the waiver, having the parent also sign would be useless, because it is the parent requesting the waiver in the first place. It would be like a doctor requesting a patient sign a waiver of malpractice and then signing on the patient's behalf.

In regards to parental rights vs a child's right to privacy, that appears to be a very complex issue. Factors such as the age of the child, the safety of the child, parental responsibilities towards the child, the circumstances of the breach of privacy mean that each case can be different. So I would want to adopt a case-by-case approach rather than a hard rule.

I figured it would come down to something like that. The one Legal Aspects course that I had to take in college filled my head with just enough legalese to be dangerous but not helpful. It seemed to me that an argument could have been made for my scenario, but I wanted a more informed opinion. Thanks.

Another one I've been thinking about here lately... and I don't want to get into the politics or beliefs, but I want to know how the law reconciles the following:

How can Scott Peterson be convicted of two counts of murder, one for his wife and one for the fetus inside his wife? I guess what I'm having trouble with is how is the death of the Peterson fetus different LEGALLY from abortion? How does the law differientiate between Scott Peterson's actions and a Doctor performing an abortion? To me it seems like both actions result in the same thing, and if Scott Peterson is charged with murder, then the Doctor could be charged with the same.

I have heard a quote from a law professor to the graduating class:

Three years ago when you arrived here if you were asked a legal question, you would have had to answer "I don't know." Now after all your study and hard work, if asked a legal question, you can confidently answer "It depends!"

That is the concern of pro-choice people over laws that make killing a fetus a crime. I think that such laws usually have a medical procedure exception.

I think in the Peterson case (I haven't been following it too closely), the baby was so close to term, that he could have survived outside the womb. With abortions, the fetus cannot survive outside the womb. (Again, I have not really followed the abortion debate too closely)

In Identity Crisis, [the killer] was thrown in Arkham Asylum pretty much solely for the fact that he/she did something "crazy": killed, or directly caused the death of, multiple people for a given reason that sounds largely ridiculous to the average person.

Is it ever sufficient to say that a killer is "criminally insane" just because "no sane person would have done that, for that reason"? Seems kind of circular to me.

If there was, Whitney Houston would be long gone by now...

Nope. There are actually a couple of insanity defense standards. The earliest is the McNaghten rules, which holds "...is not guilty of a crime if, at the time of the crime, they either didn't know what they were doing, or didn't know that what they were doing was wrong." So if a person takes an axe and strikes you with it because he thought you were Adolph Hitler, he would not be legally insane because he recognized you as a person and it is wrong to strike a person with an axe. If he had thought, you were a tree on the other hand, the defense would work. The killer knew Sue was a human, therefore, no legal insanity.

Another insanity defense is the irresistable impulse, where a person may know they are doing wrong but because of a mental impairment, can't control their actions. There is no evidence that the killer couldn't control his/her actions. Beyond that, the burning of Sue's body, hiring Captain Boomerrang, and sending Jack Drake a gun, don't sound like uncontrolable actions.

Then there is the Durham test, which is when "... an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect". This was later modified to "severe mental disease or defect...[which causes a defendant to be] unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of [their] acts."
The killer was able to appreciate that attacking Sue was wrong. He/she knew that such an act of harm would cause concern.

The last insanity defense is the Substantial Capacity Test, in which is "a lack of substantial capacity to control one's behavior. Substantial capacity is defined as: 'the mental capacity needed to understand the wrongfulness of [an] act, or to conform...behavior to the...law.' " It is a combination of the McNaghten Rule and the irresisitable impulse.

While it doesn't look like the killer could raise an insanity defense successfully, that doesn't mean that he/she couldn't have ended up in Arkham to serve his/her sentence. However, it doesn't look like the killer had a trial. Rather, _____ just had him/her committed (which also wouldn't have happened so quickly).

