March 30, 2025 • 48 mins
Recorded on March 28, 2025 at WonderCon:
Yar, The Pirates of Star Wars
Star Wars has had nearly 50 years of piracy, from child endangerment and property rights in Skeleton Crew, plundering Kyber Crystals in Clone Wars, smuggling puffer pigs in Star Wars Rebels, employment opportunities for the Bad Batch, and an open threat in Resistance. Join The Legal Geeks for an all-hands on deck adventure of the law of the high seas, as they search for lawful treasures of the Pirates of Star Wars in live action and animation. Featuring Judge Carol Najera, Los Angeles County Superior Court; Stephen Tollafield, Esq., Lieff, Cabraser, Heinmann, & Bernstein, LLP, Katrina Wraight, Esq., Best, Best & Krieger LLP, and moderated by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., Greenan, Peffer, Sallander & Lally LLP.
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):
It is four o'clock, it's time for rock and
roll.
My name is Josh Ferdowland.
I'm one of the foundingattorneys of the Legal Geeks.
Thank you all for joining usfor Yar, the Pirates of Star
Wars Yay With me today for thisgrand voyage to my left is
(00:21):
Stephen Tollefield.
Stephen Tollafield (00:23):
Hello.
Joshua Gilliland (00:24):
Judge Carol Mahara and Katrina Wright, and
everyone's a lawyer, except forJudge Nahara, who's a judge, and
we're going to have a lot offun.
We're all lifelong Star Warsfans.
We all are into this, and wehave a question that's been up
(00:44):
on who owns the Onyx Cinder?
We're going to be coming backto that and discuss those legal
issues.
So let's begin First off.
What is piracy?
Star Wars has a rich historywith pirates.
The animated series all havepirates in them.
Live action mentions pirates alot as well.
(01:07):
So what is it legally?
Well, that means let's talkabout case law.
So, we have piracy defined bothin our code, but it then
references international law andtreaties in order to get to the
full definition.
So whoever on the high seascommits the crime of piracy is
(01:30):
defined by the law of nations.
Okay, what's the law of nations?
So let's take a look at, let'sbreak this down.
We have to understand what thehigh seas are and what the law
of nations are in order to getour definition.
High seas are and what the lawof nations are in order to get
our definition.
High seas are defined as openwaters of sea or ocean as
distinguished from ports andhavens and waters within narrow
(01:53):
headlands on the coast.
So, on the Great Lakes, yeah,it's an inland ocean, but there
aren't pirates on the GreatLakes, they're criminals.
If that happens, there aren'tpirates on the Great Lakes,
they're criminals.
If that happened, then theConvention of the High Seas
states that piracy includes andthis is a mouthful any illegal
act of violence, detention orany act of deprivation committed
(02:17):
for private ends by the crew orpassengers of a private ship, a
private aircraft and direct it.
Okay, we now have a workingdefinition.
When has this come into play?
Fun fact, we have an ancientdoctrine in the United States.
(02:37):
It's called don't touch ourboats, touch our boats, we will
come after you.
We started with a six-ship navyand decided we'll take on the
British Empire that has 800.
That's how we roll.
And you had the Barbary piratesin the Mediterranean in the
(03:01):
early 19th century and duringthe Chaffer administration
trying to extract tribute fromAmerican shipping.
Jefferson asked for a force billor an authorization to use
force to go after a clean house.
So when you hear the MarineCorps hymn that says from the
Paz Montezuma to the shores ofTripoli, that's where this comes
(03:22):
from.
So we have in 1802, a forcebill passed by Congress where we
say we're taking out thepirates and it authorizes
American military ships to goout and engage pirates and to go
out and capture them.
(03:42):
We've only declared war ahandful of times.
This is our first time with aforce built.
We enact them multiple othertimes throughout our history and
so, like we had one toeliminate the Ku Klux Klan,
(04:03):
we've had them for every non-warout there, the Tonkin Gulf
Resolution, going into Iraq allof those were authorized by
Congress.
This is the first time Congressdoes that and it's Jefferson,
which people don't expect, theguy who was against the Navy and
then afterwards tells PresidentAdams hey, you were right to
(04:32):
build up the Navy that I used.
Well, how do we compare this toStar Wars and the New Republic?
Because we see the New Republichave a really weird track
record with pirates.
So in Mandalorian, season 3, wehave the pirate siege of
Navarro, where pirates go in andthey take over the town on the
planet and you have our heroesgoing out saying like, hey, we
(04:54):
need an authorization to go outand fight the pirates on Navarro
.
And the Republic says no, nowit's middle management, and you
have an Imperial remnant officerjust hanging out giving
bad-luck advice.
And that's why we have the NewRepublic not engage pirates in
(05:14):
the market.
On the flip side, with Aten it's, we will send planes within two
flaps.
I'm sure it had nothing to dowith a mint being on the planet.
I mean it's like saying youknow what?
That's where the oil is.
So, yeah, we will send force togo protect the oil fields and
(05:36):
if you have a plant full ofmoney, it's a good bet.
People are going to defend thatvery quickly with no questions
asked.
So let's talk about the onyxcinder.
So this is audience interactiontime, and Stephen's going to
help us understand the law withyou.
Have a crashed spaceship,Stephen.
Stephen Tollafield (05:53):
Yeah, so if you have a moment if you haven't
already done so you canparticipate in our little QR
code quiz to see who the popularrecipient of the onyx cinder
would be.
When we were doing our podcaston the skeleton crew, which we
all loved, it was so great wewere really wrestling with this
throughout the series because itwas really unclear from the
(06:15):
get-go who owned it Like.
Where did it come from, how didit wind up on AT-AT and who did
it belong to?
So we kind of revisited thisquestion throughout the podcast
series.
So now it's at the end of theshow.
Who should it go to?
Rightfully?
And there are some interestinglittle twists and turns in this
(06:36):
legal question.
Let's see how the poll is comingout here.
Okay, so it looks like Takranodand SM33 are getting quite a
few votes 19.4% of you say SM33,and about 15% people say
(06:56):
Takranod Great response.
However, generally they'rethieves.
Unfortunately, and generally inour legal system, there isn't a
way for stolen property to.
Is that better?
Okay, great, thank you.
It's generally not possible forstolen property to ripen into a
(07:19):
valid title or ownership right,so generally we wouldn't think
of SM 3, 3 and Takronaut asbeing as being rightful heirs of
that of the of the onyx cinder.
Let's see about 14% think ofWim as being the valid owner
because after all he calledclaims he's on the new ship.
(07:40):
That seems like a really validway of acquiring property.
And also Fern, kb, neil and Wimas a joint venture.
That got about 23, 24.
So they're actually kind of thefront runners.
Good point, those are actuallyreally good instincts because in
our legal system we have athing called the law of fines,
(08:02):
which basically means finders,keepers.
If someone has abandonedproperty then whoever finds it
can take it and just acquire avalid ownership interest in the
abandoned property.
However, unfortunately, here onthe slide we see that there's a
statute, a federal statute thatCongress enacted in 1987, called
(08:24):
the Abandoned Shipwreck Act,and Section 2106A of that
statute says that actually lawof fines doesn't apply to
abandoned ships.
It's one of those exceptionswhere a statute overrules the
common law.
So unfortunately claims easedoes not apply to abandoned
(08:44):
ships.
So that leaves the local At-Atand governments and about 12% of
folks thought that would be agood recipient of the Onyx
Cinder.
And that is also very prescientbecause under the Abandoned
Shipwreck Act any ship that issunken off the coast of the
United States actually belongsto the federal government, but
(09:08):
then the statute operates totransfer title to that shipwreck
directly to the state in whichthe ship rests.
So the local government theanalog being kind of ad aden
would be a very temptingresponse under their federal
statute.
However, unfortunately this isthe abandoned Shipwreck Act, so
(09:31):
in order for this statute toapply, the shipwreck has to
actually be abandoned.
And, as Josh pointed out, youdon't touch our ships.
The federal government neverabandons its property, and so
even if a ship is sunk and isnot recoverable, we assume it's
a well-settled principle in ourjurisprudence that the United
(09:53):
States never abandons anyshipwreck.
So a ship of the United Stateswould not be covered by this
statute.
So the answer is probably thatsince this is a New Republic
ship, as we learned in kind ofthe last couple of episodes, the
Republic would never havestopped looking for it and so
(10:13):
it's not abandoned, and so theanswer is probably that the New
Republic would assert a validclaim of ownership and adopt it
into its navy.
So that's kind of a boringanswer, because who doesn't want
the kids to get it?
Because that's the best.
But unfortunately this probablybelongs to the New Republic.
But thank you for participating.
Those are really good answersand really good instincts.
Like the law of fines, finders,keepers really is very tempting
(10:36):
.
Joshua Gilliland (10:38):
Thank you, stephen Judge Kahara.
Let's talk about the time thata Honda tried a a, a, a, a, a, a
, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a,a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a,
a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a,
a, a, a, a, a, a a a Disneymovie, but not the Disney movie
on the right with Captain JackSparrow.
Judge Carol Najera (11:06):
It's much more like the one on the far
left.
It is a story of a child leaderwho takes a group of children
on a wonderful adventure to adistant place in search of a
treasure.
Sound familiar.
Now, in this story, ourPaduantano, our Peter Pan, takes
her group of pseudo-lost boys,which are the younglings, to the
crystal caves to find kybercrystals for their lightsabers.
(11:28):
Along the way, or with them,they have their little Wendy
character.
Huyan Hondo Onaka is thevillainous pirate in the middle
and, as you can see, he is doinghis best Captain Hook imitation
.
They even have the same stance,his best Captain Hook
invitation.
They even have the same stance.
Next, so what do these storieshave in common with regards to
(11:49):
our pirates?
Well, both of them havevillains who are pirates.
So let's go back to what we'vealready discussed and our
original question what is piracy?
Because I can sit here and saythey are pirates, but I better
be able to back that up.
