July 7, 2025 • 65 mins
Recorded live at Bay Con 2025 in Santa Clara, CA! Join Josh Gilliland for his analysis of the Ghostbusters film series. From the panel description:
Who you gonna call… when the Ghostbusters get sued? From ghost containment ethics to property damage caused by proton packs, the Ghostbusters franchise is full of supernatural shenanigans that raise real-world legal questions. Could trapping a ghost be considered false imprisonment? What environmental laws apply to a ghost containment unit? And was animating the Statue of Liberty a legal nightmare?
Join The Legal Geeks as they break down the law of the afterlife with a panel of judges and attorneys. Using their legal expertise (and maybe a P.K.E. meter or two), they’ll explore the weird, wild, and surprisingly complex legal issues in the Ghostbusters universe. Don't miss this electrifying discussion—just be careful not to cross the streams!
No part of this recording should be considered legal advice.
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok @TheLegalGeeks
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Joshua Gilliland (00:00):
When Ghostbusters came out in 1984,
it was the number one movie inthe world for my brother's
birthday in June.
It was the number one movie inthe world for my birthday in
September.
Only time that's happened.
When I turned 10, over 40 yearsago, it was the number one
(00:25):
movie, and I'm now 50, and welive in this wonderful age where
we keep getting Ghostbustersmovies and there's going to be
an animated series on Netflixsoon and I used to do a Saturday
morning cartoon, yep.
So again, we live in this greatera that the nerds are in
(00:46):
charge, we are writing content,we're the decision makers, and
so Gen X is kind of in charge itright now and at least for
probably another decade beforeour generation starts retiring.
And it's like here we are.
Yeah, it's like it's notrevenge.
We're in charge now and it'slike here we are.
Yeah, it's like it's notrevenge.
(01:07):
We're in charge now, like it'sworth.
You know, back in the day whensaying I, like Doctor who, was
publicly saying I spend Fridaynights home alone, and now we're
the ones in charge and we'rethe ones making things that are
popular, and I am grateful forthis era and that is just so
(01:29):
cool that that's outside.
So I have a blog and podcastcalled the Legal Geeks, and this
is where we go to cons.
We podcast, we blog, and one ofthe earliest posts I did was is
it false imprisonment tocapture a ghost?
So the Ghostbusters are runningaround capturing ghosts.
(01:49):
Is this false imprisonment?
And the answer is possibly not.
And let's get into that In NewYork, because we're talking
about New York law being in here, let's use New York law to
(02:09):
discuss this.
So first thing we do is what'sthe law say?
So that way, it's not just someesoteric discussion about
capturing the ghost.
We need to know the rule first.
So New York law states a personis guilty of unlawful
imprisonment in the first degreewhen he restrains another
person under circumstances whichexpose the latter to a risk of
(02:32):
serious physical injury, and aperson is guilty of unlawful
imprisonment in the seconddegree when he restrains another
person.
Okay, so we've got thefoundation here.
What happens when you capture aghost?
Well, we have to define what'sa person.
So a person means a human beingand, where appropriate, a
(02:58):
public or private corporation,an unincorporated association, a
partnership, a government or agovernmental instrumentality.
Well, what's a ghost?
Does a ghost count as a person?
And that gets into the issue ofdoes personhood continue after
(03:20):
death?
And the issue whether anon-human animal has a
fundamental right to libertyprotected by the writ of habeas
corpus is profound andfar-reaching.
It speaks to our relationshipwith all life around us.
Ultimately, we'd not be able toignore it.
While it may be arguable that achimpanzee is not a person,
there is no doubt that is notmerely a thing is no doubt that
(03:46):
is not merely a thing.
There have been some animalrights cases arguing whether or
not like, say, orcas incaptivity could have a lawsuit
brought on their behalf sayingthat their rights are being
violated.
And when they that's been triedas saying like, are orcas same
rights as having people forstanding, that case was no, okay
(04:07):
.
But the issue of like with thischimpanzee, it's like oh, this
is like.
It's weird because it's notquite the same.
But are you dealing withsomething that should have
rights?
We don't want a monkey gettingzapped, okay, it's just, what
kind of society do we want?
Do you want so like?
(04:29):
We have laws that preventanimal abuse, all right.
How do you apply that to a ghost?
And the original Ghostbustersmovies?
The ghosts don't seem humananymore.
Slimer doesn't look like ahuman being.
(04:51):
It looks like a flying potato,that's green, that's eating
things.
That's not again calling animalcontrol for an animal running
around seems like theappropriate thing to do when you
have coyotes in theneighborhood.
The Ghostbusters Frozen Empire,where we have a ghost that
(05:14):
still retained her humanity andis walking around interacting
and playing chess that stillsounds like a person acting and
playing chess that still soundslike a person and having a
discussion with Phoebe Spenglerlike they're actually talking.
This isn't just like a weirdhaunting of something that seems
(05:37):
demonic in nature.
So the law has this wonderfulconcept called it depends and it
might depend.
So capturing Slimer and puttingSlimer in the containment unit
I don't think is falseimprisonment.
(05:58):
Capturing a ghost that stillseems human could tip in the
other direction, because it'sgoing to be very hard to have an
interview with Slimer.
Slimer is just living his bestlife, wanting snacks.
Okay, that sounds more like ananimal.
On the flip side, if you'replaying chess with a ghost, that
(06:24):
doesn't sound like somethingyou're going to take a proton
pack to, and if you do, you'regoing to feel weird about it.
And if you feel weird about it,that means this is probably the
wrong thing to be doing Now ifthe ghost was raising hell and
breaking things and things areflying around again, it's
(06:47):
sounding non-human.
Capturing that makes more senseand something we're going to be
more comfortable with.
If the ghost presents as adecomposed body that's
terrorizing others, that doesn'tsound like it's retained its
humanity.
That doesn't sound like it'sretained its humanity.
So again, it's a veryuncomfortable, weird discussion
(07:08):
to get into of is it still human, making it a person?
So, re-watching Ghostbustersfrom 1984, I can say with all
honesty Vinkman's a creep, thishas not aged well at all.
I can say with all honesty,vinkman's a creep, this has not
(07:29):
aged well at all.
I don't know how much of it was.
It was not aging well lastnight too.
You watch it.
It's like whoa, whoa, whoa.
Was this just improv, gonewrong?
I don't know.
But Vkman as a college professorhidden on the lady coeds is not
(07:50):
okay.
Torturing the male student isalso super not okay and he's
like getting paid five bucks,which in 1984 money might be
more like $45 today, maybe $30.
I haven't run the indexcalculator, but that's a little
(08:13):
amount of money.
To be zapping somebody in orderto impress a, say, 19 or
20-year-old college student.
The psychology department wouldnot be student?
No, no, you are.
There's issues of like tortureof the student that you're just
(08:34):
zapping, who actually does seemto be presenting real psychic
abilities to identify three wavylines and just trying to seduce
a co-ed.
Like it is not okay.
You're going to subject theschool to liability.
And so vinkman is a creep.
(08:55):
What he does to sigourneyweaver's character is full-on
stalking and creepy behavior andit makes it hard to watch the
original movie.
Knowing what I know now as a 50year old man.
Going like this is absolutelynot okay.
But that continues.
(09:17):
So you're not a good friend ifyou're convincing your buddy to
get an extremely unfavorablemortgage rate on a loan for the
house that he was born in.
It's what his parents left himand this is how you're going to
(09:37):
fund your startup getting a 19%interest rate on a third
mortgage.
He doesn't even try to talk himdown and Ray's going like dude,
dude, like this is absolutelyagain, it sounds funny in the
(09:57):
moment watching it because youlaugh.
It's like 19% and he didn'teven negotiate, ha ha ha.
And then you think about itDude, not cool.
Like you have a highlyspeculative startup company to
hunt ghosts and you might bedestroying your buddy's life in
the process if it doesn't workout.
(10:18):
Now there's also a concept inthe law called usury on that
puts caps on interest rates.
So in New York the maximum ratefor for an interest rate is 16%
.
Okay, so the fact that in 1984the rate was 19% sounds
(10:42):
grotesque by today's standards,because that would probably be
like 30.
Just something really offensive.
So, again, find another way.
Or maybe don't let Vinkman bethe one to negotiate.
And again, how much of this isjust Bill Murray doing improv?
(11:08):
Yes, sir, this might be a goodlesson in general.
Whenever somebody you knowcomes to you that has a short
thing and wants to invest,they're almost always full of
your face.
I have friends and family thatfall for that Because, again,
being in Silicon Valley where wewrite deals on cocktail napkins
, and, yeah, there are a lot ofsuccess stories of people making
billions and having nice housesin Atherton and Portola Valley,
(11:31):
and then there are a lot ofthem that end horribly as well.
So this is, again, it's superuncomfortable.
I don't know if this was theintent or if they just thought
it seemed funny in the moment,but when you actually think
about it, it's not.
And again, it's more disturbingbehavior from Vinkman, which is
(11:53):
just throughout the first movie.
It pivots in the second movieand so in the following films
there's a good arc for him atleast.
So the main thrust from theoriginal Ghostbusters is the
federal government's the bad guy, and specifically the EPA.
Because Walter Peck comes inwanting to first inspect the
(12:18):
Ghostbusters containment unitand Venkman is antagonistic to
him with like did you use themagic word?
Now, as an attorney, Iabsolutely would not want a
client just letting the feds inwithout a warrant of some kind,
without some paperwork.
But they did make nuclearaccelerators that are backpacks
(12:43):
that are absolutely notregulated.
There's a public safety issuewith having people walking
around with a nuclearaccelerator on their back that
they didn't test until taking itinto trapping a ghost.
Yeah, but they did.
But again this raises the issuehow do you even get that
(13:04):
licensed?
And again, this is why lawyersexist, because an environmental
lawyer would need to figure outhow do we navigate this, because
this is funky, it's complicated.
I don't have an answer for itbecause I don't do this type of
law, but you would need to sitdown and figure out how do we do
this so we don't create anenvironmental mess by having one
(13:26):
of those things go critical inNew York City.
So what would again not ascientist, but what would happen
if you had that thing breach insome way?
So there's actually case lawthat cites the Ghostbusters.
So this quote is actually froma lawsuit in 1988.
(13:48):
Because judges also go to themovies.
They're people too.
I have a lot of friends who arejudges and this will shock you.
They have hobbies.
They don't live in a monastery.
They too go to the movies.
They too go to cons movies.
They too go to cons like this,because this will also be
(14:08):
surprising People who grew upreading comic books and now have
the title of your Honor.
There's a lot of them.
They also enjoy pop culture.
They like thinking about deepissues.
The kids who are running aroundto make cosplay of complex
(14:29):
characters.
They will grow up and beattorneys and judges or
congressmen or governors.
So again, I take comfort goinglike that.
That kid that made thatStarscream cosplay watch her,
she'll go far.
That kid that made thatStarscream cosplay watch her,
(14:53):
she'll go far.
Good, we need that.
I have a really good closefriend who is a federal judge
who will DM his kids Dungeonsand Dragons games.
I call him if I have to do thatwith my scouts.
So again, this wonderful quote.