Suppose a certain person, we'll call him Doc-- uh, Professor Mavayale, lost $50 to a certain other party, call her Skinny Cosmo, in 1883. While Professor Mavayale had every intention of paying his debt to Skinny Cosmo, he was prevented from doing so by his untimely murder by another party. Now Mavayale's current incarnation would like to repay Skinny Cosmo's current incarnation the debt he owes her, with interest. He also notes, however, that the current incarnation of the party responsible for his death is quite wealthy.

Could Mavayale sue the current incarnation of the party responsible for his death for the interest on the debt originally incurred to Skinny Cramer... uh... I mean Cosmo?

Well Doctor Mayavale,

I am uncertain about the law in regards to reincarnation. As it stands, Skinny Cosmo would have had to sue for repayment within the statute of limitations or else the debt would not have to legally be repaid. In general, the statute of limitations for a contract (including verbal contracts) is 7 years. Assuming the Skinny Cosmo did not get a judgement against you ... er I mean Professor Mayavale, then he is free of the debt. Seeing as the debt does not have to be repaid and there doesn't seem to have been any provisions that interest would accrue anyhow, this other party could hardly be held liable.

Quislet, old friend, I need to secure you as my counsel in the upcoming courtroom LMB leadership battle between myself and Yellow Kid.

Will you consent to act as my representation? The vey future of the LMB could depend on it... I must regain LMB leadership so that I can enact the measures to safeguard us from horrible evildoers like the Red Bee. Just look at what has happened today.

Quis, I think all of LW would be better off if you either recuse yourself or serve as judge.

KP's blatant power-grab is liekly to be a bloodier mess than the rest of the recent stories combined.

Well KP,

I have to say that I did hang around with Yellow Kid for 3 days in Dallas (and actually rode in his truck once). So I feel that I could not fufill my lawyerly duties in a zealous fashion.

If you and Yellow Kid would like, I would be willing to act as a mediator.

Do it Quis...it might be the only hope of saving us all...

Cobie,

I can't force the parties to mediate. they must both be willing to do so.

I'm willing to bury the hatchet with KP if (1) he can persuade me he has nothing to do with the madness, and (2) he'll stop trying to undermine YK.

Must I remind everyone that my (former) Co-leader is Chief Magistrate of the Legion World High Court?

I'm afraid that he may end up having to rule on this so please do not try to influence him in any way. Anyone who does will have to deal with me!

Dear Mr. Esq.,

Someone has been poisoning the honey in my café, causing several patrons to become ill. Isn't that like restraint of trade or something? Of course, I have liability insurance, but I think I should be able to sue the culprit for damages once he's caught.

FC

Dear Mr. Esq.,

Will it be self-incriminating if I reveal that the honey in Cafe Cramer is not the only thing on Legion World to be poisioned?

<evil grin>

Regards,
The Red Bee

Is that an admission of guilt, Red Bee?

What would happen in a case like this is that those patrons who ingested the poisoned honey (or their heirs if they died) would sue Cafe Cramers for either battery (an intentional harmful or offensive touching) or negligence. The heirs could also add a wrongful death suit. Cafe Cramers could then add the person responsible for the actual poisoning (if known) as a third party defendant, basically saying to the court "if we are guilty, it is really because of this person and he/she should pay.

That would depend upon what you say exactly.

Saying "The honey is not the only think I have poisoned!" would be self-incriminating. Saying "I am aware of other things also being poisoned." would not be because you could have gained this knowledge from overhearing the actual culprit bragging about his/her villiany.

Dear Ms. Cramer:

I have been giving your question further thought. If the poisoning resulted in a decrease in patrons (and the accompanying revenue) then you might have a cause of action for restraint of trade. Also if the decrease in business caused you to breach contracts with various suppliers, you would might have a cause of action for interference with contractual relations.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely yours,

Quislet, Esquire

But I don't wanna sue Cramer! I wanna sue Red Bee!

PleasePleasePlease can I, Mr. Esq.?