Well, the first thing that Ilooked at, in addition to what
Josh has already told us about,is what I call the US version of
the Code of Hammurabi, which isour United States Constitution,
(12:12):
specifically Article 1, section8, clause 10, is also known as
the Define and Punish Clause.
It grants Congress the power todefine and punish piracies
committed on the high seas or,in this case, the vast expanse
of space.
Historically, the Constitutionwas referring to high crimes
(12:35):
committed on the high seasoutside the jurisdiction of a
state or country.
This is why, as Josh says, youcan't have piracy in the lake
because there's a jurisdictionthere.
It's got to be out in the highseas or out in the vast expanse
of space where there is nojurisdiction.
That's key.
Revisiting 18 USC 1651, whichJosh already told us, discusses
(12:57):
how piracy is under the law ofnations, of nations.
Hando is smuggling, kidnappingfor ransom, looting, robbing.
These are all crimes defined bythe laws of nations and
committed outside thejurisdiction of any recognized
government.
Therefore, under 1651 and theunderstanding of the
(13:20):
Constitution, he is a pirate.
Now, 18 USC 1652, 53, and 54are tricky because they deal
with pirates that are acting onbehalf of some government or are
being outfitted and givensupplies by another government
or a private entity.
This is getting into the realmof privateers.
(13:43):
Now let's think this doesn'treally apply to Hondo and this
is what makes him a pure pirate.
He doesn't care what governmentyou belong to.
He doesn't care what sideyou're on.
You can be Count Dooku or youcan be Obi-Wan.
He'll capture you both just asfast and put you in the same
cell, and in fact, he did Next.
So what does this mean to theAnaca gang?
(14:06):
Well, as I put down there, itmeans our flags mean death.
What do you mean by that?
18usc 1111 talks about if murderis committed during a robbery,
you're looking at death,especially if you're a pirate.
Now, 18 USC 2111 definesrobbery as using force or
violence or intimidation to takeor attempt to take from the
(14:29):
person or presence of anotheranything of value.
And in this case, hondo wastrying to take from the children
, from the younglings, the kybercrystals.
Now, what's his intention?
Does he intend to kill anybody?
Well, let's think about what hesays.
He has a group of childrenbasically trapped in an air vent
(14:51):
hiding.
He knows they're there.
He tells his minions to throwin these destructive devices.
Even one of his crew are likewait a minute, there are
children in there, they could bekilled.
And his response is to look athim and say, well, then there'll
be no witnesses.
This is classically what theywere talking about in 18 USC 111
(15:13):
.
So where does this all leave us?
It leaves us that Hondo Onakais a pirate, and not all pirates
are lovable incompet, competentvillains like Captain Jack and
Captain Hook In the Star Warsuniverse.
Some of them are irredeemableand should be executed, not
(15:37):
rebranded, as lovable good guysin a ride in the park across the
street.
Joshua Gilliland (15:39):
I'm calling out Smuggler's Run on this one.
It highlights that Star Wars isreally big into redemption.
I'll name my new ship after thekid Everything will be forgiven
, mere details.
Let's talk about smugglingpuffer pigs.
So Star Wars Rebels has a lotof pirates and has a lot of
Honda, who again has made a lotof life choices that are for the
(16:01):
best, and we get to see LandoCalrissian trying to smuggle
puffer pigs in order to go domining, because they have a
really good nose and can gosmuggle or go find rare earth
minerals.
So, what's this mean Is usingthe goats to go through an
(16:22):
imperial blockade to deliver apuffer pig.
Is that piracy?
I'm going to go say no, andhere's why A pirate can be a
smuggler.
A smuggler isn't necessarily apirate.
Two different crimes.
Now you have a lot of pirateswho diversify their interests
(16:43):
and have different services thatthey offer, whether it's
transporting people from point Ato point B, maybe taking puffer
pig places.
However, the act of trying totake a single puffer pig for
delivering for the service isnot piracy.
(17:04):
It's definitely smuggling and atouch of blockade learning, but
it is fascinating because againwe get to see here Billy Dee
Williams play Mando again, andit was the first time he had
done so since Return of the Jedi.
So, katrina, let's talk aboutSkull Mountain or, excuse me,
(17:27):
skull Ridge Mountain in SkeletonPurge.
Katrina Wraight (17:28):
Let us Skull Mountain or excuse me Skull
Ridge Mountain in Skeleton Purge, let us.
So what we know about CaptainRenaud's secret pirate lair is
that it's deep in the heart ofthe mountain and all who enter
face ruin or slaughter.
So the question here is whatproperty are we talking about?
In the law there's adistinction between personal
(17:50):
property and real property.
So we'll start with thepersonal property, which is like
the stuff, the movable,tangible objects that are not
real estate or the land.
So personal items can be lost,mislaid or abandoned, which is
what we're talking about here Ithink it's been mentioned
previously as well and somethingthat is abandoned.
If it is found in a place, theowner intended to leave it, but
(18:13):
it is in such a condition thatit's apparent that he has no
intention of returning to claimit.
So for this we can talk aboutthe actual coins and the
treasure that is in the lairitself.
So we're going back to finders,keepers again, because why not?
And that's the theory we weretalking about where it becomes
the property of whoever finds it.
But in this context there's atheory, a legal theory, that we
(18:38):
pretty much only get to talkabout in law school.
So I'm very excited to get totalk about today, and that is
treasure trove, and that's coinsor currency that are
deliberately hidden by the ownersufficiently long ago that the
owner can be considered dead orno longer discoverable.
So, as you can probably imagine, this began with the English
common law, where the crown wastaking everything that was not
(18:59):
theirs and making it their own,and that became the way in
American common law too, and ina good number of states, the
treasure trove belongs to thefinder unless the original owner
reclaims it, so that's stillapplicable.
However, in a good number ofplaces, states are trying not to
encourage trespass, whichobviously that does, so that
(19:19):
they discourage the treasuretrove.
I want to give you guys alittle bit of practical law, in
that there is a specific statute, a federal statute, called the
Revised Uniform UnclaimedProperty Act that went around in
2016.
That gives each state anunclaimed property fund where
(19:41):
proceeds from abandoned bankaccounts unpresented checks, are
turned over to the state aftera specific period of time.
So you guys should all go togoogle, you should type in your
state name and you should typein unclaimed property and find
out where that fund is and seeif there's any money sitting
there for you.
I can see in the crowd that somepeople have found it so take a
(20:02):
look later, google your stateand unclaimed properly, and
you'll see that state fund andsee if there's anything missing
for you.
The other type of property isthe real property.
So real property is the stuff,like the actual land, the real
estate that cannot be abandonedlike the personal property can,
and the question here is whetherCaptain Renaud held title to
(20:23):
the property.
So for real property the trueowner is the guy whose name is
on the deed and that's what itcomes down to.
But this is kind of a strangesituation in that we're talking
about like the subterranean landright, and apparently that is
also owned by the owner of theland above it.
That has some current contextand relevance in that there's
(20:45):
that lady on TikTok who'sdigging below her land.
You guys have seen that too,that's because she owns that,
because you generally own theland below your property, is
there certain rules andrestrictions to make sure that
there's safety involved?
Of course, but, yeah, theownership of real property
extends downward, from thesurface of your property and
technically, in theory, all theway to the center of the earth.
(21:05):
So with real property, whose itbelongs to first, is his name
on the deed?
If so, yes, then he dies.
Does he have a will?
If he died with a will, then hedies what's called in probate,
and the property is distributedaccording to the terms of the
will.
You can pretty much putwhatever you wanted there to a
certain degree.
Something that's interesting inthis context is there's a
(21:27):
specific area of concern inprobate called probate piracy,
which is the involuntaryredistribution of assets, like
property poaching, and certainpeople are even equating it to
RICO, and that it's specificenterprises that go out and
defraud old people for theirtrusts and their property before
(21:51):
it gets handed off.
So that's an interestingconsideration that you can raid
a trust and hide the assets andleave the beneficiaries left in
the dark.
If you died without a will, thenyou die in test state and then
the property is distributed perthe laws of the state which
determines who the heirs are andwhat percentage they get and
(22:15):
the proportions of that property.
The only other thing that mightcome into play here is adverse
possession, which peoplegenerally love to hear about,
which we refer to as squattersrights, which a trespasser in
physical possession of the landowned by someone else can come
to hold the title if they justkind of hang out there and don't
leave Specific elements.
(22:37):
For that is, it has to beactual possession and you have
to physically be there andsomehow demonstrate that.
So if you put up a fence orimprovements or whatever it
might be, something that putsthe original owner on notice
that you're trespassing and kindof taking ownership of that
land, the possession has to behostile.
And this doesn't meanunfriendly, it just means you
(22:59):
can't be given permission suchthat, like a tenant has
permission to be there, right,so they will not be there
hostily.
It has to be open and notoriousand that it has to be obvious
again, giving the owner rightthat notice that you are
trespassing.
It has to be continuing, so youhave to be there for a certain
amount of time.
In California I think it's fiveyears, so not that long and
(23:22):
then exclusive, not shared, andthis kind of comes up.
The main context this comes atin reality is when some guy
thinks his property is a littlebit over, a little bit farther
than it actually is, and theyput up a fence.
That fence is long enough.
There it's obvious it'sexclusive.
Then you actually get thatadditional piece of land added
to your property because ofadverse possession.
Joshua Gilliland (23:44):
Thank you, Judge Kahara.
Let's talk about Star WarsResistance, which has lots of
highlights.
Judge Carol Najera (23:52):
Okay, the Star Wars Resistance presents a
new breed, I like to say, ofpirate.
To put it in context, hondoAnakdo was active and listen
carefully during the period whenthe Republic was in the
government and the separatistmovement was on.
Then we had the resistance, wehad the Battle of Endor and then
(24:16):
we had the New Republic andtheir resistance, which was I
mean, I'm sorry, the FirstRepublic and their resistance.
I never had it right the firsttime.
The New Republic and theirresistance, the First Order.