(15:17):
Movie goers will remember theenvironmental police in the
movie Ghostbusters would besurprised.
The practice of allowing thetarget of an administrative
warrant to forbid entry andthereby convert the warrant
proceeding into a contemptproceeding is the standard
method of enforcing suchwarrants.
So the way that the breachscene could have played out was
(15:41):
no, let's go before a judge andwe're going to settle this that
way, as opposed to we're goingto turn it off based upon your
order to do so, without evenknowing what effect this might
have.
I think, what if we said thatand the thing exploded?
Well, it does explode.
It explodes and kills people,as opposed to letting things out
(16:03):
and thus also bringing aboutthe end of the world situation.
So again, let's go before ajudge and they can have an
evidentiary hearing and we canfigure this out together,
because we have systems in placeto avoid things blowing up.
So, which brings us to thebreach of the containment unit.
(16:24):
Who is liable for the damagedue to the breach of the
containment unit?
Who is liable for the damagedue to the shutdown of the
containment system atGhostbusters HQ?
Again, I, good friend, who wasa judge in New York City.
He would go by the firehouseand times I visited like we
didn't have time to go do thattogether.
But again, this is somethingpeople in New York could go.
(16:46):
Do they now have GhostbustersDay for the anniversary of the
movie release that they've triedturning into like a May the 4th
or a Star Trek Day typecelebration for Ghostbusters
fans?
The director, some of the castwere hanging out there.
A whole bunch of people inGhostbusters attire were at the
(17:06):
firehouse just last month.
So breach of the containmentsystem and liability, all right,
it was the Con Ed electriciannegligent shutting down the
containment system.
The Con Ed supervisor admits Idon't even know what this does.
Con Ed supervisor admits Idon't even know what this does.
And so he gets the unfortunateposition of I'm just following
(17:29):
orders by the police officerwho's being told by a federal
agent to do this.
That raises all kinds of weirdjurisdictional issues because
you have the federal government,you have NYPD and you have Con
Ed.
Who's in charge here?
(17:50):
Who's going to be liable?
Who are the deep pockets?
We know who are not the deeppockets and that's the
Ghostbusters.
But do you go after them fornegligence Negligence per se,
which means they're negligentbecause they didn't follow the
law.
Is there strict liability inoperating the ghost containment
(18:10):
unit, which is highlyexperimental and it also raises
a super fun type problem?
So for them, what laws couldhave been at play?
And there are a variety ofnuclear regulatory laws that you
could get into saying thatthere's negligence on their part
.
But it was working until PECsaid shut it down.
(18:35):
So do you get it worked untilthe feds intervened?
So again problem the UnitedStates government.
Suing the federal government ishard because there's sovereign
immunity.
And the way you get throughsovereign immunity is the
federal government says thereare times that you can sue us
and that's through the federaltort claims act.
(18:57):
Does the federal tort claimsact apply in this situation?
Apply in the situation?
So the United States stands inthe shoes of its employee whose
negligence or wrongful acts inthe course and scope of their
employment caused the plaintiffsinjury.
There's all kinds of steps thatneed to be followed in order to
(19:19):
get to that level of a waiverof being able to sue the federal
government, in this casebecause of walter peck's
interference and getting them toshut down the containment unit.
I don't know if it would work.
There would be a lot of motionpractice, slugging it out to say
(19:41):
like was peck unreasonable?
I don't think peck'sunreasonable in wanting to make
sure that there's a safefacility in the heart of New
York City.
I do think Peck becomesunreasonable in saying shut it
down.
I kind of wondered if it wasentirely because of Bankman's
response to him and so Peck justdecided, decided to be busy
(20:06):
about it.
Yeah, and that's probably theanswer here of two wrongs.
Don't make a right.
Okay, it's like okay, so you'regoing to cut off your nose to
spite your own face situation.
And that's what's happened here, because they turned into jerks
to each other.
As opposed to no adult was inthe room.
(20:29):
And again, if Ray had beenthere or Spangler, could this
have played out differently, asopposed to having Venkman as
your point person who hits oncollege co-eds and doesn't even
bother negotiating a 19%interest rate on his buddy's
mortgage, third mortgage.
(20:50):
So again, not the ambassadorthat you want.
What about New York City?
This gets weird because youhave different sovereigns at
play.
You know you have the federalgovernment bossing around, the
New York City Police Departmenttelling Con Ed to shut it down.
(21:13):
So again, this is a mixed bag.
It's also not how government'ssupposed to work.
You know the feds generallydon't tell local government what
to do in enforcing a federalpolicy Like this is why people
are fighting about, you know,immigration cases of immigration
(21:34):
exclusively federal.
So the idea of saying, hey, Iwant the local police department
to enforce something that'sexclusively federal becomes
problematic very quickly.
Because think back a decade agowhen Arizona started enacting
(21:55):
an immigration law of their own,trying to pull people over to
prove citizenship.
On whether or not the state ofArizona is claiming we want to
get rid of people who are nothere legally, and that went to
the Supreme Court and it wasthis is exclusively federal, not
a matter for the states.
So what happens here?
(22:19):
So I think if I were suing onbehalf of people who had
property damage, you nameeverybody as a defendant.
Okay, because even theGhostbusters, even with the
people with the small checkbooks, because you want to get
everyone Looking at, there'slitigation going on right now
(22:43):
because of the fires in LA, andand you have insurance companies
that have started lawsuits, youhave plaintiffs that have
started lawsuits and they'regoing after the public utilities
, and so that's just.
It's ongoing.
And so again it's like, who didyou sue?
(23:03):
And the answer might beeverybody that you have a good
faith belief was responsible andthe shutting down the
containment unit.
Everybody is a good answer.
For starters.
So Evo Shandor built the housethat Dana lived in.
(23:27):
That is this radio beacon forGozer.
Can you sue his estate fordoing that?
Because without Shandorbuilding this temple on top of a
high rise, you would not havehad the Gozer incident of 1984,
(23:54):
which means you're suing a deadman, and the way you sue a dead
man is the estate.
Now, is this estate trulyliquidated with nothing left in
it, or is there still, like afoundation that has money in it
from what Shandor did and you'dwant to do some discovery?
(24:15):
But I think it's worth lookingat for being able to go like
this crazy dude did this?
Are they still collecting moneyin any way?
Do they have assets in any way?
Because if there's assets, gofor it.
You also have the entirebuilding itself.
Who owns that right now?
(24:37):
Is this like a toxic tort casethat you're suing everyone who's
touched the property and againyou'd have subsequent owners.
That you're suing everyonewho's touched the property and
again you'd have subsequentowners who didn't know about the
Gozer Temple at the top.
So again they have a reallygood defense of like whoa, but
(24:57):
again people who end up buyingproperty that has toxic waste on
it, like runoff from, oh, drycleaners or you know Silicon
Valley has all of thesemiconductor business and all
that runoff that went to Alvisoand is why the mud in Alviso is
(25:19):
contaminated.
You have that of like you can'tgo clean that up easily.
That would cost.
Yep, yeah, it's so.
(25:39):
Again, that attaches to theland and thus if you end up in a
lawsuit you start looking atevery insurance policy that is
attached to that land over 80years to like when the
contamination began.
It gets complicated, it getsweird.
Not my area, but could that sortof strategy work in going after
(26:04):
, say, ivo Shandor's estate orsay the property owner itself?
I don't know, we don't have alot of background on it, but we
do know from afterlife thatShandor in, but we do know from
Afterlife that Shandor inOklahoma built a town and his
name's all over the place.
(26:24):
So is this like the Carnegie'sor the Rockefeller's?
Is there still a family estatewith money to go after?
Yes, sir, this is a very, verycommon question.
It's not.
Can you sue or are you going torecover?
Anybody can sue for anything,right?
Yeah, you want to get past amotion to dismiss.
(26:44):
Can you successfully sue, isthe question.
I don't know if this would workbecause I don't have enough
facts to actually dig into thisand do the analysis.
I can spot the issue from themovie and go.
No writer was thinking about meas a lawyer wanting to do this,
(27:06):
and thus they give me enoughfacts and canon that I can play
with.
But it's still fun.
Now the other one is Ray,liable for choosing the form of
the traveler, and the answer'sthe traveler, and the answer is
a maybe Because the others.
(27:28):
You didn't do it on purpose, butthere wasn't a giant J Edgar
Hoover, which was the examplethat Vinkman throws out of.
Like you know, choose yourdestroyer.
And it's like, oh, if we thinkof a giant J Edgar Hoover, j
Edgar Hoover's going to appear,that doesn't happen.
So, like everyone's able toclear their heads, and it's, you
(27:50):
know, ray, thinking about beinga child, you know, by the
campfire and Mr Staypuff, andagain, it is one of the best
moments in cinematic history.
I saw the panels with thespecial effects team on how they
did it and that was very coolon those guys, on what they did
(28:14):
and how they were honored fordecades Because the guy who made
the costume got to be in it.
So again he was very happy andso it's just all this fun stuff.
But Ray might have someliability here.
But you then get into the issueof like is this foreseeable harm
(28:38):
?
Well, they know from pastexperience that the Travelers
appeared before.
So again there could be anargument.
There is some foreseeabilityand there was known risk that
something could show up,something from our imagination
if we inadvertently pick our owndestroyer, if we inadvertently
(28:58):
pick our own destroyer.
So Ray picking the Stay Puftman as the traveler, I think
there are defenses If that ever.
I wouldn't want that to get out.
The only people who know arethe Ghostbusters, because they
were the only ones at the top ofthe building, so they can
(29:20):
control the narrative and Iwanted to admit that part.
You know it's like you couldcontrol.
A lot was happening, you know,and all of a sudden they picked
the Stay Puft man from my mind.
And here we are.
It's like you don't need to sayI was told I could pick the
traveler, because if you admitthat, I think things get very
(29:42):
bad.
If it's, I don't know whathappened.
Leave that alone.
People are really freaked out.
All right, so does the lawrecognize the existence of
ghosts, true or false?
Who said false, okay, okay.
(30:14):
So, those of you who said false, you are correct.
The I learned about it inproperty, so it's 1991.
And some folks buy a house andit's not disclosed that and you
(30:45):
know the court saying like, yeah, casper's actually there, it's.
The prior owners didn'tdisclose the fact that we've had
TV shows here.
We're, like, known in thecommunity because of being a
haunted house.
We're known in the communitybecause of being a haunted house
and this is from the opinion.
Plaintiff, to his horror,discovered that the house he had
(31:05):
recently contracted to purchasewas widely reputed to be
possessed by poltergeists,reportedly seen by defendants,
sellers and members of herfamily on numerous occasions
over the last nine years, likeif the walls are bleeding and
the cat's flying through the air.
You know, and you're calling TVshows and you're on the news,
(31:32):
like that transcends into.
You're going to need todisclose that.
And then when somebody moves in, it's like, oh, we're now
dealing with weird things thatare happening.
This court said, yeah, thishouse, as a matter of law, is
haunted, and that was one of thecoolest parts of my first year
(31:53):
of law school.
There was a wild Rip Warrenclass getting into.
You know we get to talk aboutghosts, you know.
Thank you, professor Coletta.