Mr. Shakespeare,

You are not required to sue Cafe Cramers. In the normal course of things, Cafe Cramers, as a business, would be assumed to have deeper pockets that the poisoner and in a better position to actually pay such damages as medical expenses and lost wages.

You are perfectly free to sue Mr. Bee for the poisoning. However, you would be required to show by a preponderance of evidence that Mr. Bee is reponsible for the actual poisoning.

Hey Quis!

What legal issues in *or* about comics capture your interest most?

Well since law school, I am more conscious of the fact that by use of the Batsignal and even by being made an honorary member of the Gotham City Police, Batman is a de facto government agent. Therefore, any evidence that he obtains illegally (i.e. if he breaks into a place without a warrant and discovers a huge drug supply) would be thrown out of court. So the Gotham City DAs must love him.

I have liked the er.. scenarios that have been posted here for me to answer.

<font size="8"> EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!! </font s>

Dear Ms. Banshee:

I have received your communique. Having reviewed it, I cannot find a legal issue with which to help you with. If you have further information, I will be glad to review it and offer my opinion.

Thank you for your patronage.

Sincerely,

Quislet, Esq.

1. Do we have a noise by-law on Legion World? 7:15 a.m. is a tad early for banshee screams. Of course, that's only a personal opinion and I defer to the law.

2. If someone could argue (effectively) that a guy who dresses like a bat is insane, would any evidence he collected (legally or illegally) be thrown out of court? Like if he's nuts, maybe his evidence isn't believable or trustworthy? And if someone won this argument, would past convictions obtained with Batman's evidence be reversed?

I am not sure if we do have any noise ordinances here on Legion World. What with the sounds of statues being blown up on a regular basis, I don't think so. And the time element would be rather subjective as it can be many different time to various Legion Worlders.

First, any evidence obtained illegal would be inadmissible. That would mean that both Batman and Superman, being honorary members of the Gotham City & Metropolis police forces (respectively) could arguably be considered government agents and thus required to obtain warrents barring the exceptions for exigent circumstances and plain view.

As for the sanity of a person giving evidence, that would depend upon the evidence being presented. A set of accounting ledgers concerning Lex Luthor's businesses obtained and presented by Joker or by Lois Lane would still be the same evidence. The person presenting the evidence would have to account for how the evidence was obtained and the handling of the evidence prior to trial.

As far as eyewitness testimony, the credibility would be left to the trier of facts (the jury or judge). I remember a case in my Wills class in which the will was challenged because the testator (the person whose will it is) thought that people lived in his trees and hung meat on the branches. However, the judge found that the will itself dispossed of the man's property in a rational manner. So the will was valid even though the man wasn't of sound mind.


A more Constitutional challenge to Batman's eyewitness testimony would be to say that Batman needs to reveal his identity so that the accused has his/her 6th Amendment right to be able to confront the witness against him/her. Batman's identity would go to his credibility as a witness. If say Batman was a fired Lexcorp employee then the trier of fact could reasonable infer that his testimony is biased and not as credible as if Batman was just some schmuck with no relation to Luthor.

Quislet, Esq.

I have recently been under the verbal harassment of Space Ranger of the Security Office, I wish to employ you in the possibility that I shall have to take this person to court.

Luna

If somebody opposing me in a court case put a voodoo hex on me, could I claim that they're interfering with my right to a fair trial? (Hasn't happened, but I was reading that sometimes dead chickens are placed on courthouse steps to influence a trial, according to voodoo beliefs.)

Luna,

I apologize for such a late response, but I haven't been to the office lately.

Unfortunately, I don't take cases so much as give advise. In this matter, I would have suggested asking Space ranger to sit down and discuss the matter (I do act as mediator sometimes). However seeing as Space Ranger is no more (at least I think he is still no more) I would say that your problem is resolved.

You would have to show causation. i.e that the voodoo hex actually interferred with your right to a fair trial.

Voodoo helps my cases in court; I haven't gotten a speeding ticket that's stuck since 1991!

a lot of officers miss traffic court due to stomach cramps, if you get my drift.