So it's kind of a complicatedhistory, but keep in mind and
the reason I explain that isbecause there are many, many
decades between Hondo Anaka andhis gang and Kragan Gore and his
(24:40):
gang.
This is and I'm going to useJosh's example kind of like the
Barbary pirates, comparing themto the pirates of Somalia, the
difference really being that ourprevious pirates only cared
about property.
They didn't care which sidethey were on.
And this is going to change alittle.
We're going to see a littletweaking of all of that.
(25:00):
Craig and Gyor and his gang aretargeting the Colossus base
refueling station on Castellonto help the First Order take it
over from the New Republic.
So this is interfering with thegovernment.
In that context.
We have to look at this as notjust pirates but privateers and
(25:21):
terrorists, to determine whatour villains are.
And in this case our villainsare Craig and Gore and his gang
and the First Order.
So let's see, we have to look alittle bit more at
international definitions ofpirates.
The United Nations Conventionon the Law of the Sea defines
piracy as illegal acts ofviolence, detention or
(25:41):
deprivation committed on thehigh seas for private ends.
The historical context andlegal framework for punishing
piracy acts are rooted in theneed to protect maritime
commerce and ensure the safetyof the high seas or, in our case
, the vast expanse of space.
So let's skip 1652 for a moment, that we already talked about
(26:05):
18 USC 1652, and let's talkabout 1653, which is interesting
because it's a heading thatstarts aliens as pirates, but
not this kind of aliens.
But it actually is aliens aspirates in that particular
statute, a citizen, a pirate whois a citizen of one state
(26:26):
attacks another state and thestate it attacks has a treaty
with the state that the piratesis citizen of.
They state attacks anotherstate and the state it attacks
has a treaty with the state thatthe pirate is a citizen of.
They're looking at life Now,when we put this definition into
the mix, as well as theprevious 1651 we talked about.
And what is Craig and Gore?
Well, craig and Gore is aQuaran.
He is attacking the Colossusbase on Castellan, castellon's a
(26:49):
separate state.
Now the question is and I'll behonest with you, I actually
Googled this and looked thereare no treaties between Quarren
and Castellon.
So under 1653, he is notdefined as a pirate, but he is
under 1651 and, more importantly, under UNCLOS, the United
Nations Convention of the Law ofthe Sea.
(27:12):
So we now know Creighton Goreis a pirate.
But is that all?
He is Going back to 18 USC 1654, that defines what a privateer
is.
What is a privateer?
It is a person who.
What is a privateer?
(27:47):
It is a person who fits out anarm or attempts to fit out an
arm, or is concerned withfurnishing, fitting out or
arming any private vessel of warwith the intent that such
vessel be employed to cruise orcommit hostilities upon the
other government.
One of the goals is tointerfere with the policy of
that government.
Now Craig and Gore is aprivateer under this.
Remember, at one point he isdiscussing open and notoriously
the fact that he expects afinancial gain from the First
Order.
He explained clearly that it isexpensive to outfit and arm his
(28:14):
crew, pay them, keep them going, the weapons, all of that, and
he's whining and complaining tothe First Order, and the First
Order is assuring him thatthey'll take care of all of this
.
He is now acting as a privateer.
But the inquiry doesn't endthere, because now let's look at
the third of our littlegrouping, the terrorists.
(28:34):
And while piracy itself is notterrorism, there are connections
Going back to the Somalipirates.
The Somali pirates whobasically, were funded by ISIS.
There was an overlap therewhere individuals were involved
with piracy but also engaging insupporting terrorist activities
(28:57):
.
Now the Somali pirates wereprosecuted for piracy under.
All of this, but not terrorismSounds familiar, and if anyone
wants the sites for any of thesecases, I'll tell you afterwards
.
I don't want to put them all upthere because I only have I'm
on a strict schedule here andthis, but this was exactly what
the relationship was betweenCraig and Gore and the First
(29:18):
Order.
Now talking a little bit moreabout this next, craig and Gore
is a pirate, a privateer, butnot a terrorist.
But let's look at the FirstOrder.
The First Order is outfitting aship, a warship to go against
(29:41):
another government to affecttheir policy.
In this case they arecommissioning Kragen-Gore and
his gang to go to the ColossusStation and kidnap Tara Doza so
that they can force her fatherto come in and change the policy
and allow the First Order tocome in and be an active
presence there.
(30:01):
This is interfering.
This is clearly interferingwith the policy of that
government.
The First Order are, under thisdefinition, terrorists, not
Craig and Gore, but the First.
But the first order, craig andGore, is a pirate and a
privateer.
He's really only in it for themoney.
He really doesn't have agovernmental policy view on all
(30:25):
of this Kind of like think diehard.
Everyone thought they wereterrorists, but they weren't
terrorists.
They were in it for the money.
So that's what we have.
Joshua Gilliland (30:36):
Thank you, your Honor Stephen.
Let's talk about defendingyourself with a shanty.
Stephen Tollafield (30:42):
Oh, I know the famous shanty defense, yeah.
So obviously we're legal geeks,we are at the height of our
legal geek's powers.
When Star Wars shows a trial onscreen and so, like with Andor
and Ahsoka, and now with a trialof Jod under the pirate code,
we were like, yes, and alsothere was an appeal involved,
(31:04):
and I'm a former appellatepractitioner and so I was like,
oh my God, this is the best.
So I have thoughts, so bearwith me.
So first off, a couple ofcomments just about his trial
was a criminal proceeding,obviously, because there was a
punishment involved.
He was sentenced to death.
But Brutus the captain wasacting as both the judge and the
prosecutor, which is a bit of aconflict of interest.
(31:26):
So that's kind of contrary toone way that the Pirate Code is
contrary to our system, wherethat's a very separate job.
And also there was no jury.
Brutus kind of singly convictedJod of the crime, and so that's
also contrary to ourconstitution, where you have a
right to a jury to convict youof any crimes.
(31:46):
Also, we observe that Joddoesn't have a lawyer, he's his
own advocate.
So that would violate under ourconstitution the right to
representation when you'reaccused of a crime.
And then, finally, there wasthis really interesting concept
of equal time to present yourdefense, because Brutus examined
the evidence, then convictedJod and then they're like, oh
(32:08):
wait, but he has a right to anappeal and he has equal time,
which sort of overlaps with anappeal.
But we don't.
I mean correct me if I'm wrong,judge, but I mean certainly
there's limits, based onrefereeing, how long someone can
go on with their defense, butwe don't limit the amount of
time necessarily to the exactmoment that the prosecution
(32:30):
takes to present their caseright.
Judge Carol Najera (32:32):
You know we can limit the presentation and
perhaps the examination of thewitnesses.
That's in the code.
Stephen Tollafield (32:37):
Right.
Judge Carol Najera (32:37):
But in terms of everything else, no, it's
wide open.
Stephen Tollafield (32:40):
You don't have like a cool plasma
hourglass counting down themoments you don't have a….
No, that'd be rad.
It's giving Wizard of Oz.
It's very cool, I love it.
But that's kind of contrary toour criminal proceedings.
But then we get to the appealwhere they're like, okay, now
you get to the appeal wherethey're like, okay, now you get
to challenge your sentence.
But this is really interestingbecause he gets to talk.
(33:03):
He's generally in our system,when there's a decision by a
judge you don't like, you go toanother court with different
judges that have supervisoryauthority over that original
court to present your appeal toconvince the lower court, that
convince the upper court thatthe lower court was wrong.
But here John is just talkingto the same judge.
That's not an appeal.
We would think of that more asa motion to reconsider or
(33:26):
something like that, where youtry to convince the judge that
they got something wrong.
So that's kind of differentfrom our system.
Also, what struck me was thatthis was an automatic right to
appeal, which is actually one ofthe ways in which our system is
consistent with the Pirate Code, because when there's a
conviction of a capital offensein the states that do that, you
often get an appeal directly tothe state Supreme Court just to
(33:50):
review that sentence.
So that's actually one way inwhich the system was the same
and that's different from adiscretionary appeal where you
have to petition the appellatecourt to hear your case.
And lastly, I'll just note thathis appeal is peculiar in the
way that he's raising newarguments on his appeal as
opposed to just arguing aboutwhy Brutus got it wrong in the
(34:11):
first place, and that's where hepresents his shanty defense.
But that's really contrary tohow we think about appellate
courts.
But I was really excited to seewe think about appellate courts
but.
But I was really excited to seethe pirate code in action and
see about trial and an appeal.
It was great.
Katrina Wraight (34:25):
Thank you, stephen, katrina, let's talk
about the Bad Batch so we'regoing to go back to I think it's
season two, episode one and twofor Spoils of War and Ruins of
War.
That's when they are sent outto obtain Dooku's war chest and
they're promised freedom fromall of their debts if they
(34:45):
succeed, because it's such amassive collection of loot.
And then I think it's not untilruins of war, the second
episode, that we learn wherethis war chest came from and how
he actually obtained it.
And it was from theexploitation of his people in
his quest for power andultimately it destroyed the city
.
So there's kind of a questionthat's been going around here is
(35:09):
like can one loot loot?
and the question is alluded to,I think, a few episodes prior,
don't remember which one exactly, but alluded to because Omega
asked if they are stealing someloot they are intending on
taking, and I think the badbatch test I heard that they're
merely intercepting it right.
(35:30):
So it's a question of can yousteal stolen goods?
So you certainly can, based onthe definition of robbery that
we've been talking about before.
But possession of stolenproperty itself is a separate
crime from the actual theft oftaking it.
So in California it's penalcode section 496, and this is
what we call a wobbler of anoffense, meaning it can be
(35:51):
charged as either a misdemeanoror a felony.
And you can be charged withpossession of stolen property if
you knowingly possess stolenproperty and in criminal law
it's always fun, it's if youknew or should have known.
So even if you didn't know, ifyou should have known, you'll
get that mens rea.
That could be avoided ifthere's no obvious evidence that
(36:12):
it was stolen.