All right, if there's a deathin the house, you have to
(32:14):
Disclose that.
Disclose it to the virus.
Yes, sir, disclose that.
Yes, sir.
Audience MEMBER 1 If one court,let's say San Francisco, or a
county judge, recognized ghostsin the case, do other counties
or states have to respect thatkind of judgment?
No, so this gets into the issueof that's an East Coast opinion.
(32:37):
I don't know if there's anyCalifornia cases that have said
that, and just because it'sstated in, I want to say
Pennsylvania I think that wasPennsylvania.
I could be wrong something likewe don't need a lawyer to buy a
house in California, like theother 49 states, you're not
going to just buy a housewithout a lawyer.
(32:58):
So we use, you know, realtorswho are doing quasi-law.
Other states go, that's crazytalk and here we are.
So every case is different andyou could try that argument.
It could be persuasive but it'snot binding.
(33:25):
If you come in and you've gotGoPro footage of the wall
starting to bleed, portal to thenether realm opens up, probably
it's like, okay, we're going totalk about AI now and go like,
is this special effects?
And you're going to have expertwitnesses?
Because there are people whoare getting terrifying footage
(33:48):
on their cell phone cameras ofthings that don't make sense.
And then you have peopleanalyzing the video going like
there's nothing there thatshould be casting that shadow.
Or they figure out what it isand debunk it.
Because most investigatorsstart with debunking whether
(34:12):
it's UFO or paranormal, thatthey want it to be credible,
which means they need to figureout if there's a way to debunk
it, and so they ask the hardquestions and then when they go
like, yeah, we can't explainthis, that's when everyone gets
kind of uncomfortable.
All right, so Ghostbusters 2 hasa courtroom scene, so I'd be
(34:35):
remiss not to talk about thecourtroom scene.
So they're in court becausethey're violating a restraining
order, willful destruction ofpublic property, fraud and
malicious mischief.
For those who don't remember,ghostbusters 2 begins with the
Ghostbusters being blamed forthe New York incident and so
there's a restraining ordersaying they, like they can't go
(34:57):
out, do ghost-busting activities.
So that's why we have somedoing birthday parties and we've
got Vinkman doing his TV showand Spangler's doing
psychological tortureexperiments with a child with
now take away the puppy.
So like their lives havechanged.
(35:17):
So like their lives havechanged.
But when there's issues withDana's kid, they answer the call
and they end up tearing up partof a New York street, which is
something public people aren'tsupposed to do.
You just don't go play con edand tear up a chunk of street
and then get involved with asupernatural incident.
(35:39):
So they end up in court.
All right, this is Little Lawyerin Lessons.
This is out of Malway's book ontrial presentations and what
lawyers should do.
Now there are those who don'tlike Malway and, like some of
the other authors, I like Malway, All right.
So what goes into an openingstatement?
You tell the trier of factwhether it's the jury, the judge
(36:01):
, your themes, you present yourcase from your point of view.
The opening statement can onlyrefer to anticipated evidence
and that evidence must beadmissible.
You need to know the law thatyou're talking about.
You need to know the judge'sperspective.
So doing homework on the judgeis important.
You need to know how to chooseand use themes to send an
(36:23):
emotional message and you needto engage in storytelling.
And court TV is popular.
I don't watch it because I wantto yell at the screen.
Also, when I'm not playinglawyer in real life, I don't
watch lawyer stuff.
I will watch Star Trek or aStar Wars show or a Ghostbusters
(36:48):
show or Jurassic Park,something that's fun.
So when family members startgiving me lawyer books for
Christmas, it's like I don'tgive you books about what you do
at work.
It's hurtful.
Don't give you books about whatyou do at work.
It's hurtful.
Anyhoo, all right.
So what goes into the content ofan effective opening statement?
You need to get the judge'sattention.
(37:09):
You need to show your position.
You need to anchor facts andissues to memorable themes and
labels.
Again coming up with littlemantras of again there are all
kinds of examples, but again youwant a little mantra that
people remember of like explainit to me, like I'm a five year
(37:31):
old, like that you know.
Again the famous one and I hateit.
If the glove don't fit, youmust acquit.
Hate that, but again, it's amemorable line that people can
identify.
Remember like a commercial.
You remember it.
You want to create a preferencefor your position with the jury
(37:54):
or the judge?
Alright, you want to deliver itin a positive attitude.
You want to look comfortable.
You don't want to deliver it ina positive attitude.
You want to look comfortable.
You don't want to show up in arumpled suit.
You want to look good.
You want to be on your A gameand you don't want to look like
you just rolled out of bed.
You don't want to look likeit's the paper chase.
You want to be calm, poised,collected and make your point
(38:21):
effectively.
And also this radical thing thatlawyers do, we do practice.
It's like a performance.
We actually have to practicecomplex words, complex names and
go like, hey, what soundsbetter?
That's why we have war roomsLike last summer.
This time last year we weregetting ready for trial and we
(38:46):
were going through things.
We were practicing.
What exhibits do we want toshow to convince the jury of our
position?
What are the buzzwords that welike?
And we were practicingdifferent deliveries for that.
So let's talk about LouisTully's opening statement.
It's short but pointless.
(39:08):
Just think back.
He shows up and he's rambling.
He talks about getting turnedinto a dog and these guys saved
me and here I am.
And then sits down and it'slike okay.
And it's Spangler says likeshort but pointless.
It's like it's not good.
So we get Venkman on the standand you have the witness leading
(39:31):
the lawyer.
That also doesn't happen.
You know you can't ask leadingquestions of the witness, and in
this we have the lawyer being apuppet of Venkman and it
doesn't go well.
Like this is everything alawyer should not do in court.
(39:52):
Lewis Telly does All right.
So we have ghosts appear.
They're the Scolari brothersand they kidnap the DA, and so
this raises the issue is thatcause to dismiss the criminal
charges against the Ghostbusters?
And the answer is a strong no.
(40:13):
Like that doesn't resolve theissue.
However, it should be cause todismiss the judicial restraining
order prohibiting theparanormal investigations and
eliminations.
Yeah, that seems like areasonable thing for what's
going on.
It's like the DA floats away,hanging upside down by her ankle
.
Two guys who were executed areflying around the courtroom.
(40:36):
I think we're good.
Get rid of that restrainingorder.
So now lawyers need to becompetent, and there's an issue
about you have a tax attorneywho's giving legal
representation to theGhostbusters.
Lawyers should only providecompetent representation.
(40:59):
So, like I've done civillitigation, it's people suing
people.
When you're a lawyer, you getfamily members and friends
asking you bizarre legal adviceand it's not in your wheelhouse,
(41:21):
and so when somebody's asked mefor, say, family law advice
about getting a divorce, I don'tdo that, like that is not my
area and I will refer them tofriends who do family law.
Or if there's a somebody askeda really complex IP intellectual
property question, not my bagBrought in, connected them with
a friend who does IP law becausehe's really good at IP law and
(41:46):
so he can help and help themfigure out their issue.
But there are emergencysituations where a tax attorney
could give criminal defenseadvice if it's an emergency and
this emergency situation canapply with something bad's just
(42:09):
happened and the family memberor friend needs immediate help
figuring out what to do, andit's okay.
And so this is the ABA modelrules and we'll read it.
So we have it right.
In an emergency, a lawyer maygive assistance or advice in a
matter in which lawyer does nothave the skill ordinarily
(42:31):
required, where referral to orconsultation or association with
another lawyer would beimpractical.
Even in an emergency, however,assistance should be limited to
that reasonably necessary in thecircumstances, for
ill-considered action underemergency conditions can
jeopardize the client'sinterests.
So you've got to be careful.
(42:52):
Like again if somebody calledme and said I was just in an
auto crash and I'm beingarrested.
What should I do?
I'm not a criminal defenseattorney.
My advice would be say nothingand say that you're exercising
your right to counsel under theFifth and Sixth Amendments,
(43:13):
because that should shut downall questioning by law
enforcement and that should getyou a public defender at your
side very quickly.
But don't blow it by talking,and that would be the advice.
Shut up and demand a lawyer andit's not me, because I don't do
(43:34):
that.
So let's take the Statue ofLiberty on a joyride to stop
Vigo, the Carpathian.
So generally, you shouldn'tdeputize a national monument and
take it into combat.
That's just something that wedon't do.
But there's something calledthe necessity defense and that
(44:00):
says we're gonna have to breakthe law to stop a greater harm.
So if that greater harm iseternal darkness and dogs and
cats sleeping together and endof the world type situation and
we have the happy slime thatwe're going to use to rally
(44:22):
people on New Year's Eve to stopthe end of the world, cool,
we're going to do that.
We are knowingly breaking thelaw by taking the Statute of
Liberty out on a walk, but it'sthe only thing we can do to stop
immediate harm and it has to beimmediate.
(44:43):
So the necessity defensedoesn't work.
Of my truck was stuck in themud and I'm an American male so
I'm going to go steal a tractorin order to pull my truck to
safety.
Nope, that's not the necessitydefense.
But if there's a child stuck inthe car and it's sinking,
(45:07):
people are going to be like,okay, you saved the kid, fine,
similar here.
So again they're defendable.
But we actually see a referenceto this in Frozen Empire.
They use the term, they saysomething negative about the
Statue of Liberty, ignoring thepart about saving the world.
(45:31):
So there's a lot of blame thehero and ignore the villain type
situation, which is again, it'slike a form of victim blaming.
It's like you all were going todie.
We stopped you all from dyingand you're blaming us for the
property damage from us keepingyou alive.
(45:53):
So again, in defense of othersis a little different, it has to
be.
So pick another pop culturereference that's also 40 years
old this year, Back to thefuture.
(46:15):
So George McFly stops hisfuture wife from being assaulted
.
George was not in any danger.
He could have just turnedaround and walked away and let
Elaine have something trulyhorrible happen.
(46:37):
And he says, nope, if you getyour goddamn hands off her Hero
moment.
Very cool, audience cheers.
Defense of others that'seffective defense of others.
There has to be harm, and soyou want to avoid the trolley
car analysis of, hey, thetrolley car is crashing down the
(47:01):
street and the only way to stopthe trolley from crashing and
all these people dying is Ishoot someone and use them as a
brake.
That's not okay.
All right, okay, all right.
(47:30):
Let's touch on the 2016Ghostbusters, which highlights
the importance of representationmatters.
I was, you know, I'm a whiteboy.
I was 9 to 10 years old whenGhostbusters comes out.
Three of the Ghostbusters looklike me.
I feel represented 2016,.
The all-female Ghostbusterscome out and there's beautiful
footage of little girls inGhostbusters attire interacting
(47:54):
with the cast, and it's freakingadorable.
And it highlights theimportance of having characters
that have representation,because if everything is just
like we're just gonna have whitedudes in this, you're ignoring
a significant part of thepopulation, and so being able to
go let's make it look likesociety is a good thing.
(48:16):
So, with that aside, I had alot of problems with the
storytelling in this moviebecause it's like improv
throughout it and we have BillMurray's cameo where he's a
ghost investigator, debunker andour heroes have their first
ghost that they've captured andhe shows up and he's challenging
(48:39):
them and to prove that theyactually caught the ghost, they
let the ghost out and it killsBill Murray.