I recommend a houngan even over an attorney.

PFFFFFTTT!!!!!! An attorney could get you money for the harassment. I mean, you must be suffering a lot of trauma from being stopped like that.

For the victims of Kent's houngan, there is real harm i.e. stomach cramps (or worse?) - but if the court system doesn't believe in voodoo, and attributes the damage to other factors, there can't be any relief. It seems to me it's bordering on a religious belief question, but while there may be freedom of religion in the U.S., I don't know how the courts would be set up to handle something like this. They just don't deal with it? Or if you could prove that someone hired a houngan to curse you, could that person be charged with threatening or trying to harm you in general?

FC,

You are correct in that it is a matter of whether the trier of facts (i.e. the jury and only the judge if there is no jury) believes in your version of causation. That is that the curse caused the stomach cramps. If the jury is ull of those who practice voodoo, you might have a shot.

Now you might have a better chance of proving intentional infliction of emotional distress. That is that the person knows you believe in voodoo and did this to cause you emotional pain.

Man, this is a case even Judge Judy wouldn't take on...

Well, I was curious and did some searches, and there are quite a few cases at the federal level involving charges of voodoo - so I guess Judge Judy would have to take it on if it came before her. I just read through a few quickly, in one a judge called it "nonsense", in another, sprinkling 'voodoo' powder in front of someone's office was considered a crime - because it was an unknown powder, in the context of post 9/11 anthrax scares - so the judge wasn't saying he believed in voodoo per se, just that the act was irresponsible and had caused harm.

Being forced to miss 'Smallville' for traffic court is also irresponsible and causes me harm. Can I sue the cops and the courts?

You can always sue. That doesn't mean that you'll be sucessful or not subject to a frivilous lawsuit charge.

I'd sure like to have a law passed that would prevent sporting events and TV shows from being edited for no good reason (apart from the World Trade Center bombing - now THAT was a shocker, all right...)

Write your legislators then.

I am not sure how it would work in Austrailia, but any such law here in the US would be ruled unconstitional as interferring with the free speech rights of the broadcasters.

NOTICE: The law offices are temporarily closed.

Feel free to leave a message. It will be answered as soon as possible. However, the definition of "as soon as possible" could mean weeks or months.

I don't recall authorizing a this closure, so you'd better be surprising me with a grand tour of the great thrift shops of North America or something.

I say we LWers consider a class-action lawsuit against the closure of this office!

So, this guy in a turban sold me this "magic flute" for $25 which he claimed could tame animals by playing it. As it turns out, the supposed "magic flute" was just a toy that he'd paid ten cents for at a toy store. Now, I'm not entirely sure how he made any profit off this sale, since I'm guessing the tranquilizer that he used to fake the effect of taming wild animals must have cost more than the $25 off it. Anyway, what exactly can I do about this?

You could sue him for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

An implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, sometimes referred to simply as a warranty of fitness, is a warranty implied by law that if a seller knows or has reason to know of a particular purpose for which some item is being purchased by the buyer, the seller is guaranteeing that the item is fit for that particular purpose. This differs from a warranty of merchantability in two ways:

First, the warranty of fitness applies to all sellers, not just professional merchants; and
Second, the warranty of fitness requires the seller to know or have reason to know of a specific purpose to which the property sold is going to be put.

(disclaimer, the above did come from Wikipedia)

So seeing as the guy in the turban was making the claim that the flute could tame wild animals, he would not be able to then claim that he didn't know or have a reason to know that you would attempt to use the flute for that particular purpose.

It does not matter what costs the guy in the turban incurred in selling the flute to you. You have a right to recover the cost of the flute. But you willl have to give back the flute.

But I don't want the flute back!

-- I mean... what if the seller doesn't want the flute back?

The seller could then give the flute to the buyer. However, the seller still has to refund the purchase price.