So say you buy something andyou just had no idea.
It seemed legit, but there's noevidence, you can get around
that mens rea.
And then, yeah, if you possessit so if you received it, you
bought it, you concealed it orwithheld it then you can be on
the hook for possession ofstolen property as well.
So there's no doubt they'reprobably on the hook for that
(36:33):
because they know what they aredoing.
That intention is there?
One of the main hints here maybe the name of the Bad Batch's
ship, which is Marauder and thatis defined as a raider in
search of plunder.
So that gives us a pretty goodindication of what the answer
here might be this is kind oflike a legal slash moral
(36:54):
question, right, like can thegood guys be pirates?
for sure, we've given you thedefinition of privacy a good
amount of times today, but it'sthe act of robbery or criminal
violence or plunder committedfor private ends by a crew
against another ship.
So you have to board a ship,check, you seized control by
force check and then you attackthe ship or other members, check
(37:16):
right.
So they've got all of thoseelements met.
We've been talking about theConstitution section of the
Constitution that gives Congressthe power to define and punish
robbery.
So that's where that definitioncomes from.
But we do have a kind ofinteresting case it's not that
too many cases where there'scharges of piracy, but there's a
(37:37):
case the United States versusHawtham 747F sub.
I think it's up there or it wasanyways, I can also give you
that site later if you'd like it.
But in that situation it waskind of a normal Somali pirate
situation and it was a UnitedStates Navy vessel and it was
actually going undercover as amerchant vessel.
(37:57):
So the pirates mistook it themilitary going undercover as a
merchant vessel.
So the pirates mistook it themilitary vessel for a merchant
ship, and decided that they weregoing to try and take it over.
So they opened fire on the crew.
They tried to get the crew tosurrender for a ransom, like you
do in a typical piracysituation, but unfortunately,
yes, it was a US military ship,so that wasn't going to go down
(38:19):
too well crew or the piratesthere.
The attorneys on behalf of thepirates moved for dismissal
under 1651 that we've beentalking about, and they argued
that the indictment, or factsand indict, were insufficient to
establish the crime of piracy.
But the judge here this is a2010 case concluded and I think
one of the main points they weretrying to make is like we just
(38:41):
shot at it.
We didn't actually get to stealanything from it, which was
true, right, there was norobbery, because that was never.
What were they going to rob?
And that was.
It was certainly going to end alot differently before that.
It's a miracle they were alive,to be honest.
But the judge concluded that weneed to define piracy according
to contemporary customaryinternational law which can
(39:03):
change over time, so kind ofmodernizing the statute and the
definition such that actualrobbery was not required and
they could be charged withpiracy just for shooting at the
wrong ship.
So, again don't touch our ships.
Joshua Gilliland (39:16):
Right, and for AV chat the projector just went
off, but we're going to proceedanyway because that's how we
roll when we try to fix that.
Let's talk about young Jediadventures and, stephen, let's
talk about that.
Can a prince be a pirate?
Stephen Tollafield (39:32):
Yeah, Cyrus Bundy is one of the characters
on Young Jedi Adventures and hecosplays as a pirate.
His name is Tabor Van Dorn andso while he's in his costume he
does commit a few crimes.
He like steals things and, youknow, raids a cafe and stuff.
So this Young Jedi Adventuresactually raises the issue of
(39:53):
child pirates, which I don'twant to spend a ton of time on
because it's a little.
It gets into like kind of childsoldier territory which is kind
of bleak and not great to talkabout.
But I will say that it's a veryundefined area of international
law.
First, piracy, as we weretalking about, is a crime of
general jurisdiction, so anystate or any country in the
world can prosecute a piratethat they apprehend.
(40:15):
So there's and while there's aninternational criminal court in
the Hague, there's nointernational juvie court.
That's not a thing.
The International CriminalCourt only has jurisdiction of
people over the age of 18.
So that leaves children, whoare conscripted into piracy,
kind of at the mercy of whatevercountry they're apprehended by.
Audience (40:36):
And under.
Stephen Tollafield (40:37):
There is a UN Convention on the Rights of
the child, the CRC, which doesobligate member states to apply
human rights to children,including focusing on the
well-being of the child asopposed to punishment when
children are in criminalproceedings.
But that doesn't really havemuch teeth and there's no
uniform minimum age of criminalresponsibility in international
(40:59):
law.
So while here in California wethink of people who are 14 and
under as not being capable ofbeing kind of adult criminals,
they're diverted into juvenilejustice system.
In many countries around theworld that age is much younger.
So you wind up with kind ofkids in the criminal justice
system and, of course, in piracyhot spots like Som.
They're not necessarily thegreatest on the record for human
(41:22):
rights, so there's very minimalprocedural protections for
children who are kind ofapprehended and prosecuted as
pirates in that part of theworld.
So I guess I will just say thatyou know, obviously don't be a
delinquent if you're a minor,but if you're gonna be a
delinquent, don't do it on theocean.
Stay on land is my free legaladvice for the day.
Joshua Gilliland (41:42):
And with that just to unpack that there could
be a weird sovereign immunityissue with him.
Stephen Tollafield (41:48):
Yeah, yeah, I mean he's a prince, so if he's
doing all these kind of crimeslike, is he even prosecutable as
a prince?
I mean, there's a little bit ofrecent jurisprudence in the US
Supreme Court about whether youcan be convicted as a criminal
when you're sort of a leader ofa country, but that's sort of a
interesting question thatprobably worth unpacking at some
(42:10):
point.
Joshua Gilliland (42:12):
Yeah.
So there's a lot there.
And with that, let's last topicand then we'll have some
questions on privateers.
So on the final point ofprivateers, we have people who
look like good guys, who areprivateers Han Solo, axe Wolves
from Mandalorian, Season 3.
(42:33):
They have a ship, they flyaround and they're like the
A-team that if you have aproblem and you can find them
and you can afford them, you canhire them.
And is that okay?
Well, remember when we startedour country and we said we have
our six-ship Navy and the Britshave an 800-ship Navy, we had to
(42:56):
make up a gap.
We had privateers then, likewe've done it in the War of 1812
.
200 ship Navy.
We had to make up a gap.
We had privateers.
Then, like we've done it in thewar of 1812.
We haven't done it recently,but even during World War II you
had private boat owners goingout to do submarine patrols and
being able to help keep an eyeout for threats to the nation.
(43:19):
Or if you look at Great Britain, dunfermline is a great example
of everyone rallying andworking together.
Those could be consideredprivateers, or really, really,
really good people who decided,no, we're not going to let the
Nazis win, but I'm old-fashionedthat way.
So, yeah, good guys can beprivateers, they can also be
(43:42):
bandits, win.
So.
But with that we have sevenminutes for questions.
Nothing should be consideredlegal advice, don't?
Audience (43:52):
be delinquent yes, sir , yes sir Is it legal to name
the beneficiary of your will asthe winner of a wacky contest,
like it's a mad, mad, mad madworld.
Joshua Gilliland (44:05):
Wow, that is a real strong, deep cut.
I don't know how you thoughtabout it's a mad, mad, mad, mad
world.
I'm flashing back.
I would think there's aspecificity problem with that in
your will because it'scontingent upon someone winning
a contest.
I think that could make it void.
(44:26):
Do any of you have any thoughtson?
We're going down a 1960s rabbithole?
Audience (44:32):
I did not foresee there's a remake, though, of Mr
Bean.
Joshua Gilliland (44:35):
Really yeah Again, I do adore that film, but
it's been a while.
Katrina Wraight (44:39):
There's a degree of specificity to that.
Joshua Gilliland (44:42):
There is, you know, but is it going to be a
competition that's going tohappen.
Judge Carol Najera (44:48):
That's true, and if the competition's going
to go on for you don't have aset end for it then you've got a
rule against perpetuitiesproblem, oh gosh.
Audience (45:21):
Yeah, and so life can be got a rule against
perpetuities problem.
I just thought of it right nowIn what we see with skeleton
crew and FABF and everything,would there be some mitigating
factors if the people who arebeing charged with piracy are
not given a lot of the areforced into this situation not
by choice but by circumstancesand whatnot.
So would there be somemitigating factors for some of
them, some.
So there's somethingatingfactors for some of them.
Joshua Gilliland (45:39):
So there's something.
There's the concept ofimpressment of sailors, which is
a good way to start a war, andit has.
So the issue is what did you doafter you joined that ship?
And there was the Confederatewarship Shenandoah.
That was a raider that wasbuilt in England and then
(46:02):
decided to go out and terrorizethe high seas and as they were
going after United States shipsand capturing them and starting
to impress some sailors intoservice for the Confederacy, the
issue then was they didn't knowthe Civil War was over and they
continued raiding.
And then they had a nastysurprise realizing oh darn,
(46:30):
we're actually pirates now.
Does that mean everyone getshung?
And the answer was yes, all ofthem could get hung, which is
why they won the Negro Line fora great group.
So, anyway, good book, lastslide down.
That gets into that.
Yes, sir.
Audience (46:46):
Comment and question.
So my wife and I were both hugefans of Negro Geeks.
We did not see you guys on theschedule, ok, so we just by
chance we ended up in here.
Stephen Tollafield (46:56):
We're like oh my god, this is great.
Audience (46:59):
We're here daily, god.
What else are you guys doingduring?
Joshua Gilliland (47:02):
just this one.
Just this one.
We will be pitching San Diegodowntown.
Some of us are going to Japanfor a celebration, so you can
see us there.
We are not presented, but wewill be there.
And there are some of thesmaller shows.
We'll be in for Fan Expo SanFrancisco and we're also looking
(47:23):
at Bay Pong over the 4th ofJuly weekend.
Other questions.
Audience (47:28):
Let's go down to hands .
Thank you, yes, sir, forTreasure Trove.
Who would have a?
Stephen Tollafield (47:32):
superior claim of interest in Treasure
Trove's found, someone who foundit or the issue its successors
and sign of the original owner.