That's manslaughter and likeit's done as a joke, like it's
like.
I watched it, I was like thisis absolutely not funny.
It's like reckless disregardfor human life because she was
(49:02):
getting her feelings hurt.
It's like lazy writing, justdumb, and that would be arguably
second-degree manslaughter,which is a person is guilty of
manslaughter in the seconddegree when they recklessly
cause the death of anotherperson.
Criminally negligent homicide.
Is a person is guilty ofcriminally negligent homicide
(49:24):
when, with criminal negligence,he causes the death of another
person.
They could be on the hook forboth.
Like there would be a trialabout that of you.
Let out an inherently dangerousspirit and it immediately kills
a guy, flies out the window,crashes in.
You know it's like no.
So again, beautiful intent,horrible delivery, all right.
(49:51):
We now get to afterlife and wefind out when Spengler dies.
He dies in debt and so thereare issues with his daughter
being able to get property fromhim.
But does she inherit the debts?
And the answer is no, you don'tget.
You don't.
If dad dies and dad's in debt,you don't.
(50:16):
The debt doesn't transfer tothe firstborn.
However, dad's estate mighthave to be used to pay off the
debts and thus the kids getlittle to nothing after the
payoff.
Now the question is can a deadperson be put through bankruptcy
(50:38):
?
Because if he was alive, it'slike, hey, this is a matter
through bankruptcy.
Because if he was alive, it'slike, hey, this is a matter for
bankruptcy because he'scompletely underwater.
You can't put a dead personthrough bankruptcy.
The law does not allow that.
So only a person that residesor has a domiciled or a place of
business may be a debtor underthis title.
(50:58):
So if you have a family, Ilearned this the hard way with a
family member who diedcompletely underwater and was
like he should have gone throughbankruptcy while alive because
it was a train wreck to dealwith and with debts far
exceeding assets.
(51:20):
It was a very complicatedprobate.
So we have grandson Trevorfigures out how to start the
Echo One with the help of hisghost grandfather, and he takes
the Echo One on a joy ride.
He's not yet 16, but he's still16.
(51:40):
I think he's 15 in it, but hedoesn't have a driver's license.
So in Oklahoma, where thisscene takes place is no person
shall operate a motor vehicleupon public roads without having
a valid driver's license.
Okay, he's driving throughfields, he does get on the road
(52:00):
and he does go through town.
So, yeah, he drove a car wherehe shouldn't.
So in Oklahoma this is amisdemeanor and it's punishable
by a fine of not less than $50,nor more than $300 plus cost, by
any imprisonment for not morethan 30 days.
So he could get into trouble.
(52:23):
If there's property damage, momcould get into trouble and be
on the hook for that.
But we'll talk about parentalliability in a moment.
Now it's neat having the coolsummer school teacher, but when
the cool summer school teachertakes out a ghost trap and he
thinks it's a real ghost trapand there might be a ghost in it
(52:43):
and the answer is like let'sopen it and see what happens, I
think that's gross negligenceand it's not in the course of
his employment.
So I don't think the school isgoing to, I think they will cut
him loose.
For you know, you released aspirit that blew out all these
(53:06):
windows on buses and did allthis other damage because you
let this thing out, and you didthis in want of slight care and
diligence.
So, because there are differentlevels of negligence, I do
think this transfers to recklessdisregard.
And you're also encouragingminor children to engage in this
(53:33):
conduct as well, arguablyendangering the kids.
So, again, not not aresponsible adult, because if
it's, if it's real, let's notmess with it.
You found this where, so yourgrandfather hid it before he
died and he's now communicatedwith you beyond the grave making
(53:54):
sure it's protected, and youbring it to me.
Let's open this baby and seewhat happens.
So, again, it's dumb decisionmaking for plot, because without
plot the story doesn't happen.
If everyone's a reasonablyprudent person in the story,
it's a very boring story.
All right, let's talk aboutparental liability, and this
(54:15):
varies across state to state.
So parents can be legallyresponsible for damages caused
by their kids.
There are some states that sayno, parents don't get any
liability, and there are statesthat have said there can be
parental liability but it'sgoing to be capped at $500 or
(54:35):
$5,000 or $2,000 or $25,000.
California actually has areally high number if a junior
makes a boo-boo and parents canget sued for what the kid did.
So in the beginning of FrozenEmpire.
We have the next generation ofGhostbusters of Spangler's
(55:00):
daughter, her, either boyfriendor husband it's not quite clear
if they've married or not andher kids, one's 18, one's not.
And so we have Hero Girl, whois hanging out of a moving
vehicle firing her proton packat a ghost flying through New
(55:23):
York City and she is shootingbrooks off of buildings.
There's all these things thatare happening, and so New York
law says that the parent of achild they use the word infant,
but they're using it to saysomebody under the age of 18,
but over 10 years old shall beliable for damages caused by
(55:47):
that child if that kid haswillfully, maliciously or
unlawfully damaged, defaced ordestroyed such public or private
property, whether real orpersonal, personal.
She's opening fire and they'renot.
The Ghostbusters aren'temployed by the city.
They're like their status isnebulous.
(56:10):
They seem to be like anon-profit running around
capturing ghosts, not chargingpeople, meaning that Winston is
the deep pocket here fundingthis and you have law
enforcement going like don'tworry about it, ghostbusters are
on it.
That's all weird becausethere's no.
It's like this is like Avengersterritory, like they're not
(56:34):
operating under the auspices oflaw enforcement.
They're just driving aroundrecklessly firing weapons to
capture ghosts and there's.
Are they insured?
How are they insured?
How is this all working?
So when they get brought beforethe mayor, he rattles off some
(56:59):
damage numbers.
So there are three lamppoststhat have been destroyed
Lampposts in New York City.
Including installation.
The cost to replace those wouldbe about $2,000 to $3,000 each.
So let's just say, out of thegate, that's $9,000 just for the
(57:20):
lamp post replacement.
You have two parked Priusesthat get destroyed in this 2023
Prius is worth $28,000.
So we're looking at just under$60,000 worth of Prius.
Right there you have a fleet ofrental bikes.
I didn't count the rental bikes, but let's just say that if
there's 10 of them, that's$1,200 per bike.
(57:42):
So multiply that by 10 and yougot the bike coverage.
But then you get the issue ofbuilding damage.
Masonry work can range from 40to $100 per hour for labor with
stacking brick repair can be,you know, 1000 to $3500.
(58:03):
Or if it's like really bigfacade repairs, that could be up
to like $30,000 to a million.
So again, the property damage.
In this we would need expertwitnesses to watch the scene and
figure out like a cost ofrepair bid for what this would
(58:23):
all cost.
But it's up there with whathappened to him.
So again, that could be goingafter mom.
Or the fact that they're doingit as the Ghostbusters, as
opposed to Phoebe acting on herown, could mean that the
Ghostbusters are just on thehook for this.
(58:45):
But Phoebe also then goes outand blows out like does property
damage at a diner.
That's all Phoebe's doing andthe cost of that could just go
right to mom Because she's like14 in this, 15.
All right, you also have theendangering, the welfare of a
(59:06):
child.
Okay, she's cool action girl,we like that.
And she says fun, spunky things.
So again, we like that.
However, mom's taking the kidto work to fight ghosts.
Child endangerment in New Yorksays if someone knowingly acts
(59:27):
in a manner likely to beinjurious to the physical
welfare of a child, or ifthere's a substantial risk or
danger to the child's life orbeing a parent, they're charged
with the care of a child lessthan 18 years of age.
They're charged with the careof a child less than 18 years of
(59:47):
age if they fail or refuse toexercise reasonable diligence
and the control of such child toprevent them from becoming a
person in need of supervisionlike they could.
You know phase 10, 3 or 7 of 7.
There are different acts in inNew York Family Court.
So again they could be breakingthe law and causing child
endangerment because the kid'shanging out of a gunner seat of
(01:00:11):
a car that's driving anexhibition of speed, not
following any laws, and she'sfiring a nuclear accelerator at
a ghost.
Is it cool?
Yes, do you want to argue?
Your honor, it was cool.
No, I mean like I'm like you'rejust arguing for jury
(01:00:34):
nullification at that point ofyeah, we know it was wrong, but
it was awesome.
That's yeah, it's like yourhonor.
Look at all the good we did.
It's like.
It's like we'll look cool.
Your Honor, right?
Yeah, it's like your Honor.
Look at all the good we did.
It's like it's only, like youknow, $3 million worth of damage
.
It was awesome.
You know they're not going tobe happy with that.
(01:00:54):
So, with that, lots of fun.
You can find us on you know, ourwebsite, thelegalgeekscom.
We're on social media,thelegalgeekscom.
We're on social media, rangingfrom threads, tiktok, facebook
and Instagram.
Our podcast is where you listento high quality podcasts, be it
Apple podcast, amazon Music orSpotify or Podbean and a bunch
(01:01:18):
of others, and we've got timefor questions because they have
us here for a long time so wecan just hang out for a little
bit and then go to another panel.
So you were talking about theperson code of the ghost, right,
uh-huh?
So in the very beginning itgoes to one of the New York City
libraries, yep, and they'regoing.
You know the ghost lady?
(01:01:40):
Yeah, so you can say, you know,does she has enough personhood?
Oh, that's a tough one, it'ssuch a good one.
She was shooting them alive,but then she also exploded and
tried to attack them.
Yeah, that's a hard one becauseit's migrated, you know,
(01:02:04):
because the first movie hasghosts just being scary and it's
like go get her, ray.
Like you know, grab her.
That was your plan.
And again, there are wonderfulquotes from the first movie of I
love this plan and I'm excitedto be a part of it.
But the idea is she I would sayshe's an intelligent haunting
(01:02:31):
because there's agency there,but she doesn't speak and she's
doing things that are, I think,damaging.
Yeah, because there's.
You know, you have the librarycards flying out of the Dewey
Decimal System for the cardcatalog.
(01:02:53):
There are things that could beinjurious to people and so that
sounds dangerous, which wouldwarrant, I think, capture.
But if she's just hanging outdown there going shush, then
what's the threat other thanscaring people to bejesus?
But that's a thoughtfulquestion because again it's like
(01:03:19):
what's the status of the ghost?
Others, others, others.
So one of the things I reallyfound interesting from Afterlife
was Shandor's effectivelysuspended animation of some kind
(01:03:41):
in his tomb and and then Gozerimmediately rips him in half and
kills him, and so it's justlike that could have gotten
really interesting.
Was he dead?
Was he a ghost Like?
What category was he in?
And figuring out what darkmagic that had him looking like
(01:04:04):
Lenin in a glass case waitingfor Gozer's return.
So again, it was just some fun,interesting ideas.
Which one was that?
Afterlife, yeah, yeah.
When Gozer rises again, yeah.
(01:04:25):
And when the kids are downthere and they're looking at the
four proton packs that grandpaleft to fire upon and keep the
end of the world from happening,he stirs, it looks like he
takes a breath and turns hishead.
It's yeah.
(01:04:48):
And his friend freaks out andstarts screaming.
He moved as anyone would.
Yes, there would be screamingand running really fast.