As punishment - send him to Band Camp!

OK, it's time to redecorate the office. Are there any budding interior decorators out there that want to showcase their talent in exchange for some virtual legal services?

The office will remain open during the redecoration, so please feel free to submit any questions.

Ok, so we have Lex married to wealthy and dying Gertrude. She starts to sign the will, dies mid-signature, Lex finishes it for her, and viola he inherits her fortune. Or does he?

Well yes and no.

Certainly the will is invalid. At a minimum you need at least two witnesses to the signing of a will. (some states require 3) So without those witnesses, that will is invalid. Her family cries "Hurray!" Although they do so a little too soon.

Assuming Gertrude had a previous will, that will would be rended void by her marriage to Lex (he did have on a wedding ring). A divorce also can render a will or parts of it void. So Gertrude would have died without a will or as we lawyers like to say "intestate". Now each state has different rules for dividing an estate that is intestate. Assuming that Metropolis is in New York State, their rule of intestate inheritance is as follows: If there is a spouse and children, then the spouse gets $50,000 and half of the estate and the children divide the other half. If there are no children, then the spouse does get everything.

So the question is did Gertrude have children or not? If she didn't then Lex didn't need to fiddle with a will. If she did, then Lex would have only gotten half of the estate, unless he also got rid of any children and any children they might have had and any children they might have had, etc.

Well, based upon Lex's map, Metropolis is where NYC would be, so the manision/residence would probably have been in New Jersey.

Although to complicate matters, the villaian's white van had New South Wales license plates.

Well, I tried looking for the New Jersey Statutes and found that their statutes are not as user friendly as New York's or Massachusetts. So let's just say that Gertrude's prinicple property was on Long Island, OK?

nope. According to the maps shown, there is no Long Island; Metropolis is the southernmost point in New York State.

PS I was wrong about the NSW plates - they were Metropolis - at an initial quick glance LIS looked like LES, and as a plate I've never seen before, I assumed. My Bad.

Well, even without consulting the New Jersey statutes, I can say that they probably have similar intestate distribution of estates. The main difference between New York's & Massachusetts' is that Mass give the widow $200,000 while New York on gives $50,000 (beyond half of the estate)

A new avatar for post number 8000

8K posts = how many billable space-hours?

remember... time goes by faster in space when there's no gravity.

Quislet... I'm tempted to give you a legal Gordian knot, from LSH canon. Should I?

Go for it.

You'll be getting my bill shortly.

Okay... postboot Mano, thanks to McCauley's manipulations, didn't receive any sort of trial; in fact, he was not even officially arrested. Yet he was placed among the "Fatal Five"; the five most wanted criminals in the UP. And after his aiding the Legion in stopping Tharok's megabomb launches, Mano was simply locked up again in Takron-Galtos; again, no evidence of a trial or even arrest.

Who could he sue, why... and would the crimes he actually committed at Luna and/or Takron-Galtos "negate" any of this in the eyes of the court?

(I'm leaving out the argument about what liability McCauley would face for Angtu itself, since I'd figured he'd started immediately after Mano made himself known to destroy any "paper trails" in his corporate records. So between that and Angtu's destruction... most likely, there's insufficient evidence.)

Hmmm it has been a while since I've read the story.

Do we know for sure that Mano did not get a trial? Most trials of supervillians do occur off panel. Whether the incarceration of Mano was legal depends upon the sovereign status of the lunar settlement and their rule of law. Is the lunar settlement under the jurisdiction of Earth Law (and for argument purposes, we will say that Earth Law is the law system of the United States - the one I am most familiar with) If the Lunar settlement is an autonomous government ruled by a corporate dictatorship, then whatever the corporation says goes, even if that means being locked up without a trial.

Now say that the Lunar settlement and McCauley Industries is under the jurisdiction of Earth Law. Then detaining Mano beyond the time in which is required to contact the proper authorities and have them come and take charge of the situation would most likely be false imprisonment. Then Mano would have a cause of action for a civil suit against McCauley Industries.