Joshua Gilliland (47:41):
Do you want to handle it?
Katrina Wraight (47:43):
I think it's.
Yeah, there'd be finders,keepers on that one, as it was
in original English and commonlaw.
The passing it down to heirsand assigns is more for the real
property, although it can applyto the personal property, but
for that specific circumstanceof the coins and currency it has
that little special rulebecause the English crown wanted
(48:04):
to be able to take all thethings that we're not there.
It is four o'clock, it's time for rock and
roll.
My name is Josh Ferdowland.
I'm one of the foundingattorneys of the Legal Geeks.
Thank you all for joining usfor Yar, the Pirates of Star
Wars Yay With me today for thisgrand voyage to my left is
(00:21):
Stephen Tollefield.
Stephen Tollafield (00:23):
Hello.
Joshua Gilliland (00:24):
Judge Carol Mahara and Katrina Wright, and
everyone's a lawyer, except forJudge Nahara, who's a judge, and
we're going to have a lot offun.
We're all lifelong Star Warsfans.
We all are into this, and wehave a question that's been up
(00:44):
on who owns the Onyx Cinder?
We're going to be coming backto that and discuss those legal
issues.
So let's begin First off.
What is piracy?
Star Wars has a rich historywith pirates.
The animated series all havepirates in them.
Live action mentions pirates alot as well.
(01:07):
So what is it legally?
Well, that means let's talkabout case law.
So, we have piracy defined bothin our code, but it then
references international law andtreaties in order to get to the
full definition.
So whoever on the high seascommits the crime of piracy is
(01:30):
defined by the law of nations.
Okay, what's the law of nations?
So let's take a look at, let'sbreak this down.
We have to understand what thehigh seas are and what the law
of nations are in order to getour definition.
High seas are and what the lawof nations are in order to get
our definition.
High seas are defined as openwaters of sea or ocean as
distinguished from ports andhavens and waters within narrow
(01:53):
headlands on the coast.
So, on the Great Lakes, yeah,it's an inland ocean, but there
aren't pirates on the GreatLakes, they're criminals.
If that happens, there aren'tpirates on the Great Lakes,
they're criminals.
If that happened, then theConvention of the High Seas
states that piracy includes andthis is a mouthful any illegal
act of violence, detention orany act of deprivation committed
(02:17):
for private ends by the crew orpassengers of a private ship, a
private aircraft and direct it.
Okay, we now have a workingdefinition.
When has this come into play?
Fun fact, we have an ancientdoctrine in the United States.
(02:37):
It's called don't touch ourboats, touch our boats, we will
come after you.
We started with a six-ship navyand decided we'll take on the
British Empire that has 800.
That's how we roll.
And you had the Barbary piratesin the Mediterranean in the
(03:01):
early 19th century and duringthe Chaffer administration
trying to extract tribute fromAmerican shipping.
Jefferson asked for a force billor an authorization to use
force to go after a clean house.
So when you hear the MarineCorps hymn that says from the
Paz Montezuma to the shores ofTripoli, that's where this comes
(03:22):
from.
So we have in 1802, a forcebill passed by Congress where we
say we're taking out thepirates and it authorizes
American military ships to goout and engage pirates and to go
out and capture them.
(03:42):
We've only declared war ahandful of times.
This is our first time with aforce built.
We enact them multiple othertimes throughout our history and
so, like we had one toeliminate the Ku Klux Klan,
(04:03):
we've had them for every non-warout there, the Tonkin Gulf
Resolution, going into Iraq allof those were authorized by
Congress.
This is the first time Congressdoes that and it's Jefferson,
which people don't expect, theguy who was against the Navy and
then afterwards tells PresidentAdams hey, you were right to
(04:32):
build up the Navy that I used.
Well, how do we compare this toStar Wars and the New Republic?
Because we see the New Republichave a really weird track
record with pirates.
So in Mandalorian, season 3, wehave the pirate siege of
Navarro, where pirates go in andthey take over the town on the
planet and you have our heroesgoing out saying like, hey, we
(04:54):
need an authorization to go outand fight the pirates on Navarro
.
And the Republic says no, nowit's middle management, and you
have an Imperial remnant officerjust hanging out giving
bad-luck advice.
And that's why we have the NewRepublic not engage pirates in
(05:14):
the market.
On the flip side, with Aten it's, we will send planes within two
flaps.
I'm sure it had nothing to dowith a mint being on the planet.
I mean it's like saying youknow what?
That's where the oil is.
So, yeah, we will send force togo protect the oil fields and
(05:36):
if you have a plant full ofmoney, it's a good bet.
People are going to defend thatvery quickly with no questions
asked.
So let's talk about the onyxcinder.
So this is audience interactiontime, and Stephen's going to
help us understand the law withyou.
Have a crashed spaceship,Stephen.
Stephen Tollafield (05:53):
Yeah, so if you have a moment if you haven't
already done so you canparticipate in our little QR
code quiz to see who the popularrecipient of the onyx cinder
would be.
When we were doing our podcaston the skeleton crew, which we
all loved, it was so great wewere really wrestling with this
throughout the series because itwas really unclear from the
(06:15):
get-go who owned it Like.
Where did it come from, how didit wind up on AT-AT and who did
it belong to?
So we kind of revisited thisquestion throughout the podcast
series.
So now it's at the end of theshow.
Who should it go to?
Rightfully?
And there are some interestinglittle twists and turns in this
(06:36):
legal question.
Let's see how the poll is comingout here.
Okay, so it looks like Takranodand SM33 are getting quite a
few votes 19.4% of you say SM33,and about 15% people say
(06:56):
Takranod Great response.
However, generally they'rethieves.
Unfortunately, and generally inour legal system, there isn't a
way for stolen property to.
Is that better?
Okay, great, thank you.
It's generally not possible forstolen property to ripen into a
(07:19):
valid title or ownership right,so generally we wouldn't think
of SM 3, 3 and Takronaut asbeing as being rightful heirs of
that of the of the onyx cinder.
Let's see about 14% think ofWim as being the valid owner
because after all he calledclaims he's on the new ship.
(07:40):
That seems like a really validway of acquiring property.
And also Fern, kb, neil and Wimas a joint venture.
That got about 23, 24.
So they're actually kind of thefront runners.
Good point, those are actuallyreally good instincts because in
our legal system we have athing called the law of fines,
(08:02):
which basically means finders,keepers.
If someone has abandonedproperty then whoever finds it
can take it and just acquire avalid ownership interest in the
abandoned property.
However, unfortunately, here onthe slide we see that there's a
statute, a federal statute thatCongress enacted in 1987, called
(08:24):
the Abandoned Shipwreck Act,and Section 2106A of that
statute says that actually lawof fines doesn't apply to
abandoned ships.
It's one of those exceptionswhere a statute overrules the
common law.
So unfortunately claims easedoes not apply to abandoned
(08:44):
ships.
So that leaves the local At-Atand governments and about 12% of
folks thought that would be agood recipient of the Onyx
Cinder.
And that is also very prescientbecause under the Abandoned
Shipwreck Act any ship that issunken off the coast of the
United States actually belongsto the federal government, but
(09:08):
then the statute operates totransfer title to that shipwreck
directly to the state in whichthe ship rests.
So the local government theanalog being kind of ad aden
would be a very temptingresponse under their federal
statute.
However, unfortunately this isthe abandoned Shipwreck Act, so
(09:31):
in order for this statute toapply, the shipwreck has to
actually be abandoned.
And, as Josh pointed out, youdon't touch our ships.
The federal government neverabandons its property, and so
even if a ship is sunk and isnot recoverable, we assume it's
a well-settled principle in ourjurisprudence that the United
(09:53):
States never abandons anyshipwreck.
So a ship of the United Stateswould not be covered by this
statute.
So the answer is probably thatsince this is a New Republic
ship, as we learned in kind ofthe last couple of episodes, the
Republic would never havestopped looking for it and so
(10:13):
it's not abandoned, and so theanswer is probably that the New
Republic would assert a validclaim of ownership and adopt it
into its navy.
So that's kind of a boringanswer, because who doesn't want
the kids to get it?
Because that's the best.
But unfortunately this probablybelongs to the New Republic.
But thank you for participating.
Those are really good answersand really good instincts.
Like the law of fines, finders,keepers really is very tempting
(10:36):
.
Joshua Gilliland (10:38):
Thank you, stephen Judge Kahara.
Let's talk about the time thata Honda tried a a, a, a, a, a, a
, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a,a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a,
a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a,
a, a, a, a, a, a a a Disneymovie, but not the Disney movie
on the right with Captain JackSparrow.
Judge Carol Najera (11:06):
It's much more like the one on the far
left.
It is a story of a child leaderwho takes a group of children
on a wonderful adventure to adistant place in search of a
treasure.
Sound familiar.
Now, in this story, ourPaduantano, our Peter Pan, takes
her group of pseudo-lost boys,which are the younglings, to the
crystal caves to find kybercrystals for their lightsabers.
(11:28):
Along the way, or with them,they have their little Wendy
character.
Huyan Hondo Onaka is thevillainous pirate in the middle
and, as you can see, he is doinghis best Captain Hook imitation
.
They even have the same stance,his best Captain Hook
invitation.
They even have the same stance.
Next, so what do these storieshave in common with regards to
(11:49):
our pirates?
Well, both of them havevillains who are pirates.
So let's go back to what we'vealready discussed and our
original question what is piracy?
Because I can sit here and saythey are pirates, but I better
be able to back that up.
Well, the first thing that Ilooked at, in addition to what
Josh has already told us about,is what I call the US version of
the Code of Hammurabi, which isour United States Constitution,
(12:12):
specifically Article 1, section8, clause 10, is also known as
the Define and Punish Clause.
It grants Congress the power todefine and punish piracies
committed on the high seas or,in this case, the vast expanse
of space.
Historically, the Constitutionwas referring to high crimes
(12:35):
committed on the high seasoutside the jurisdiction of a
state or country.