Yeah, again, it's a funfranchise they're doing well
again.
You see, the folks who havelike are in those Ghostbuster
(01:05:11):
fan clubs and they dress up andthey go to community events and
they visit six kids in ahospital.
They do wonderful things.
So, and it's again nicecommunity.
Other questions Okay, there isa fun what I think will be a fun
(01:05:35):
515 panel.
So yeah, so I'll be here for alittle while longer, but again,
thank you all for attending andenjoy the rest of the show.
Thank you Well.
When Ghostbusters came out in 1984,
it was the number one movie inthe world for my brother's
birthday in June.
It was the number one movie inthe world for my birthday in
September.
Only time that's happened.
When I turned 10, over 40 yearsago, it was the number one
(00:25):
movie, and I'm now 50, and welive in this wonderful age where
we keep getting Ghostbustersmovies and there's going to be
an animated series on Netflixsoon and I used to do a Saturday
morning cartoon, yep.
So again, we live in this greatera that the nerds are in
(00:46):
charge, we are writing content,we're the decision makers, and
so Gen X is kind of in charge itright now and at least for
probably another decade beforeour generation starts retiring.
And it's like here we are.
Yeah, it's like it's notrevenge.
We're in charge now and it'slike here we are.
Yeah, it's like it's notrevenge.
(01:07):
We're in charge now, like it'sworth.
You know, back in the day whensaying I, like Doctor who, was
publicly saying I spend Fridaynights home alone, and now we're
the ones in charge and we'rethe ones making things that are
popular, and I am grateful forthis era and that is just so
(01:29):
cool that that's outside.
So I have a blog and podcastcalled the Legal Geeks, and this
is where we go to cons.
We podcast, we blog, and one ofthe earliest posts I did was is
it false imprisonment tocapture a ghost?
So the Ghostbusters are runningaround capturing ghosts.
(01:49):
Is this false imprisonment?
And the answer is possibly not.
And let's get into that In NewYork, because we're talking
about New York law being in here, let's use New York law to
(02:09):
discuss this.
So first thing we do is what'sthe law say?
So that way, it's not just someesoteric discussion about
capturing the ghost.
We need to know the rule first.
So New York law states a personis guilty of unlawful
imprisonment in the first degreewhen he restrains another
person under circumstances whichexpose the latter to a risk of
(02:32):
serious physical injury, and aperson is guilty of unlawful
imprisonment in the seconddegree when he restrains another
person.
Okay, so we've got thefoundation here.
What happens when you capture aghost?
Well, we have to define what'sa person.
So a person means a human beingand, where appropriate, a
(02:58):
public or private corporation,an unincorporated association, a
partnership, a government or agovernmental instrumentality.
Well, what's a ghost?
Does a ghost count as a person?
And that gets into the issue ofdoes personhood continue after
(03:20):
death?
And the issue whether anon-human animal has a
fundamental right to libertyprotected by the writ of habeas
corpus is profound andfar-reaching.
It speaks to our relationshipwith all life around us.
Ultimately, we'd not be able toignore it.
While it may be arguable that achimpanzee is not a person,
there is no doubt that is notmerely a thing is no doubt that
(03:46):
is not merely a thing.
There have been some animalrights cases arguing whether or
not like, say, orcas incaptivity could have a lawsuit
brought on their behalf sayingthat their rights are being
violated.
And when they that's been triedas saying like, are orcas same
rights as having people forstanding, that case was no, okay
(04:07):
.
But the issue of like with thischimpanzee, it's like oh, this
is like.
It's weird because it's notquite the same.
But are you dealing withsomething that should have
rights?
We don't want a monkey gettingzapped, okay, it's just, what
kind of society do we want?
Do you want so like?
(04:29):
We have laws that preventanimal abuse, all right.
How do you apply that to a ghost?
And the original Ghostbustersmovies?
The ghosts don't seem humananymore.
Slimer doesn't look like ahuman being.
(04:51):
It looks like a flying potato,that's green, that's eating
things.
That's not again calling animalcontrol for an animal running
around seems like theappropriate thing to do when you
have coyotes in theneighborhood.
The Ghostbusters Frozen Empire,where we have a ghost that
(05:14):
still retained her humanity andis walking around interacting
and playing chess that stillsounds like a person acting and
playing chess that still soundslike a person and having a
discussion with Phoebe Spenglerlike they're actually talking.
This isn't just like a weirdhaunting of something that seems
(05:37):
demonic in nature.
So the law has this wonderfulconcept called it depends and it
might depend.
So capturing Slimer and puttingSlimer in the containment unit
I don't think is falseimprisonment.
(05:58):
Capturing a ghost that stillseems human could tip in the
other direction, because it'sgoing to be very hard to have an
interview with Slimer.
Slimer is just living his bestlife, wanting snacks.
Okay, that sounds more like ananimal.
On the flip side, if you'replaying chess with a ghost, that
(06:24):
doesn't sound like somethingyou're going to take a proton
pack to, and if you do, you'regoing to feel weird about it.
And if you feel weird about it,that means this is probably the
wrong thing to be doing Now ifthe ghost was raising hell and
breaking things and things areflying around again, it's
(06:47):
sounding non-human.
Capturing that makes more senseand something we're going to be
more comfortable with.
If the ghost presents as adecomposed body that's
terrorizing others, that doesn'tsound like it's retained its
humanity.
That doesn't sound like it'sretained its humanity.
So again, it's a veryuncomfortable, weird discussion
(07:08):
to get into of is it still human, making it a person?
So, re-watching Ghostbustersfrom 1984, I can say with all
honesty Vinkman's a creep, thishas not aged well at all.
I can say with all honesty,vinkman's a creep, this has not
(07:29):
aged well at all.
I don't know how much of it was.
It was not aging well lastnight too.
You watch it.
It's like whoa, whoa, whoa.
Was this just improv, gonewrong?
I don't know.
But Vkman as a college professorhidden on the lady coeds is not
(07:50):
okay.
Torturing the male student isalso super not okay and he's
like getting paid five bucks,which in 1984 money might be
more like $45 today, maybe $30.
I haven't run the indexcalculator, but that's a little
(08:13):
amount of money.
To be zapping somebody in orderto impress a, say, 19 or
20-year-old college student.
The psychology department wouldnot be student?
No, no, you are.
There's issues of like tortureof the student that you're just
(08:34):
zapping, who actually does seemto be presenting real psychic
abilities to identify three wavylines and just trying to seduce
a co-ed.
Like it is not okay.
You're going to subject theschool to liability.
And so vinkman is a creep.
(08:55):
What he does to sigourneyweaver's character is full-on
stalking and creepy behavior andit makes it hard to watch the
original movie.
Knowing what I know now as a 50year old man.
Going like this is absolutelynot okay.
But that continues.
(09:17):
So you're not a good friend ifyou're convincing your buddy to
get an extremely unfavorablemortgage rate on a loan for the
house that he was born in.
It's what his parents left himand this is how you're going to
(09:37):
fund your startup getting a 19%interest rate on a third
mortgage.
He doesn't even try to talk himdown and Ray's going like dude,
dude, like this is absolutelyagain, it sounds funny in the
(09:57):
moment watching it because youlaugh.
It's like 19% and he didn'teven negotiate, ha ha ha.
And then you think about itDude, not cool.
Like you have a highlyspeculative startup company to
hunt ghosts and you might bedestroying your buddy's life in
the process if it doesn't workout.
(10:18):
Now there's also a concept inthe law called usury on that
puts caps on interest rates.
So in New York the maximum ratefor for an interest rate is 16%
.
Okay, so the fact that in 1984the rate was 19% sounds
(10:42):
grotesque by today's standards,because that would probably be
like 30.
Just something really offensive.
So, again, find another way.
Or maybe don't let Vinkman bethe one to negotiate.
And again, how much of this isjust Bill Murray doing improv?
(11:08):
Yes, sir, this might be a goodlesson in general.
Whenever somebody you knowcomes to you that has a short
thing and wants to invest,they're almost always full of
your face.
I have friends and family thatfall for that Because, again,
being in Silicon Valley where wewrite deals on cocktail napkins
, and, yeah, there are a lot ofsuccess stories of people making
billions and having nice housesin Atherton and Portola Valley,
(11:31):
and then there are a lot ofthem that end horribly as well.
So this is, again, it's superuncomfortable.
I don't know if this was theintent or if they just thought
it seemed funny in the moment,but when you actually think
about it, it's not.
And again, it's more disturbingbehavior from Vinkman, which is
(11:53):
just throughout the first movie.
It pivots in the second movieand so in the following films
there's a good arc for him atleast.
So the main thrust from theoriginal Ghostbusters is the
federal government's the bad guy, and specifically the EPA.
Because Walter Peck comes inwanting to first inspect the
(12:18):
Ghostbusters containment unitand Venkman is antagonistic to
him with like did you use themagic word?
Now, as an attorney, Iabsolutely would not want a
client just letting the feds inwithout a warrant of some kind,
without some paperwork.
But they did make nuclearaccelerators that are backpacks
(12:43):
that are absolutely notregulated.
There's a public safety issuewith having people walking
around with a nuclearaccelerator on their back that
they didn't test until taking itinto trapping a ghost.
Yeah, but they did.
But again this raises the issuehow do you even get that
(13:04):
licensed?
And again, this is why lawyersexist, because an environmental
lawyer would need to figure outhow do we navigate this, because
this is funky, it's complicated.
I don't have an answer for itbecause I don't do this type of
law, but you would need to sitdown and figure out how do we do
this so we don't create anenvironmental mess by having one
(13:26):
of those things go critical inNew York City.
So what would again not ascientist, but what would happen
if you had that thing breach insome way?
So there's actually case lawthat cites the Ghostbusters.
So this quote is actually froma lawsuit in 1988.
(13:48):
Because judges also go to themovies.
They're people too.
I have a lot of friends who arejudges and this will shock you.
They have hobbies.
They don't live in a monastery.
They too go to the movies.
They too go to cons movies.
They too go to cons like this,because this will also be
(14:08):
surprising People who grew upreading comic books and now have
the title of your Honor.
There's a lot of them.
They also enjoy pop culture.
They like thinking about deepissues.
The kids who are running aroundto make cosplay of complex
(14:29):
characters.
They will grow up and beattorneys and judges or
congressmen or governors.
So again, I take comfort goinglike that.
That kid that made thatStarscream cosplay watch her,
she'll go far.
That kid that made thatStarscream cosplay watch her,
(14:53):
she'll go far.
Good, we need that.
I have a really good closefriend who is a federal judge
who will DM his kids Dungeonsand Dragons games.
I call him if I have to do thatwith my scouts.
So again, this wonderful quote.
(15:17):
Movie goers will remember theenvironmental police in the
movie Ghostbusters would besurprised.
The practice of allowing thetarget of an administrative
warrant to forbid entry andthereby convert the warrant
proceeding into a contemptproceeding is the standard
method of enforcing suchwarrants.
So the way that the breachscene could have played out was
(15:41):
no, let's go before a judge andwe're going to settle this that
way, as opposed to we're goingto turn it off based upon your
order to do so, without evenknowing what effect this might
have.
I think, what if we said thatand the thing exploded?