Assuming that Mano was legally incarcerated, then the whole Fatal five deal sounds like an after conviction plea bargain. "You do this for us and your sentence will be reduced". Presumably such an agreement had various clauses, such as "if you perform any criminal activity, this agreement is null & void".

I require an opinion on Space Law on behalf of one of my clients....

Dear Mr. Quislet,

Since the destruction of Krypton several decades ago, my planet has suffered from periodic meteor showers composed of the radioactive element kryptonite. This has resulted in escalating costs in our healthcare and enviromental remediation budgets.

Now with the emergence of Ka-El as the self-styled last son of Krypton and since he is the sole survivor and the heir of all things Kryptonian. Can we sue him for the damages I suggest above? I believe that we should be entitled to royalties from the licensing and trade of Kryptonian technology.

L. Luthor

Quislet,

Apologies for not being in when you called - I presumed you hadn't heard me asking to meet with you.

I was just wondering, but - in a purely hypothetical scenario, of course, given the nature of a letter - I'm wondering what the position would be of a prominent citizen of LW if they, through the murder of a powerful figure on another world or similar, caused a declaration of war by that power on LW. And, continuing the hypothetical thought, if, say someone high up in the Security Office aided and abetted this murder and the concealment of his part therein. And that, through hypothetical time travel, I had hypothetically acquired proof of this. What would the legal position of the two figures in question be, hypothetically?

Yours Faithfully
Reboot.

Mr. Luthor,

You may attempt to sue Mr. El. However you would have to prove that Mr. El was the proximate cause of the destruction of Krypton with the resulting meteor showers.

Good Luck on your lawsuit.

Hypothetically?

A person cannot be said to have been the cause of a war legally unless said person was acting on behalf of the government. The foreign world would have the right and ability to request the extradition of said person in order to face the charges leveled against him/her/it. If such a hypothetical world did not avail themselves of extradition and merely attacked the hypothetical home world of the said person, then they would have committed the act of war and not the said person.

Regarding the alleged hypothetical accomplice of said person, he/she/it would also be subject to an extradition as well. The question of whether the government is responsible for the alleged hypothetical accomplice's (henceforth referred to as AHA) acts would depend on whether the AHA was acting in his/her/its official governmental capacity or as a private individual.

As for the question of whether evidence obtained through the use of hypothetical time travel is admissible, I need to review my copies of SHe-Hulk to see if there is a precedent for such evidence.

I hope this hypothetically answers your hypothetical questions.

Thank you. That makes what I need to do quite obvious.

*leaves device*

Dual-purpose. One's a force-field, just in case, the other should be obvious shortly...

(OOC: Comp went down as I was trying to send my reply; here it is.)

Okay, I checked back on the point of Mano's imprisonment. At the end of Legionnaires #20, Mano was captured. This dialogue took place:

McCauley: I've got you now, you criminal! You'd better pray I turn you over to the Science Police!
Live Wire: You'd better pray if you don't!

The Legion, not having the authority to arrest Mano, had to leave Luna then. It was revealed in LSH #78, when Cosmic Boy and Vi are assigned to pick up Mano, that he'd been held by McCauley all this time. As the Legionnaires are arriving at Luna:

McCauley: The Legion of Super-Heroes! Evolvo, see what they want and get rid of them!
Evolvo: I've scanned their Omnicoms, sir. They're under executive order to retrieve your prisoner. We are required by law to admit them.
McCauley: NO! I bribed half the Judicial Council to keep that freak where I can see him!

(next page, after Cosmic Boy & Vi had gotten to McCauley himself)
Cosmic Boy: We're here to take custody of Mano. Seems you're still holding him without legal authority.

So the answer would be yes, Mano was illegally kept captive (and since McCauley deliberately threw rats in the cell, cruel and unusual punishment could also apply?). But due to McCauley's manipulations of the Judicial Council... Mano would probably not be able to get McCauley to court in the first place.