This is why, as Josh says, youcan't have piracy in the lake
because there's a jurisdictionthere.
It's got to be out in the highseas or out in the vast expanse
of space where there is nojurisdiction.
That's key.
Revisiting 18 USC 1651, whichJosh already told us, discusses
(12:57):
how piracy is under the law ofnations, of nations.
Hando is smuggling, kidnappingfor ransom, looting, robbing.
These are all crimes defined bythe laws of nations and
committed outside thejurisdiction of any recognized
government.
Therefore, under 1651 and theunderstanding of the
(13:20):
Constitution, he is a pirate.
Now, 18 USC 1652, 53, and 54are tricky because they deal
with pirates that are acting onbehalf of some government or are
being outfitted and givensupplies by another government
or a private entity.
This is getting into the realmof privateers.
(13:43):
Now let's think this doesn'treally apply to Hondo and this
is what makes him a pure pirate.
He doesn't care what governmentyou belong to.
He doesn't care what sideyou're on.
You can be Count Dooku or youcan be Obi-Wan.
He'll capture you both just asfast and put you in the same
cell, and in fact, he did Next.
So what does this mean to theAnaca gang?
(14:06):
Well, as I put down there, itmeans our flags mean death.
What do you mean by that?
18usc 1111 talks about if murderis committed during a robbery,
you're looking at death,especially if you're a pirate.
Now, 18 USC 2111 definesrobbery as using force or
violence or intimidation to takeor attempt to take from the
(14:29):
person or presence of anotheranything of value.
And in this case, hondo wastrying to take from the children
, from the younglings, the kybercrystals.
Now, what's his intention?
Does he intend to kill anybody?
Well, let's think about what hesays.
He has a group of childrenbasically trapped in an air vent
(14:51):
hiding.
He knows they're there.
He tells his minions to throwin these destructive devices.
Even one of his crew are likewait a minute, there are
children in there, they could bekilled.
And his response is to look athim and say, well, then there'll
be no witnesses.
This is classically what theywere talking about in 18 USC 111
(15:13):
.
So where does this all leave us?
It leaves us that Hondo Onakais a pirate, and not all pirates
are lovable incompet, competentvillains like Captain Jack and
Captain Hook In the Star Warsuniverse.
Some of them are irredeemableand should be executed, not
(15:37):
rebranded, as lovable good guysin a ride in the park across the
street.
Joshua Gilliland (15:39):
I'm calling out Smuggler's Run on this one.
It highlights that Star Wars isreally big into redemption.
I'll name my new ship after thekid Everything will be forgiven
, mere details.
Let's talk about smugglingpuffer pigs.
So Star Wars Rebels has a lotof pirates and has a lot of
Honda, who again has made a lotof life choices that are for the
(16:01):
best, and we get to see LandoCalrissian trying to smuggle
puffer pigs in order to go domining, because they have a
really good nose and can gosmuggle or go find rare earth
minerals.
So, what's this mean Is usingthe goats to go through an
(16:22):
imperial blockade to deliver apuffer pig.
Is that piracy?
I'm going to go say no, andhere's why A pirate can be a
smuggler.
A smuggler isn't necessarily apirate.
Two different crimes.
Now you have a lot of pirateswho diversify their interests
(16:43):
and have different services thatthey offer, whether it's
transporting people from point Ato point B, maybe taking puffer
pig places.
However, the act of trying totake a single puffer pig for
delivering for the service isnot piracy.
(17:04):
It's definitely smuggling and atouch of blockade learning, but
it is fascinating because againwe get to see here Billy Dee
Williams play Mando again, andit was the first time he had
done so since Return of the Jedi.
So, katrina, let's talk aboutSkull Mountain or, excuse me,
(17:27):
skull Ridge Mountain in SkeletonPurge.
Katrina Wraight (17:28):
Let us Skull Mountain or excuse me Skull
Ridge Mountain in Skeleton Purge, let us.
So what we know about CaptainRenaud's secret pirate lair is
that it's deep in the heart ofthe mountain and all who enter
face ruin or slaughter.
So the question here is whatproperty are we talking about?
In the law there's adistinction between personal
(17:50):
property and real property.
So we'll start with thepersonal property, which is like
the stuff, the movable,tangible objects that are not
real estate or the land.
So personal items can be lost,mislaid or abandoned, which is
what we're talking about here Ithink it's been mentioned
previously as well and somethingthat is abandoned.
If it is found in a place, theowner intended to leave it, but
(18:13):
it is in such a condition thatit's apparent that he has no
intention of returning to claimit.
So for this we can talk aboutthe actual coins and the
treasure that is in the lairitself.
So we're going back to finders,keepers again, because why not?
And that's the theory we weretalking about where it becomes
the property of whoever finds it.
But in this context there's atheory, a legal theory, that we
(18:38):
pretty much only get to talkabout in law school.
So I'm very excited to get totalk about today, and that is
treasure trove, and that's coinsor currency that are
deliberately hidden by the ownersufficiently long ago that the
owner can be considered dead orno longer discoverable.
So, as you can probably imagine, this began with the English
common law, where the crown wastaking everything that was not
(18:59):
theirs and making it their own,and that became the way in
American common law too, and ina good number of states, the
treasure trove belongs to thefinder unless the original owner
reclaims it, so that's stillapplicable.
However, in a good number ofplaces, states are trying not to
encourage trespass, whichobviously that does, so that
(19:19):
they discourage the treasuretrove.
I want to give you guys alittle bit of practical law, in
that there is a specific statute, a federal statute, called the
Revised Uniform UnclaimedProperty Act that went around in
2016.
That gives each state anunclaimed property fund where
(19:41):
proceeds from abandoned bankaccounts unpresented checks, are
turned over to the state aftera specific period of time.
So you guys should all go togoogle, you should type in your
state name and you should typein unclaimed property and find
out where that fund is and seeif there's any money sitting
there for you.
I can see in the crowd that somepeople have found it so take a
(20:02):
look later, google your stateand unclaimed properly, and
you'll see that state fund andsee if there's anything missing
for you.
The other type of property isthe real property.
So real property is the stuff,like the actual land, the real
estate that cannot be abandonedlike the personal property can,
and the question here is whetherCaptain Renaud held title to
(20:23):
the property.
So for real property the trueowner is the guy whose name is
on the deed and that's what itcomes down to.
But this is kind of a strangesituation in that we're talking
about like the subterranean landright, and apparently that is
also owned by the owner of theland above it.
That has some current contextand relevance in that there's
(20:45):
that lady on TikTok who'sdigging below her land.
You guys have seen that too,that's because she owns that,
because you generally own theland below your property, is
there certain rules andrestrictions to make sure that
there's safety involved?
Of course, but, yeah, theownership of real property
extends downward, from thesurface of your property and
technically, in theory, all theway to the center of the earth.
(21:05):
So with real property, whose itbelongs to first, is his name
on the deed?
If so, yes, then he dies.
Does he have a will?
If he died with a will, then hedies what's called in probate,
and the property is distributedaccording to the terms of the
will.
You can pretty much putwhatever you wanted there to a
certain degree.
Something that's interesting inthis context is there's a
(21:27):
specific area of concern inprobate called probate piracy,
which is the involuntaryredistribution of assets, like
property poaching, and certainpeople are even equating it to
RICO, and that it's specificenterprises that go out and
defraud old people for theirtrusts and their property before
(21:51):
it gets handed off.
So that's an interestingconsideration that you can raid
a trust and hide the assets andleave the beneficiaries left in
the dark.
If you died without a will, thenyou die in test state and then
the property is distributed perthe laws of the state which
determines who the heirs are andwhat percentage they get and
(22:15):
the proportions of that property.
The only other thing that mightcome into play here is adverse
possession, which peoplegenerally love to hear about,
which we refer to as squattersrights, which a trespasser in
physical possession of the landowned by someone else can come
to hold the title if they justkind of hang out there and don't
leave Specific elements.
(22:37):
For that is, it has to beactual possession and you have
to physically be there andsomehow demonstrate that.
So if you put up a fence orimprovements or whatever it
might be, something that putsthe original owner on notice
that you're trespassing and kindof taking ownership of that
land, the possession has to behostile.
And this doesn't meanunfriendly, it just means you
(22:59):
can't be given permission suchthat, like a tenant has
permission to be there, right,so they will not be there
hostily.
It has to be open and notoriousand that it has to be obvious
again, giving the owner rightthat notice that you are
trespassing.
It has to be continuing, so youhave to be there for a certain
amount of time.
In California I think it's fiveyears, so not that long and
(23:22):
then exclusive, not shared, andthis kind of comes up.
The main context this comes atin reality is when some guy
thinks his property is a littlebit over, a little bit farther
than it actually is, and theyput up a fence.
That fence is long enough.
There it's obvious it'sexclusive.
Then you actually get thatadditional piece of land added
to your property because ofadverse possession.
Joshua Gilliland (23:44):
Thank you, Judge Kahara.
Let's talk about Star WarsResistance, which has lots of
highlights.
Judge Carol Najera (23:52):
Okay, the Star Wars Resistance presents a
new breed, I like to say, ofpirate.
To put it in context, hondoAnakdo was active and listen
carefully during the period whenthe Republic was in the
government and the separatistmovement was on.
Then we had the resistance, wehad the Battle of Endor and then
(24:16):
we had the New Republic andtheir resistance, which was I
mean, I'm sorry, the FirstRepublic and their resistance.
I never had it right the firsttime.
The New Republic and theirresistance, the First Order.
So it's kind of a complicatedhistory, but keep in mind and
the reason I explain that isbecause there are many, many
decades between Hondo Anaka andhis gang and Kragan Gore and his
(24:40):
gang.
This is and I'm going to useJosh's example kind of like the
Barbary pirates, comparing themto the pirates of Somalia, the
difference really being that ourprevious pirates only cared
about property.
They didn't care which sidethey were on.
And this is going to change alittle.