Well, it does explode.
It explodes and kills people,as opposed to letting things out
(16:03):
and thus also bringing aboutthe end of the world situation.
So again, let's go before ajudge and they can have an
evidentiary hearing and we canfigure this out together,
because we have systems in placeto avoid things blowing up.
So, which brings us to thebreach of the containment unit.
(16:24):
Who is liable for the damagedue to the breach of the
containment unit?
Who is liable for the damagedue to the shutdown of the
containment system atGhostbusters HQ?
Again, I, good friend, who wasa judge in New York City.
He would go by the firehouseand times I visited like we
didn't have time to go do thattogether.
But again, this is somethingpeople in New York could go.
(16:46):
Do they now have GhostbustersDay for the anniversary of the
movie release that they've triedturning into like a May the 4th
or a Star Trek Day typecelebration for Ghostbusters
fans?
The director, some of the castwere hanging out there.
A whole bunch of people inGhostbusters attire were at the
(17:06):
firehouse just last month.
So breach of the containmentsystem and liability, all right,
it was the Con Ed electriciannegligent shutting down the
containment system.
The Con Ed supervisor admits Idon't even know what this does.
Con Ed supervisor admits Idon't even know what this does.
And so he gets the unfortunateposition of I'm just following
(17:29):
orders by the police officerwho's being told by a federal
agent to do this.
That raises all kinds of weirdjurisdictional issues because
you have the federal government,you have NYPD and you have Con
Ed.
Who's in charge here?
(17:50):
Who's going to be liable?
Who are the deep pockets?
We know who are not the deeppockets and that's the
Ghostbusters.
But do you go after them fornegligence Negligence per se,
which means they're negligentbecause they didn't follow the
law.
Is there strict liability inoperating the ghost containment
(18:10):
unit, which is highlyexperimental and it also raises
a super fun type problem?
So for them, what laws couldhave been at play?
And there are a variety ofnuclear regulatory laws that you
could get into saying thatthere's negligence on their part
.
But it was working until PECsaid shut it down.
(18:35):
So do you get it worked untilthe feds intervened?
So again problem the UnitedStates government.
Suing the federal government ishard because there's sovereign
immunity.
And the way you get throughsovereign immunity is the
federal government says thereare times that you can sue us
and that's through the federaltort claims act.
(18:57):
Does the federal tort claimsact apply in this situation?
Apply in the situation?
So the United States stands inthe shoes of its employee whose
negligence or wrongful acts inthe course and scope of their
employment caused the plaintiffsinjury.
There's all kinds of steps thatneed to be followed in order to
(19:19):
get to that level of a waiverof being able to sue the federal
government, in this casebecause of walter peck's
interference and getting them toshut down the containment unit.
I don't know if it would work.
There would be a lot of motionpractice, slugging it out to say
(19:41):
like was peck unreasonable?
I don't think peck'sunreasonable in wanting to make
sure that there's a safefacility in the heart of New
York City.
I do think Peck becomesunreasonable in saying shut it
down.
I kind of wondered if it wasentirely because of Bankman's
response to him and so Peck justdecided, decided to be busy
(20:06):
about it.
Yeah, and that's probably theanswer here of two wrongs.
Don't make a right.
Okay, it's like okay, so you'regoing to cut off your nose to
spite your own face situation.
And that's what's happened here, because they turned into jerks
to each other.
As opposed to no adult was inthe room.
(20:29):
And again, if Ray had beenthere or Spangler, could this
have played out differently, asopposed to having Venkman as
your point person who hits oncollege co-eds and doesn't even
bother negotiating a 19%interest rate on his buddy's
mortgage, third mortgage.
(20:50):
So again, not the ambassadorthat you want.
What about New York City?
This gets weird because youhave different sovereigns at
play.
You know you have the federalgovernment bossing around, the
New York City Police Departmenttelling Con Ed to shut it down.
(21:13):
So again, this is a mixed bag.
It's also not how government'ssupposed to work.
You know the feds generallydon't tell local government what
to do in enforcing a federalpolicy Like this is why people
are fighting about, you know,immigration cases of immigration
(21:34):
exclusively federal.
So the idea of saying, hey, Iwant the local police department
to enforce something that'sexclusively federal becomes
problematic very quickly.
Because think back a decade agowhen Arizona started enacting
(21:55):
an immigration law of their own,trying to pull people over to
prove citizenship.
On whether or not the state ofArizona is claiming we want to
get rid of people who are nothere legally, and that went to
the Supreme Court and it wasthis is exclusively federal, not
a matter for the states.
So what happens here?
(22:19):
So I think if I were suing onbehalf of people who had
property damage, you nameeverybody as a defendant.
Okay, because even theGhostbusters, even with the
people with the small checkbooks, because you want to get
everyone Looking at, there'slitigation going on right now
(22:43):
because of the fires in LA, andand you have insurance companies
that have started lawsuits, youhave plaintiffs that have
started lawsuits and they'regoing after the public utilities
, and so that's just.
It's ongoing.
And so again it's like, who didyou sue?
(23:03):
And the answer might beeverybody that you have a good
faith belief was responsible andthe shutting down the
containment unit.
Everybody is a good answer.
For starters.
So Evo Shandor built the housethat Dana lived in.
(23:27):
That is this radio beacon forGozer.
Can you sue his estate fordoing that?
Because without Shandorbuilding this temple on top of a
high rise, you would not havehad the Gozer incident of 1984,
(23:54):
which means you're suing a deadman, and the way you sue a dead
man is the estate.
Now, is this estate trulyliquidated with nothing left in
it, or is there still, like afoundation that has money in it
from what Shandor did and you'dwant to do some discovery?
(24:15):
But I think it's worth lookingat for being able to go like
this crazy dude did this?
Are they still collecting moneyin any way?
Do they have assets in any way?
Because if there's assets, gofor it.
You also have the entirebuilding itself.
Who owns that right now?
(24:37):
Is this like a toxic tort casethat you're suing everyone who's
touched the property and againyou'd have subsequent owners.
That you're suing everyonewho's touched the property and
again you'd have subsequentowners who didn't know about the
Gozer Temple at the top.
So again they have a reallygood defense of like whoa, but
(24:57):
again people who end up buyingproperty that has toxic waste on
it, like runoff from, oh, drycleaners or you know Silicon
Valley has all of thesemiconductor business and all
that runoff that went to Alvisoand is why the mud in Alviso is
(25:19):
contaminated.
You have that of like you can'tgo clean that up easily.
That would cost.
Yep, yeah, it's so.
(25:39):
Again, that attaches to theland and thus if you end up in a
lawsuit you start looking atevery insurance policy that is
attached to that land over 80years to like when the
contamination began.
It gets complicated, it getsweird.
Not my area, but could that sortof strategy work in going after
(26:04):
, say, ivo Shandor's estate orsay the property owner itself?
I don't know, we don't have alot of background on it, but we
do know from afterlife thatShandor in, but we do know from
Afterlife that Shandor inOklahoma built a town and his
name's all over the place.
(26:24):
So is this like the Carnegie'sor the Rockefeller's?
Is there still a family estatewith money to go after?
Yes, sir, this is a very, verycommon question.
It's not.
Can you sue or are you going torecover?
Anybody can sue for anything,right?
Yeah, you want to get past amotion to dismiss.
(26:44):
Can you successfully sue, isthe question.
I don't know if this would workbecause I don't have enough
facts to actually dig into thisand do the analysis.
I can spot the issue from themovie and go.
No writer was thinking about meas a lawyer wanting to do this,
(27:06):
and thus they give me enoughfacts and canon that I can play
with.
But it's still fun.
Now the other one is Ray,liable for choosing the form of
the traveler, and the answer'sthe traveler, and the answer is
a maybe Because the others.
(27:28):
You didn't do it on purpose, butthere wasn't a giant J Edgar
Hoover, which was the examplethat Vinkman throws out of.
Like you know, choose yourdestroyer.
And it's like, oh, if we thinkof a giant J Edgar Hoover, j
Edgar Hoover's going to appear,that doesn't happen.
So, like everyone's able toclear their heads, and it's, you
(27:50):
know, ray, thinking about beinga child, you know, by the
campfire and Mr Staypuff, andagain, it is one of the best
moments in cinematic history.
I saw the panels with thespecial effects team on how they
did it and that was very coolon those guys, on what they did
(28:14):
and how they were honored fordecades Because the guy who made
the costume got to be in it.
So again he was very happy andso it's just all this fun stuff.
But Ray might have someliability here.
But you then get into the issueof like is this foreseeable harm
(28:38):
?
Well, they know from pastexperience that the Travelers
appeared before.
So again there could be anargument.
There is some foreseeabilityand there was known risk that
something could show up,something from our imagination
if we inadvertently pick our owndestroyer, if we inadvertently
(28:58):
pick our own destroyer.
So Ray picking the Stay Puftman as the traveler, I think
there are defenses If that ever.
I wouldn't want that to get out.
The only people who know arethe Ghostbusters, because they
were the only ones at the top ofthe building, so they can
(29:20):
control the narrative and Iwanted to admit that part.
You know it's like you couldcontrol.
A lot was happening, you know,and all of a sudden they picked
the Stay Puft man from my mind.
And here we are.
It's like you don't need to sayI was told I could pick the
traveler, because if you admitthat, I think things get very
(29:42):
bad.
If it's, I don't know whathappened.
Leave that alone.
People are really freaked out.
All right, so does the lawrecognize the existence of
ghosts, true or false?
Who said false, okay, okay.
(30:14):
So, those of you who said false, you are correct.
The I learned about it inproperty, so it's 1991.
And some folks buy a house andit's not disclosed that and you
(30:45):
know the court saying like, yeah, casper's actually there, it's.
The prior owners didn'tdisclose the fact that we've had
TV shows here.
We're, like, known in thecommunity because of being a
haunted house.
We're known in the communitybecause of being a haunted house
and this is from the opinion.
Plaintiff, to his horror,discovered that the house he had
(31:05):
recently contracted to purchasewas widely reputed to be
possessed by poltergeists,reportedly seen by defendants,
sellers and members of herfamily on numerous occasions
over the last nine years, likeif the walls are bleeding and
the cat's flying through the air.
You know, and you're calling TVshows and you're on the news,
(31:32):
like that transcends into.
You're going to need todisclose that.
And then when somebody moves in, it's like, oh, we're now
dealing with weird things thatare happening.
This court said, yeah, thishouse, as a matter of law, is
haunted, and that was one of thecoolest parts of my first year
(31:53):
of law school.
There was a wild Rip Warrenclass getting into.
You know we get to talk aboutghosts, you know.
Thank you, professor Coletta.
All right, if there's a deathin the house, you have to
(32:14):
Disclose that.
Disclose it to the virus.
Yes, sir, disclose that.
Yes, sir.
Audience MEMBER 1 If one court,let's say San Francisco, or a
county judge, recognized ghostsin the case, do other counties
or states have to respect thatkind of judgment?
No, so this gets into the issueof that's an East Coast opinion.
(32:37):
I don't know if there's anyCalifornia cases that have said
that, and just because it'sstated in, I want to say
Pennsylvania I think that wasPennsylvania.