*dusts out office*

Hey Legion Worlders, I was thinking of taking real cases, posting the facts of the case, and seeing how people here would have decided the case.

Would people be interested in doing this?

Sounds good, Quis, but would there be a separate thread for jury tampering and bribing the judge?

Sounds like fun Quis

That's what ex parte PMs are for.

Give me a couple of days to think of a good one.

Actually, I have one in mind now. I may have mentioned it before, but what the hey. It was an actual case that was occurring when I had Family Law. The names are made up.

Mary discovered that she was pregnant. She thought that Joe was the father. Mary & Joe were not married nor did they ever get married. When Little Suzy was born, Joe signed the parternity papers and started paying child support. Joe also held himself out as the father and had regular visitations with Little Suzy, who considered him her dad. When Little Suzy was 7 years old, Mary went to court to ask for more child support money. Joe did not want to pay the increase and started to raise doubts as to whether he was Little Suzy's father. He asked the court to take a paternity test. The court said "no", but on Little Suzy's next visit, Joe had a paternity test performed. The result of the test was that Joe was not Little Suzy's biological father.

The question is, should Joe be required to continue making child support payments?

there is one point of legal information that I will provide after people make their ruling. I also have to say that initially, I felt one way, but things the professor said did change my mind.

Joe accepted the responsibility of paternity at Suzy's birth and reinforced that responsibility by abiding by a child support order for 7 years. His actions may have discouraged Mary from later attempting to determine Suzy's true biological father and seek support from him.

I don't know whether there is an analog to a common law marriage, but 7 years of holding oneself out as the father should come with some security for the child equivalent to an adoption.

He should be required to continue making the child support payments.

I disagree.

The new information (namely, that Joe is not Suzy's father) voids the contract he made with Mary 7 years ago, since that contract was entered into under false pretenses. The fact that Mary may have been discouraged from determining Suzy's biological father is not his problem.

A contract is not legally binding if entered into under false pretenses.

I'll let this stand over night for others to comment. Then I'll post the actual outcome.

In order to have a paternity test or any other medical treatment/testing done on a minor (Suzy is only 7), one must be the parent of the child and sign paperwork attesting to that. Joe must have signed such papers in order to have the test done. By doing so, he was attesting that he was in fact, the parent.

If he did not believe himnself to be the parent at that point, then he had no legal standing to contract with the lab in order to have such tests done and he illegally entered into a contract with the lab. The results of that test were therefore void because he entered into it under false pretenses and was not entitled to "profit" from that contract (by receiving the results of the paternity test.)

Because of this, the court should not recognize the results of the test as a valid result. Therefore there is no proof that Suzy is not his daughter and the court has already ruled on the need to order such a test.

I would think that besides losing the case concerning paternity, he might also be guilty of contempt by contravening an express order of the court in this case that no paternity test would be done.

It seems unlikely that a court would find it in the best interest of the child to (1) sever a parent-child relationship that Suzy has known all her life and (2) discontinue financial (and other tangible or intangible means of) support. I'll agree with Lad Boy; Joe may not be the biological father, but he is the legal father.

Motion denied!

Is there such a thing as a 'common-law parent'?

By not challenging his paternity years ago and in-fact acting like the daddy of Suzy all these years, I think Joe is on the hook as the papa regardless of actual biology.

Joe signed the paternity papers. He could have requested a paternity test at the time, but waived his rights (if that's a right). Mary did not outright deceive him, although she obviously hid the possibility that there was could be a different father. So, eyes wide shut, he became the legal father and should be required to continue support payments.

Little Suzy should sue Joe for emotional damage, or something like that. But that's another case.

BTW, can paternity tests be in error - or are they 100% accurate?

I suppose I find the argument that he has effectively taken on the responsibility of being Suzy's father by acting as such for all these years, and is thus obligated to continue financial support. However, I'm not completely convinced that it's in the child's best interest to have someone who is not her biological father be forced to continue to play the role of her father against his will.