We're going to see a littletweaking of all of that.
(25:00):
Craig and Gyor and his gang aretargeting the Colossus base
refueling station on Castellonto help the First Order take it
over from the New Republic.
So this is interfering with thegovernment.
In that context.
We have to look at this as notjust pirates but privateers and
(25:21):
terrorists, to determine whatour villains are.
And in this case our villainsare Craig and Gore and his gang
and the First Order.
So let's see, we have to look alittle bit more at
international definitions ofpirates.
The United Nations Conventionon the Law of the Sea defines
piracy as illegal acts ofviolence, detention or
(25:41):
deprivation committed on thehigh seas for private ends.
The historical context andlegal framework for punishing
piracy acts are rooted in theneed to protect maritime
commerce and ensure the safetyof the high seas or, in our case
, the vast expanse of space.
So let's skip 1652 for a moment, that we already talked about
(26:05):
18 USC 1652, and let's talkabout 1653, which is interesting
because it's a heading thatstarts aliens as pirates, but
not this kind of aliens.
But it actually is aliens aspirates in that particular
statute, a citizen, a pirate whois a citizen of one state
(26:26):
attacks another state and thestate it attacks has a treaty
with the state that the piratesis citizen of.
They state attacks anotherstate and the state it attacks
has a treaty with the state thatthe pirate is a citizen of.
They're looking at life Now,when we put this definition into
the mix, as well as theprevious 1651 we talked about.
And what is Craig and Gore?
Well, craig and Gore is aQuaran.
He is attacking the Colossusbase on Castellan, castellon's a
(26:49):
separate state.
Now the question is and I'll behonest with you, I actually
Googled this and looked thereare no treaties between Quarren
and Castellon.
So under 1653, he is notdefined as a pirate, but he is
under 1651 and, more importantly, under UNCLOS, the United
Nations Convention of the Law ofthe Sea.
(27:12):
So we now know Creighton Goreis a pirate.
But is that all?
He is Going back to 18 USC 1654, that defines what a privateer
is.
What is a privateer?
It is a person who.
What is a privateer?
(27:47):
It is a person who fits out anarm or attempts to fit out an
arm, or is concerned withfurnishing, fitting out or
arming any private vessel of warwith the intent that such
vessel be employed to cruise orcommit hostilities upon the
other government.
One of the goals is tointerfere with the policy of
that government.
Now Craig and Gore is aprivateer under this.
Remember, at one point he isdiscussing open and notoriously
the fact that he expects afinancial gain from the First
Order.
He explained clearly that it isexpensive to outfit and arm his
(28:14):
crew, pay them, keep them going, the weapons, all of that, and
he's whining and complaining tothe First Order, and the First
Order is assuring him thatthey'll take care of all of this
.
He is now acting as a privateer.
But the inquiry doesn't endthere, because now let's look at
the third of our littlegrouping, the terrorists.
(28:34):
And while piracy itself is notterrorism, there are connections
Going back to the Somalipirates.
The Somali pirates whobasically, were funded by ISIS.
There was an overlap therewhere individuals were involved
with piracy but also engaging insupporting terrorist activities
(28:57):
.
Now the Somali pirates wereprosecuted for piracy under.
All of this, but not terrorismSounds familiar, and if anyone
wants the sites for any of thesecases, I'll tell you afterwards
.
I don't want to put them all upthere because I only have I'm
on a strict schedule here andthis, but this was exactly what
the relationship was betweenCraig and Gore and the First
(29:18):
Order.
Now talking a little bit moreabout this next, craig and Gore
is a pirate, a privateer, butnot a terrorist.
But let's look at the FirstOrder.
The First Order is outfitting aship, a warship to go against
(29:41):
another government to affecttheir policy.
In this case they arecommissioning Kragen-Gore and
his gang to go to the ColossusStation and kidnap Tara Doza so
that they can force her fatherto come in and change the policy
and allow the First Order tocome in and be an active
presence there.
(30:01):
This is interfering.
This is clearly interferingwith the policy of that
government.
The First Order are, under thisdefinition, terrorists, not
Craig and Gore, but the First.
But the first order, craig andGore, is a pirate and a
privateer.
He's really only in it for themoney.
He really doesn't have agovernmental policy view on all
(30:25):
of this Kind of like think diehard.
Everyone thought they wereterrorists, but they weren't
terrorists.
They were in it for the money.
So that's what we have.
Joshua Gilliland (30:36):
Thank you, your Honor Stephen.
Let's talk about defendingyourself with a shanty.
Stephen Tollafield (30:42):
Oh, I know the famous shanty defense, yeah.
So obviously we're legal geeks,we are at the height of our
legal geek's powers.
When Star Wars shows a trial onscreen and so, like with Andor
and Ahsoka, and now with a trialof Jod under the pirate code,
we were like, yes, and alsothere was an appeal involved,
(31:04):
and I'm a former appellatepractitioner and so I was like,
oh my God, this is the best.
So I have thoughts, so bearwith me.
So first off, a couple ofcomments just about his trial
was a criminal proceeding,obviously, because there was a
punishment involved.
He was sentenced to death.
But Brutus the captain wasacting as both the judge and the
prosecutor, which is a bit of aconflict of interest.
(31:26):
So that's kind of contrary toone way that the Pirate Code is
contrary to our system, wherethat's a very separate job.
And also there was no jury.
Brutus kind of singly convictedJod of the crime, and so that's
also contrary to ourconstitution, where you have a
right to a jury to convict youof any crimes.
(31:46):
Also, we observe that Joddoesn't have a lawyer, he's his
own advocate.
So that would violate under ourconstitution the right to
representation when you'reaccused of a crime.
And then, finally, there wasthis really interesting concept
of equal time to present yourdefense, because Brutus examined
the evidence, then convictedJod and then they're like, oh
(32:08):
wait, but he has a right to anappeal and he has equal time,
which sort of overlaps with anappeal.
But we don't.
I mean correct me if I'm wrong,judge, but I mean certainly
there's limits, based onrefereeing, how long someone can
go on with their defense, butwe don't limit the amount of
time necessarily to the exactmoment that the prosecution
(32:30):
takes to present their caseright.
Judge Carol Najera (32:32):
You know we can limit the presentation and
perhaps the examination of thewitnesses.
That's in the code.
Stephen Tollafield (32:37):
Right.
Judge Carol Najera (32:37):
But in terms of everything else, no, it's
wide open.
Stephen Tollafield (32:40):
You don't have like a cool plasma
hourglass counting down themoments you don't have a….
No, that'd be rad.
It's giving Wizard of Oz.
It's very cool, I love it.
But that's kind of contrary toour criminal proceedings.
But then we get to the appealwhere they're like, okay, now
you get to the appeal wherethey're like, okay, now you get
to challenge your sentence.
But this is really interestingbecause he gets to talk.
(33:03):
He's generally in our system,when there's a decision by a
judge you don't like, you go toanother court with different
judges that have supervisoryauthority over that original
court to present your appeal toconvince the lower court, that
convince the upper court thatthe lower court was wrong.
But here John is just talkingto the same judge.
That's not an appeal.
We would think of that more asa motion to reconsider or
(33:26):
something like that, where youtry to convince the judge that
they got something wrong.
So that's kind of differentfrom our system.
Also, what struck me was thatthis was an automatic right to
appeal, which is actually one ofthe ways in which our system is
consistent with the Pirate Code, because when there's a
conviction of a capital offensein the states that do that, you
often get an appeal directly tothe state Supreme Court just to
(33:50):
review that sentence.
So that's actually one way inwhich the system was the same
and that's different from adiscretionary appeal where you
have to petition the appellatecourt to hear your case.
And lastly, I'll just note thathis appeal is peculiar in the
way that he's raising newarguments on his appeal as
opposed to just arguing aboutwhy Brutus got it wrong in the
(34:11):
first place, and that's where hepresents his shanty defense.
But that's really contrary tohow we think about appellate
courts.
But I was really excited to seewe think about appellate courts
but.
But I was really excited to seethe pirate code in action and
see about trial and an appeal.
It was great.
Katrina Wraight (34:25):
Thank you, stephen, katrina, let's talk
about the Bad Batch so we'regoing to go back to I think it's
season two, episode one and twofor Spoils of War and Ruins of
War.
That's when they are sent outto obtain Dooku's war chest and
they're promised freedom fromall of their debts if they
(34:45):
succeed, because it's such amassive collection of loot.
And then I think it's not untilruins of war, the second
episode, that we learn wherethis war chest came from and how
he actually obtained it.
And it was from theexploitation of his people in
his quest for power andultimately it destroyed the city
.
So there's kind of a questionthat's been going around here is
(35:09):
like can one loot loot?
and the question is alluded to,I think, a few episodes prior,
don't remember which one exactly, but alluded to because Omega
asked if they are stealing someloot they are intending on
taking, and I think the badbatch test I heard that they're
merely intercepting it right.
(35:30):
So it's a question of can yousteal stolen goods?
So you certainly can, based onthe definition of robbery that
we've been talking about before.
But possession of stolenproperty itself is a separate
crime from the actual theft oftaking it.
So in California it's penalcode section 496, and this is
what we call a wobbler of anoffense, meaning it can be
(35:51):
charged as either a misdemeanoror a felony.
And you can be charged withpossession of stolen property if
you knowingly possess stolenproperty and in criminal law
it's always fun, it's if youknew or should have known.
So even if you didn't know, ifyou should have known, you'll
get that mens rea.
That could be avoided ifthere's no obvious evidence that
(36:12):
it was stolen.
So say you buy something andyou just had no idea.
It seemed legit, but there's noevidence, you can get around
that mens rea.
And then, yeah, if you possessit so if you received it, you
bought it, you concealed it orwithheld it then you can be on
the hook for possession ofstolen property as well.
So there's no doubt they'reprobably on the hook for that
(36:33):
because they know what they aredoing.
That intention is there?