I could be wrong something likewe don't need a lawyer to buy a
house in California, like theother 49 states, you're not
going to just buy a housewithout a lawyer.
(32:58):
So we use, you know, realtorswho are doing quasi-law.
Other states go, that's crazytalk and here we are.
So every case is different andyou could try that argument.
It could be persuasive but it'snot binding.
(33:25):
If you come in and you've gotGoPro footage of the wall
starting to bleed, portal to thenether realm opens up, probably
it's like, okay, we're going totalk about AI now and go like,
is this special effects?
And you're going to have expertwitnesses?
Because there are people whoare getting terrifying footage
(33:48):
on their cell phone cameras ofthings that don't make sense.
And then you have peopleanalyzing the video going like
there's nothing there thatshould be casting that shadow.
Or they figure out what it isand debunk it.
Because most investigatorsstart with debunking whether
(34:12):
it's UFO or paranormal, thatthey want it to be credible,
which means they need to figureout if there's a way to debunk
it, and so they ask the hardquestions and then when they go
like, yeah, we can't explainthis, that's when everyone gets
kind of uncomfortable.
All right, so Ghostbusters 2 hasa courtroom scene, so I'd be
(34:35):
remiss not to talk about thecourtroom scene.
So they're in court becausethey're violating a restraining
order, willful destruction ofpublic property, fraud and
malicious mischief.
For those who don't remember,ghostbusters 2 begins with the
Ghostbusters being blamed forthe New York incident and so
there's a restraining ordersaying they, like they can't go
(34:57):
out, do ghost-busting activities.
So that's why we have somedoing birthday parties and we've
got Vinkman doing his TV showand Spangler's doing
psychological tortureexperiments with a child with
now take away the puppy.
So like their lives havechanged.
(35:17):
So like their lives havechanged.
But when there's issues withDana's kid, they answer the call
and they end up tearing up partof a New York street, which is
something public people aren'tsupposed to do.
You just don't go play con edand tear up a chunk of street
and then get involved with asupernatural incident.
(35:39):
So they end up in court.
All right, this is Little Lawyerin Lessons.
This is out of Malway's book ontrial presentations and what
lawyers should do.
Now there are those who don'tlike Malway and, like some of
the other authors, I like Malway, All right.
So what goes into an openingstatement?
You tell the trier of factwhether it's the jury, the judge
(36:01):
, your themes, you present yourcase from your point of view.
The opening statement can onlyrefer to anticipated evidence
and that evidence must beadmissible.
You need to know the law thatyou're talking about.
You need to know the judge'sperspective.
So doing homework on the judgeis important.
You need to know how to chooseand use themes to send an
(36:23):
emotional message and you needto engage in storytelling.
And court TV is popular.
I don't watch it because I wantto yell at the screen.
Also, when I'm not playinglawyer in real life, I don't
watch lawyer stuff.
I will watch Star Trek or aStar Wars show or a Ghostbusters
(36:48):
show or Jurassic Park,something that's fun.
So when family members startgiving me lawyer books for
Christmas, it's like I don'tgive you books about what you do
at work.
It's hurtful.
Don't give you books about whatyou do at work.
It's hurtful.
Anyhoo, all right.
So what goes into the content ofan effective opening statement?
You need to get the judge'sattention.
(37:09):
You need to show your position.
You need to anchor facts andissues to memorable themes and
labels.
Again coming up with littlemantras of again there are all
kinds of examples, but again youwant a little mantra that
people remember of like explainit to me, like I'm a five year
(37:31):
old, like that you know.
Again the famous one and I hateit.
If the glove don't fit, youmust acquit.
Hate that, but again, it's amemorable line that people can
identify.
Remember like a commercial.
You remember it.
You want to create a preferencefor your position with the jury
(37:54):
or the judge?
Alright, you want to deliver itin a positive attitude.
You want to look comfortable.
You don't want to deliver it ina positive attitude.
You want to look comfortable.
You don't want to show up in arumpled suit.
You want to look good.
You want to be on your A gameand you don't want to look like
you just rolled out of bed.
You don't want to look likeit's the paper chase.
You want to be calm, poised,collected and make your point
(38:21):
effectively.
And also this radical thing thatlawyers do, we do practice.
It's like a performance.
We actually have to practicecomplex words, complex names and
go like, hey, what soundsbetter?
That's why we have war roomsLike last summer.
This time last year we weregetting ready for trial and we
(38:46):
were going through things.
We were practicing.
What exhibits do we want toshow to convince the jury of our
position?
What are the buzzwords that welike?
And we were practicingdifferent deliveries for that.
So let's talk about LouisTully's opening statement.
It's short but pointless.
(39:08):
Just think back.
He shows up and he's rambling.
He talks about getting turnedinto a dog and these guys saved
me and here I am.
And then sits down and it'slike okay.
And it's Spangler says likeshort but pointless.
It's like it's not good.
So we get Venkman on the standand you have the witness leading
(39:31):
the lawyer.
That also doesn't happen.
You know you can't ask leadingquestions of the witness, and in
this we have the lawyer being apuppet of Venkman and it
doesn't go well.
Like this is everything alawyer should not do in court.
(39:52):
Lewis Telly does All right.
So we have ghosts appear.
They're the Scolari brothersand they kidnap the DA, and so
this raises the issue is thatcause to dismiss the criminal
charges against the Ghostbusters?
And the answer is a strong no.
(40:13):
Like that doesn't resolve theissue.
However, it should be cause todismiss the judicial restraining
order prohibiting theparanormal investigations and
eliminations.
Yeah, that seems like areasonable thing for what's
going on.
It's like the DA floats away,hanging upside down by her ankle
.
Two guys who were executed areflying around the courtroom.
(40:36):
I think we're good.
Get rid of that restrainingorder.
So now lawyers need to becompetent, and there's an issue
about you have a tax attorneywho's giving legal
representation to theGhostbusters.
Lawyers should only providecompetent representation.
(40:59):
So, like I've done civillitigation, it's people suing
people.
When you're a lawyer, you getfamily members and friends
asking you bizarre legal adviceand it's not in your wheelhouse,
(41:21):
and so when somebody's asked mefor, say, family law advice
about getting a divorce, I don'tdo that, like that is not my
area and I will refer them tofriends who do family law.
Or if there's a somebody askeda really complex IP intellectual
property question, not my bagBrought in, connected them with
a friend who does IP law becausehe's really good at IP law and
(41:46):
so he can help and help themfigure out their issue.
But there are emergencysituations where a tax attorney
could give criminal defenseadvice if it's an emergency and
this emergency situation canapply with something bad's just
(42:09):
happened and the family memberor friend needs immediate help
figuring out what to do, andit's okay.
And so this is the ABA modelrules and we'll read it.
So we have it right.
In an emergency, a lawyer maygive assistance or advice in a
matter in which lawyer does nothave the skill ordinarily
(42:31):
required, where referral to orconsultation or association with
another lawyer would beimpractical.
Even in an emergency, however,assistance should be limited to
that reasonably necessary in thecircumstances, for
ill-considered action underemergency conditions can
jeopardize the client'sinterests.
So you've got to be careful.
(42:52):
Like again if somebody calledme and said I was just in an
auto crash and I'm beingarrested.
What should I do?
I'm not a criminal defenseattorney.
My advice would be say nothingand say that you're exercising
your right to counsel under theFifth and Sixth Amendments,
(43:13):
because that should shut downall questioning by law
enforcement and that should getyou a public defender at your
side very quickly.
But don't blow it by talking,and that would be the advice.
Shut up and demand a lawyer andit's not me, because I don't do
(43:34):
that.
So let's take the Statue ofLiberty on a joyride to stop
Vigo, the Carpathian.
So generally, you shouldn'tdeputize a national monument and
take it into combat.
That's just something that wedon't do.
But there's something calledthe necessity defense and that
(44:00):
says we're gonna have to breakthe law to stop a greater harm.
So if that greater harm iseternal darkness and dogs and
cats sleeping together and endof the world type situation and
we have the happy slime thatwe're going to use to rally
(44:22):
people on New Year's Eve to stopthe end of the world, cool,
we're going to do that.
We are knowingly breaking thelaw by taking the Statute of
Liberty out on a walk, but it'sthe only thing we can do to stop
immediate harm and it has to beimmediate.
(44:43):
So the necessity defensedoesn't work.
Of my truck was stuck in themud and I'm an American male so
I'm going to go steal a tractorin order to pull my truck to
safety.
Nope, that's not the necessitydefense.
But if there's a child stuck inthe car and it's sinking,
(45:07):
people are going to be like,okay, you saved the kid, fine,
similar here.
So again they're defendable.
But we actually see a referenceto this in Frozen Empire.
They use the term, they saysomething negative about the
Statue of Liberty, ignoring thepart about saving the world.
(45:31):
So there's a lot of blame thehero and ignore the villain type
situation, which is again, it'slike a form of victim blaming.
It's like you all were going todie.
We stopped you all from dyingand you're blaming us for the
property damage from us keepingyou alive.
(45:53):
So again, in defense of othersis a little different, it has to
be.
So pick another pop culturereference that's also 40 years
old this year, Back to thefuture.
(46:15):
So George McFly stops hisfuture wife from being assaulted
.
George was not in any danger.
He could have just turnedaround and walked away and let
Elaine have something trulyhorrible happen.
(46:37):
And he says, nope, if you getyour goddamn hands off her Hero
moment.
Very cool, audience cheers.
Defense of others that'seffective defense of others.
There has to be harm, and soyou want to avoid the trolley
car analysis of, hey, thetrolley car is crashing down the
(47:01):
street and the only way to stopthe trolley from crashing and
all these people dying is Ishoot someone and use them as a
brake.
That's not okay.
All right, okay, all right.
(47:30):
Let's touch on the 2016Ghostbusters, which highlights
the importance of representationmatters.
I was, you know, I'm a whiteboy.
I was 9 to 10 years old whenGhostbusters comes out.
Three of the Ghostbusters looklike me.
I feel represented 2016,.
The all-female Ghostbusterscome out and there's beautiful
footage of little girls inGhostbusters attire interacting
(47:54):
with the cast, and it's freakingadorable.
And it highlights theimportance of having characters
that have representation,because if everything is just
like we're just gonna have whitedudes in this, you're ignoring
a significant part of thepopulation, and so being able to
go let's make it look likesociety is a good thing.
(48:16):
So, with that aside, I had alot of problems with the
storytelling in this moviebecause it's like improv
throughout it and we have BillMurray's cameo where he's a
ghost investigator, debunker andour heroes have their first
ghost that they've captured andhe shows up and he's challenging
(48:39):
them and to prove that theyactually caught the ghost, they
let the ghost out and it killsBill Murray.
That's manslaughter and likeit's done as a joke, like it's
like.
I watched it, I was like thisis absolutely not funny.
It's like reckless disregardfor human life because she was
(49:02):
getting her feelings hurt.
It's like lazy writing, justdumb, and that would be arguably
second-degree manslaughter,which is a person is guilty of
manslaughter in the seconddegree when they recklessly
cause the death of anotherperson.
Criminally negligent homicide.