I guess the ideal scenario would be to locate the actual biological father, and if he is willing and able to do so, have him take over the responsibilities of paternity. Barring that, Joe should continue to do so.

Oh, and I believe paternity tests can only exclude potential fathers, but can't establish with certainty that someone is in fact the father.

Nice discussions people.

Eryk, I think DNA testing can prove paternity close to 100%. Of course, what did happen was that Joe was ruled out as the father.

Initially I and the whole class were of the "Well he isn't the biological father so he should have to pay" side of the argument.

One point the professor made (as did a couple of you) was the effect on Little Suzy of Joe suddenly not being her dad. Although in thinking about this case last night, I also thought of just what Eryk said about how good a father Joe will actually be considering what he had already done.

The clincher that changed things for me was when the professor showed us the paternity form. Right were you would sign is a big warning saying "Don't sign if you have any doubts about the paternity. Signing will bind you to legal obligations regarding the child. If you have any questions regarding your paternity, have a paternity test before signing." (or words to that effect)

So the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that Joe is the legal dad and is legally required to provide chld support.

Here's another case:

Max went fox hunting with some friends. Spotting a fox, Max shouted "Tally-ho" and gave chase. MAx chased the fox for about a half an hour, occassionally taking shots at it, but not hitting it once. Then Max lost track of the fox.

Sam was in the forest communing with nature. Suddenly a fox jumped into his lap. Sam thinks "Hey there is a bounty for foxes and I just made a fast five dollars." Just then Max rides up and says "Hey! That's my fox! My friends can tell you how I have been chasing it for over a half an hour." Sam replies "I don't see your name on the fox."

The land upon which Max was hunting and Sam caught the fox is unowned.

So who's fox is it?

(Note: The real case was financed by the fathers of Max & Sam and cost more than the fox was worth)

Possession is 9/10 of the law. Sam gets the fox.

Ditto

In thinking about this one I realized that most people will just go with Sam. Can anyone think of a reason to give the fox to Max?

Pity? Based on his "shooting" it's unlikely he'll ever catch one that way!

I'd also say Sam gets the fox, since the land is "unowned" (does that mean government land?) and nobody owns the fox, so it's finders keepers.

That's until the SPCA files an amicus brief on behalf of the fox.

For Max to get the fox? Maybe the practice of fox-hunting, that he was part of an organized hunt (not just walking by and spotting the fox), that he demonstrated intent to capture the fox by pursuit and shooting gives him prior claim to the fox - so Sam was interfering with Max's obvious, declared and legal intent. If a jurisdiction promoted fox-hunting, they might have a law which favours the hunters.

The instant a wild animal is brought under the control of a person so that actual possession is practically inevitable, a vested property in it accrues to him which cannot be divested by another's interfering and killing it.

Max pursued the fox to its exhaustion. The chase brought the animal into control.

Max's fox.

Well, this happened in colonial times (or around the time of the Revolution) The land was just unowned forest.

Sam did get the fox. The court ruled that if Max had injured the fox, then he would have had a proprietary interest. But because he didn't, he had no legal claim.

OK, this wasn't an actual court case but a hypothetical from my Ethics class.

As you know (or should know) Lawyers have the duty to keep what is said to them in strictest confidence. The main exception is this:

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal confidential information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in paragraph (b).

(b) A lawyer may reveal such information:

(1) to prevent the commission of a criminal or fraudulent act that the lawyer reasonably believes is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm, or in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another, or to prevent the wrongful execution or incarceration of another;

So the hypothetical goes like this:

A client of yours comes to you and says that her boyfriend was arrested for being in a barroom fight. She asks you to go help him. In the police station, he tells you that he is HIV positive. He wants to know if that would change the charges against him for the fight. He also tells you that he hasn't told anyone yet.

The question: Do you tell his girlfriend - your client about his HIV status?