One of the main hints here maybe the name of the Bad Batch's
ship, which is Marauder and thatis defined as a raider in
search of plunder.
So that gives us a pretty goodindication of what the answer
here might be this is kind oflike a legal slash moral
(36:54):
question, right, like can thegood guys be pirates?
for sure, we've given you thedefinition of privacy a good
amount of times today, but it'sthe act of robbery or criminal
violence or plunder committedfor private ends by a crew
against another ship.
So you have to board a ship,check, you seized control by
force check and then you attackthe ship or other members, check
(37:16):
right.
So they've got all of thoseelements met.
We've been talking about theConstitution section of the
Constitution that gives Congressthe power to define and punish
robbery.
So that's where that definitioncomes from.
But we do have a kind ofinteresting case it's not that
too many cases where there'scharges of piracy, but there's a
(37:37):
case the United States versusHawtham 747F sub.
I think it's up there or it wasanyways, I can also give you
that site later if you'd like it.
But in that situation it waskind of a normal Somali pirate
situation and it was a UnitedStates Navy vessel and it was
actually going undercover as amerchant vessel.
(37:57):
So the pirates mistook it themilitary going undercover as a
merchant vessel.
So the pirates mistook it themilitary vessel for a merchant
ship, and decided that they weregoing to try and take it over.
So they opened fire on the crew.
They tried to get the crew tosurrender for a ransom, like you
do in a typical piracysituation, but unfortunately,
yes, it was a US military ship,so that wasn't going to go down
(38:19):
too well crew or the piratesthere.
The attorneys on behalf of thepirates moved for dismissal
under 1651 that we've beentalking about, and they argued
that the indictment, or factsand indict, were insufficient to
establish the crime of piracy.
But the judge here this is a2010 case concluded and I think
one of the main points they weretrying to make is like we just
(38:41):
shot at it.
We didn't actually get to stealanything from it, which was
true, right, there was norobbery, because that was never.
What were they going to rob?
And that was.
It was certainly going to end alot differently before that.
It's a miracle they were alive,to be honest.
But the judge concluded that weneed to define piracy according
to contemporary customaryinternational law which can
(39:03):
change over time, so kind ofmodernizing the statute and the
definition such that actualrobbery was not required and
they could be charged withpiracy just for shooting at the
wrong ship.
So, again don't touch our ships.
Joshua Gilliland (39:16):
Right, and for AV chat the projector just went
off, but we're going to proceedanyway because that's how we
roll when we try to fix that.
Let's talk about young Jediadventures and, stephen, let's
talk about that.
Can a prince be a pirate?
Stephen Tollafield (39:32):
Yeah, Cyrus Bundy is one of the characters
on Young Jedi Adventures and hecosplays as a pirate.
His name is Tabor Van Dorn andso while he's in his costume he
does commit a few crimes.
He like steals things and, youknow, raids a cafe and stuff.
So this Young Jedi Adventuresactually raises the issue of
(39:53):
child pirates, which I don'twant to spend a ton of time on
because it's a little.
It gets into like kind of childsoldier territory which is kind
of bleak and not great to talkabout.
But I will say that it's a veryundefined area of international
law.
First, piracy, as we weretalking about, is a crime of
general jurisdiction, so anystate or any country in the
world can prosecute a piratethat they apprehend.
(40:15):
So there's and while there's aninternational criminal court in
the Hague, there's nointernational juvie court.
That's not a thing.
The International CriminalCourt only has jurisdiction of
people over the age of 18.
So that leaves children, whoare conscripted into piracy,
kind of at the mercy of whatevercountry they're apprehended by.
Audience (40:36):
And under.
Stephen Tollafield (40:37):
There is a UN Convention on the Rights of
the child, the CRC, which doesobligate member states to apply
human rights to children,including focusing on the
well-being of the child asopposed to punishment when
children are in criminalproceedings.
But that doesn't really havemuch teeth and there's no
uniform minimum age of criminalresponsibility in international
(40:59):
law.
So while here in California wethink of people who are 14 and
under as not being capable ofbeing kind of adult criminals,
they're diverted into juvenilejustice system.
In many countries around theworld that age is much younger.
So you wind up with kind ofkids in the criminal justice
system and, of course, in piracyhot spots like Som.
They're not necessarily thegreatest on the record for human
(41:22):
rights, so there's very minimalprocedural protections for
children who are kind ofapprehended and prosecuted as
pirates in that part of theworld.
So I guess I will just say thatyou know, obviously don't be a
delinquent if you're a minor,but if you're gonna be a
delinquent, don't do it on theocean.
Stay on land is my free legaladvice for the day.
Joshua Gilliland (41:42):
And with that just to unpack that there could
be a weird sovereign immunityissue with him.
Stephen Tollafield (41:48):
Yeah, yeah, I mean he's a prince, so if he's
doing all these kind of crimeslike, is he even prosecutable as
a prince?
I mean, there's a little bit ofrecent jurisprudence in the US
Supreme Court about whether youcan be convicted as a criminal
when you're sort of a leader ofa country, but that's sort of a
interesting question thatprobably worth unpacking at some
(42:10):
point.
Joshua Gilliland (42:12):
Yeah.
So there's a lot there.
And with that, let's last topicand then we'll have some
questions on privateers.
So on the final point ofprivateers, we have people who
look like good guys, who areprivateers Han Solo, axe Wolves
from Mandalorian, Season 3.
(42:33):
They have a ship, they flyaround and they're like the
A-team that if you have aproblem and you can find them
and you can afford them, you canhire them.
And is that okay?
Well, remember when we startedour country and we said we have
our six-ship Navy and the Britshave an 800-ship Navy, we had to
(42:56):
make up a gap.
We had privateers then, likewe've done it in the War of 1812
.
200 ship Navy.
We had to make up a gap.
We had privateers.
Then, like we've done it in thewar of 1812.
We haven't done it recently,but even during World War II you
had private boat owners goingout to do submarine patrols and
being able to help keep an eyeout for threats to the nation.
(43:19):
Or if you look at Great Britain, dunfermline is a great example
of everyone rallying andworking together.
Those could be consideredprivateers, or really, really,
really good people who decided,no, we're not going to let the
Nazis win, but I'm old-fashionedthat way.
So, yeah, good guys can beprivateers, they can also be
(43:42):
bandits, win.
So.
But with that we have sevenminutes for questions.
Nothing should be consideredlegal advice, don't?
Audience (43:52):
be delinquent yes, sir , yes sir Is it legal to name
the beneficiary of your will asthe winner of a wacky contest,
like it's a mad, mad, mad madworld.
Joshua Gilliland (44:05):
Wow, that is a real strong, deep cut.
I don't know how you thoughtabout it's a mad, mad, mad, mad
world.
I'm flashing back.
I would think there's aspecificity problem with that in
your will because it'scontingent upon someone winning
a contest.
I think that could make it void.
(44:26):
Do any of you have any thoughtson?
We're going down a 1960s rabbithole?
Audience (44:32):
I did not foresee there's a remake, though, of Mr
Bean.
Joshua Gilliland (44:35):
Really yeah Again, I do adore that film, but
it's been a while.
Katrina Wraight (44:39):
There's a degree of specificity to that.
Joshua Gilliland (44:42):
There is, you know, but is it going to be a
competition that's going tohappen.
Judge Carol Najera (44:48):
That's true, and if the competition's going
to go on for you don't have aset end for it then you've got a
rule against perpetuitiesproblem, oh gosh.
Audience (45:21):
Yeah, and so life can be got a rule against
perpetuities problem.
I just thought of it right nowIn what we see with skeleton
crew and FABF and everything,would there be some mitigating
factors if the people who arebeing charged with piracy are
not given a lot of the areforced into this situation not
by choice but by circumstancesand whatnot.
So would there be somemitigating factors for some of
them, some.
So there's somethingatingfactors for some of them.
Joshua Gilliland (45:39):
So there's something.
There's the concept ofimpressment of sailors, which is
a good way to start a war, andit has.
So the issue is what did you doafter you joined that ship?
And there was the Confederatewarship Shenandoah.
That was a raider that wasbuilt in England and then
(46:02):
decided to go out and terrorizethe high seas and as they were
going after United States shipsand capturing them and starting
to impress some sailors intoservice for the Confederacy, the
issue then was they didn't knowthe Civil War was over and they
continued raiding.
And then they had a nastysurprise realizing oh darn,
(46:30):
we're actually pirates now.
Does that mean everyone getshung?
And the answer was yes, all ofthem could get hung, which is
why they won the Negro Line fora great group.
So, anyway, good book, lastslide down.
That gets into that.
Yes, sir.
Audience (46:46):
Comment and question.
So my wife and I were both hugefans of Negro Geeks.
We did not see you guys on theschedule, ok, so we just by
chance we ended up in here.
Stephen Tollafield (46:56):
We're like oh my god, this is great.
Audience (46:59):
We're here daily, god.
What else are you guys doingduring?
Joshua Gilliland (47:02):
just this one.
Just this one.
We will be pitching San Diegodowntown.
Some of us are going to Japanfor a celebration, so you can
see us there.
We are not presented, but wewill be there.
And there are some of thesmaller shows.
We'll be in for Fan Expo SanFrancisco and we're also looking
(47:23):
at Bay Pong over the 4th ofJuly weekend.
Other questions.
Audience (47:28):
Let's go down to hands .
Thank you, yes, sir, forTreasure Trove.
Who would have a?
Stephen Tollafield (47:32):
superior claim of interest in Treasure
Trove's found, someone who foundit or the issue its successors
and sign of the original owner.
Joshua Gilliland (47:41):
Do you want to handle it?
Katrina Wraight (47:43):
I think it's.
Yeah, there'd be finders,keepers on that one, as it was
in original English and commonlaw.
The passing it down to heirsand assigns is more for the real
property, although it can applyto the personal property, but
for that specific circumstanceof the coins and currency it has
that little special rulebecause the English crown wanted
(48:04):
to be able to take all thethings that we're not there.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.