Is a person is guilty ofcriminally negligent homicide
(49:24):
when, with criminal negligence,he causes the death of another
person.
They could be on the hook forboth.
Like there would be a trialabout that of you.
Let out an inherently dangerousspirit and it immediately kills
a guy, flies out the window,crashes in.
You know it's like no.
So again, beautiful intent,horrible delivery, all right.
(49:51):
We now get to afterlife and wefind out when Spengler dies.
He dies in debt and so thereare issues with his daughter
being able to get property fromhim.
But does she inherit the debts?
And the answer is no, you don'tget.
You don't.
If dad dies and dad's in debt,you don't.
(50:16):
The debt doesn't transfer tothe firstborn.
However, dad's estate mighthave to be used to pay off the
debts and thus the kids getlittle to nothing after the
payoff.
Now the question is can a deadperson be put through bankruptcy
(50:38):
?
Because if he was alive, it'slike, hey, this is a matter
through bankruptcy.
Because if he was alive, it'slike, hey, this is a matter for
bankruptcy because he'scompletely underwater.
You can't put a dead personthrough bankruptcy.
The law does not allow that.
So only a person that residesor has a domiciled or a place of
business may be a debtor underthis title.
(50:58):
So if you have a family, Ilearned this the hard way with a
family member who diedcompletely underwater and was
like he should have gone throughbankruptcy while alive because
it was a train wreck to dealwith and with debts far
exceeding assets.
(51:20):
It was a very complicatedprobate.
So we have grandson Trevorfigures out how to start the
Echo One with the help of hisghost grandfather, and he takes
the Echo One on a joy ride.
He's not yet 16, but he's still16.
(51:40):
I think he's 15 in it, but hedoesn't have a driver's license.
So in Oklahoma, where thisscene takes place is no person
shall operate a motor vehicleupon public roads without having
a valid driver's license.
Okay, he's driving throughfields, he does get on the road
(52:00):
and he does go through town.
So, yeah, he drove a car wherehe shouldn't.
So in Oklahoma this is amisdemeanor and it's punishable
by a fine of not less than $50,nor more than $300 plus cost, by
any imprisonment for not morethan 30 days.
So he could get into trouble.
(52:23):
If there's property damage, momcould get into trouble and be
on the hook for that.
But we'll talk about parentalliability in a moment.
Now it's neat having the coolsummer school teacher, but when
the cool summer school teachertakes out a ghost trap and he
thinks it's a real ghost trapand there might be a ghost in it
(52:43):
and the answer is like let'sopen it and see what happens, I
think that's gross negligenceand it's not in the course of
his employment.
So I don't think the school isgoing to, I think they will cut
him loose.
For you know, you released aspirit that blew out all these
(53:06):
windows on buses and did allthis other damage because you
let this thing out, and you didthis in want of slight care and
diligence.
So, because there are differentlevels of negligence, I do
think this transfers to recklessdisregard.
And you're also encouragingminor children to engage in this
(53:33):
conduct as well, arguablyendangering the kids.
So, again, not not aresponsible adult, because if
it's, if it's real, let's notmess with it.
You found this where, so yourgrandfather hid it before he
died and he's now communicatedwith you beyond the grave making
(53:54):
sure it's protected, and youbring it to me.
Let's open this baby and seewhat happens.
So, again, it's dumb decisionmaking for plot, because without
plot the story doesn't happen.
If everyone's a reasonablyprudent person in the story,
it's a very boring story.
All right, let's talk aboutparental liability, and this
(54:15):
varies across state to state.
So parents can be legallyresponsible for damages caused
by their kids.
There are some states that sayno, parents don't get any
liability, and there are statesthat have said there can be
parental liability but it'sgoing to be capped at $500 or
(54:35):
$5,000 or $2,000 or $25,000.
California actually has areally high number if a junior
makes a boo-boo and parents canget sued for what the kid did.
So in the beginning of FrozenEmpire.
We have the next generation ofGhostbusters of Spangler's
(55:00):
daughter, her, either boyfriendor husband it's not quite clear
if they've married or not andher kids, one's 18, one's not.
And so we have Hero Girl, whois hanging out of a moving
vehicle firing her proton packat a ghost flying through New
(55:23):
York City and she is shootingbrooks off of buildings.
There's all these things thatare happening, and so New York
law says that the parent of achild they use the word infant,
but they're using it to saysomebody under the age of 18,
but over 10 years old shall beliable for damages caused by
(55:47):
that child if that kid haswillfully, maliciously or
unlawfully damaged, defaced ordestroyed such public or private
property, whether real orpersonal, personal.
She's opening fire and they'renot.
The Ghostbusters aren'temployed by the city.
They're like their status isnebulous.
(56:10):
They seem to be like anon-profit running around
capturing ghosts, not chargingpeople, meaning that Winston is
the deep pocket here fundingthis and you have law
enforcement going like don'tworry about it, ghostbusters are
on it.
That's all weird becausethere's no.
It's like this is like Avengersterritory, like they're not
(56:34):
operating under the auspices oflaw enforcement.
They're just driving aroundrecklessly firing weapons to
capture ghosts and there's.
Are they insured?
How are they insured?
How is this all working?
So when they get brought beforethe mayor, he rattles off some
(56:59):
damage numbers.
So there are three lamppoststhat have been destroyed
Lampposts in New York City.
Including installation.
The cost to replace those wouldbe about $2,000 to $3,000 each.
So let's just say, out of thegate, that's $9,000 just for the
(57:20):
lamp post replacement.
You have two parked Priusesthat get destroyed in this 2023
Prius is worth $28,000.
So we're looking at just under$60,000 worth of Prius.
Right there you have a fleet ofrental bikes.
I didn't count the rental bikes, but let's just say that if
there's 10 of them, that's$1,200 per bike.
(57:42):
So multiply that by 10 and yougot the bike coverage.
But then you get the issue ofbuilding damage.
Masonry work can range from 40to $100 per hour for labor with
stacking brick repair can be,you know, 1000 to $3500.
(58:03):
Or if it's like really bigfacade repairs, that could be up
to like $30,000 to a million.
So again, the property damage.
In this we would need expertwitnesses to watch the scene and
figure out like a cost ofrepair bid for what this would
(58:23):
all cost.
But it's up there with whathappened to him.
So again, that could be goingafter mom.
Or the fact that they're doingit as the Ghostbusters, as
opposed to Phoebe acting on herown, could mean that the
Ghostbusters are just on thehook for this.
(58:45):
But Phoebe also then goes outand blows out like does property
damage at a diner.
That's all Phoebe's doing andthe cost of that could just go
right to mom Because she's like14 in this, 15.
All right, you also have theendangering, the welfare of a
(59:06):
child.
Okay, she's cool action girl,we like that.
And she says fun, spunky things.
So again, we like that.
However, mom's taking the kidto work to fight ghosts.
Child endangerment in New Yorksays if someone knowingly acts
(59:27):
in a manner likely to beinjurious to the physical
welfare of a child, or ifthere's a substantial risk or
danger to the child's life orbeing a parent, they're charged
with the care of a child lessthan 18 years of age.
They're charged with the careof a child less than 18 years of
(59:47):
age if they fail or refuse toexercise reasonable diligence
and the control of such child toprevent them from becoming a
person in need of supervisionlike they could.
You know phase 10, 3 or 7 of 7.
There are different acts in inNew York Family Court.
So again they could be breakingthe law and causing child
endangerment because the kid'shanging out of a gunner seat of
(01:00:11):
a car that's driving anexhibition of speed, not
following any laws, and she'sfiring a nuclear accelerator at
a ghost.
Is it cool?
Yes, do you want to argue?
Your honor, it was cool.
No, I mean like I'm like you'rejust arguing for jury
(01:00:34):
nullification at that point ofyeah, we know it was wrong, but
it was awesome.
That's yeah, it's like yourhonor.
Look at all the good we did.
It's like.
It's like we'll look cool.
Your Honor, right?
Yeah, it's like your Honor.
Look at all the good we did.
It's like it's only, like youknow, $3 million worth of damage
.
It was awesome.
You know they're not going tobe happy with that.
(01:00:54):
So, with that, lots of fun.
You can find us on you know, ourwebsite, thelegalgeekscom.
We're on social media,thelegalgeekscom.
We're on social media, rangingfrom threads, tiktok, facebook
and Instagram.
Our podcast is where you listento high quality podcasts, be it
Apple podcast, amazon Music orSpotify or Podbean and a bunch
(01:01:18):
of others, and we've got timefor questions because they have
us here for a long time so wecan just hang out for a little
bit and then go to another panel.
So you were talking about theperson code of the ghost, right,
uh-huh?
So in the very beginning itgoes to one of the New York City
libraries, yep, and they'regoing.
You know the ghost lady?
(01:01:40):
Yeah, so you can say, you know,does she has enough personhood?
Oh, that's a tough one, it'ssuch a good one.
She was shooting them alive,but then she also exploded and
tried to attack them.
Yeah, that's a hard one becauseit's migrated, you know,
(01:02:04):
because the first movie hasghosts just being scary and it's
like go get her, ray.
Like you know, grab her.
That was your plan.
And again, there are wonderfulquotes from the first movie of I
love this plan and I'm excitedto be a part of it.
But the idea is she I would sayshe's an intelligent haunting
(01:02:31):
because there's agency there,but she doesn't speak and she's
doing things that are, I think,damaging.
Yeah, because there's.
You know, you have the librarycards flying out of the Dewey
Decimal System for the cardcatalog.
(01:02:53):
There are things that could beinjurious to people and so that
sounds dangerous, which wouldwarrant, I think, capture.
But if she's just hanging outdown there going shush, then
what's the threat other thanscaring people to bejesus?
But that's a thoughtfulquestion because again it's like
(01:03:19):
what's the status of the ghost?
Others, others, others.
So one of the things I reallyfound interesting from Afterlife
was Shandor's effectivelysuspended animation of some kind
(01:03:41):
in his tomb and and then Gozerimmediately rips him in half and
kills him, and so it's justlike that could have gotten
really interesting.
Was he dead?
Was he a ghost Like?
What category was he in?
And figuring out what darkmagic that had him looking like
(01:04:04):
Lenin in a glass case waitingfor Gozer's return.
So again, it was just some fun,interesting ideas.
Which one was that?
Afterlife, yeah, yeah.
When Gozer rises again, yeah.
(01:04:25):
And when the kids are downthere and they're looking at the
four proton packs that grandpaleft to fire upon and keep the
end of the world from happening,he stirs, it looks like he
takes a breath and turns hishead.
It's yeah.
(01:04:48):
And his friend freaks out andstarts screaming.
He moved as anyone would.
Yes, there would be screamingand running really fast.
Yeah, again, it's a funfranchise they're doing well
again.
You see, the folks who havelike are in those Ghostbuster
(01:05:11):
fan clubs and they dress up andthey go to community events and
they visit six kids in ahospital.
They do wonderful things.
So, and it's again nicecommunity.
Other questions Okay, there isa fun what I think will be a fun
(01:05:35):
515 panel.
So yeah, so I'll be here for alittle while longer, but again,
thank you all for attending andenjoy the rest of the show.
Thank you Well.
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.